"Communists are Smarter!" The Book of Laughter and Forgetting by Milan Kundera (from Livestream #56)
Vložit
- čas přidán 30. 11. 2020
- The Book of Laughter and Forgetting by Milan Kundera:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Boo...
Clip taken from DarkHorse Podcast Livestream #56 (originally streamed live on November 28, 2020):
• Bret and Heather 56th ...
Q&A:
• Your Questions Answere... :
What is this a clip from?
In this 56th in a series of live discussions with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying (both PhDs in Biology), discuss the state of the world though an evolutionary lens. Find more from us on Bret’s website (bretweinstein.net) or Heather’s website (heatherheying.com).
Become a member of the DarkHorse Livestreams, and get access to an additional Q&A livestream every month. Join at Heather's Patreon.
/ heatherheying
Like this content? Subscribe to the channel, like this video, follow us on twitter (@BretWeinstein, @HeatherEHeying), and consider helping us out by contributing to either of our Patreons or Bret’s Paypal.
/ bretweinstein
Theme Music: Thank you to Martin Molin of Wintergatan for providing us the rights to use their excellent music. • Wintergatan - Marble M...
"Rhetoric is not reality." - Thomas Sowell
I think Plato said something about this.
"One trait in the philosopher's character we can assume is his love of the knowledge that reveals eternal reality, the realm unaffected by change and decay. He is in love with the whole of that reality, and will not willingly be deprived even of the most insignificant fragment of it - just like the lovers and men of ambition we described earlier on."
Plato
Thomas Sowell is a genius, however that doesn't mean his conservative leaning economic theory is always correct just because it is factually correct. In many instances if one favors a more compassionate approach then Tom Sowell's take on universal healthcare for instance is simply not an option. I am I am economically left-wing, and Sowell's take on free healthcare is weak at best. What he says is factually correct, however, he is not speaking from a position of compassion. Government provided healthcare won't necessarily be cheaper, but if the government is paying for it in a liberal social democracy, then the cost will be evenly or proportionately distributed through taxation meaning those who can pay the most tax will, and those who can pay the least pay the least, thereby allowing the majority of people to avail of free healthcare equally - this is by far the best arrangement from a utilitarian perspective as it ensures the majority are taken of. If you're argument is one that states the system my be as economically efficient as possible regardless of other concerns you will come to Mr. Sowell's conclusion that private healthcare is the way to go, but I can say now with 100% certainty that the overwhelming majority of people will prefer the former option (e.g. British NHS) because the majority benefit from it in the long run. Also, he is right about the best service being private as well, when you make healthcare free in a global neo-liberal free market system then the private healthcare services are always going to be the ones that offer the best (from the point of view of latest technology and expertise that can be bought anyway) treatment as they can pay for the most highly skilled doctors, and buy the most modern up-to-date equipment given that profit maximization is the only key determinant - this doesn't mean that the British NHS hospital is totally sub-par by comparison, it may not have as many world-class doctors in it, and it may not have the most modern MRI possible (for example)as this would cost so much more to maintain for the entire citizenry that it cannot rise to the same heights across the board as an operation that caters for a much smaller more privileged elite (rich people only) in a private hospital - again, any moral argument here would again side with the utilitarian argument that a (relatively) high standard of healthcare which caters to the entire countries population is infinitely more preferable, as compared to the absolute highest standard and also the most cost effective, for the tiny minority of rich people. But Sowell doesn't speak in moral terms - people need to be aware of that, he is a profound intellect, and has many powerful arguments and positions that people need to listen to, but rarely is he speaking for the argument based in compassion!!!
@@garretttobin7451 You have no right to demand a doctor take care of you at someone else's expense. You're not being compassionate, you're advocating theft.
@@readhistory2023 Firstly, I wrote a lengthy argument so if you're going to reply, in the spirit of debate, the least you could do is attempt to refute some of arguments rather than posting a right wing opinion.
I am a respectful debater, if you want to engage in a rational dialogue I am open to it. Also,
universal healthcare (which is what I'm advocating) isn't theft, it is a system that is in place in many of the worlds countries, most notably in Europe where it is highly successful and beloved by those countries inhabitants. , Everyone pays through tax, it isn't theft, the size of the payment is proportional to one's earning's yes, so if you earn 300k a year the government deems it necessary to charge you a higher rate of tax. This isn't theft, it is common sense.
"...but your solution is wrong."
I recall AOC's comment about being "morally right vs. factually correct," and perceive that mindset as often obscuring intellectual dissent and preventing dispute about "particulars"--i.e. whether a policy will have the intended results. It is troubling to me to see people in politics declaring even "debate" itself as a means by which "the Right" distracts from the issues at hand.
This could be reoccurring principle like a cognitive bias. At least one other example would be "antiauthorian education".
@@johannakunze3300 I think that's accurate, but its more like an emotional bias. Sort of like thinking that what you WANT is good, therefore your IDEAS are good, and anything to the contrary is a kind of noise.
@@sterlingpratt5802 hmm or rather: I don't want x so I must think of something that is as different from that as possible (like a boomerang effect). The error would be: "if X is bad than anti-x must be good"
@@johannakunze3300 I'm sure that can play a role too. But my main fascination is the immediacy. I always thought of global problems as these big, complex things requiring multi-layered solutions. I'm sure that's not always true, but whatever.
Instead, ideologues seem to be trapped in crisis mode, with solutions ready-to-hand, and everything that takes issue with either their analysis of the "crisis" or the "solution" is just slowing them down.
I don’t remember the context of that statement now but I think at the time I kinda just took it as her not being a great speaker as far as remembering details go.
I think what is being missed here is a nuance of satire and irony, or a certain tongue-in-cheekness, that is typical for dissident writing in the Eastern bloc. I grew up in East Germany in a dissident climate, just becoming a teenager around the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall. Calling the people enamored with communism more intelligent may have been factually correct or not, but it certainly was not meant as praise. It was meant as an indictment, I think: Look, these were the more intelligent people, but they still fell for the scam that communism is!
That's because even a smart or intelligent person can lack wisdom and/or a sense of morality.
@@autodidact537 Absolutely agree. Intelligence is not the same as wisdom or morality.
People, more often than not, fall prey to their own idealism, refusing to see facts that contradict their world-view or to even consider different perspectives as valid, and all of this regardless of how intelligent the person is.
I think, in large part, he was identifying the "intelligent" with the "intellegentsia", that is, the university educated, and he was being sardonic. Unfortunately, the "Enlightenment" project of forcing an antagonism between Christian faith and reason caused a radical untethering of scientific inquiry from any moral center and from any sense that all truth is one, or even that there is any absolute truth at all. This leaves university students woefully at the mercy of intellectual fads.
Note on the scare quotes around "Enlightenment" (this goes for the "Renaissance" as well): never let an intellectual movement name itself; they will always get it wrong.
Agreed, I think it's a huge mistake to interpret this as Kundera endorsing communists. Anyone who understood his writing would see this for the lazy hot take that it is. If you can't pick up on the nuance that would preclude this kind of facile interpretation in his fiction, he makes it explicit in non-fiction criticism like Testaments Betrayed that he despises any kind of "message" or moral stance in a novelist. I'm not one of these "stay in your lane" people, but this whole discussion struck me as woefully misguided.
My college girlfriend wrote me a letter telling me to read this book. At the time she was in Costa Rica doing field work with Heather. Now I know where she got it.
Marry her
Let me put on my voice of the ancients *aherm
'It is not what rest on their minds but what dwells in their hearts which moves the hands of men.' These kids tearing down statues and those professors shutting their students up are full of fear and hate.
It is hate. Hate for people who care more about being wealthy and doing horrible things to people who do not have the resources to defend themselves, via resources nor money.
I'd like to see John Stossel on the program.
Milan Kundera has written about all of the things that are happening now in all of his early books, the Joke, the Book of Laughter and Forgetting, the Unbearable Lightness of Being. When COVID started I started outlining passages.
So true! He'd write a v good book about Trump I'm sure, who idolises Communist power and processes just without the intelligence
I've read that wonderful book back in the 80's, when I was a teenager. I was struck by that same opening passage. I have never forgot it. Once I got into a huge argument with my anticommunist friend about it. Just for mention it, he completely forgot that I am anticommunist too. Kundera is really marvelous writer. This novel is not political. It is a bunch of very intelligent love stories.
I read "The Joke" and thought it was the best novel I had read in a long time. Then I opened "Identity"...
Perhaps my favorite author: KUNDERA!
Thank you for your courageous and enlightening commentary on the travesties we are witnessing, and living through.
I have a saying: "There are two kinds if communists. Those that have spent a long time in University, and those that have spent a long time on their mother's couch."
Good one. I find that to be true as well.
lol...don't forget Moms basement!
Really are you not a communist at heart? A capitalist believes that everything can be owned and that everything can be commodified, that everything can be bought and solid.....Especially people...If you don't agree with this then you don't know what capitalist or capitalism means. The word capitalism was born in in the very early 19th century and is really not really flushed into its full meaning until Marx's period , He engels being some of those primary in flushing it out. It was absolutely a negative term. It was not a term actual capitalists (that is to say manipulators of capital) would ever have used and certainly about themselves. It is only over since the end of world war 11 that is has been use with any kind of positive indication as it has been adopted twisted into a positive term really in an effort to engendered and endear the idea of american excpetionalism.
@@KingMinosxxvi I do not believe that the worker should always be in charge of the means of production. I have worked with people who think drilling holes in their hardhat is a good idea (I wish I was kidding). I do not think that the collective should be able to tell me how to live my life. I think market forces are important, and that people shouldn't have to starve, but mostly I want to be left alone. So if that's communist, well then colour me red.
@@KingMinosxxvi "A capitalist believes that everything can be owned and that everything can be commodified, that everything can be bought and solid.....Especially people...If you don't agree with this then you don't know what capitalist or capitalism means"
This would have to be the most daft definition of capitalism Ive ever heard? What ordinary middle class consumer actually thinks that? Seriously? It sounds like your describing the Monopoly guy! Let me put on my ideological glasses and turn that quote around a little for you...
"A communist believes that everything can be owned and that everything can be commodified...by a cruel group of elites, that everything can be enslaved and chained....Especially people that dont think like we do!!! If you don't agree with this then you don't know what communism or socialism means"
Xxx
Just wanted to say, you guys are a pleasure to listen to
I'm so happy that this is the first result for Milan Kundera
Good segment. Ultimately, these "more intelligent" thinkers don't seem to have any grounding in practical reality. And because of the high esteem they hold themselves in, there is always an external scapegoat for the failings of their machinations .
This seems like a true statement that can be used to describe any regime:) unless there is a perfect one.
@@dmitryc5685 The perfect regimes are the ones that never work. These utopians always overestimate themselves, like Wile E. Coyote with his latest Acme product.
And what is practical reality? Marxist and leftist activists in the past are why we don't have sweatshops today. Why workers can own homes and not live in tenement housing. Why child mortality among the working poor isn't such that half the number of children die before adulthood. What do you think reality is? What Tucker Carlson tells you?
@@bidhrohi12 you know the CCP uses slave labor... like a lot.
And we can start with the most obvious practicality. Food. Famine seems to be the universal trope. Building off of that, logistical practicalities also seem to fall short in these systems. Its almost as if the world doesn't run on high minded rhetorical theory.
@@williamdelahunty3677 Capitalism and communism both used indentured and slave labor. There are no communists in power seeking anything close to what China was or is. All Republicans want to do everything in their power to bring the working class back into the era of black lung and near slavery level poverty. If they could abolish minimum wage and medical care and maternity leave, they would.
Wisdom and knowledge are oft confused as one in the same.
I am not concerned about who is smart. I’m only concerned with who thinks they are smart. I’m always looking to avoid the danger of pride. There is no wisdom in the depths of pride.
Talking about pride is near the heart of the issue. In our machinations and striving for equality, we forget that the human condition is the greater problem. We will always envy something another has, even if or when we have equality of security. We will envy looks, or partner or intellect. Envy is the root of all evil. You cannot create this utopian world without first striving for personal conversion and transformation. Traditionally we would call this a turning away from sin. Or a return to love. That first conversion is necessary before any of these "solutions" for a better world can be founded. Without striving for the conversion of souls to truth and love, then obedience and authority dynamic of any system will implode. Authority will be corrupted by the power it assumes under the collective obedience. This is what in turn causes the struggle between collective interests striving against the individual interests. We've all bought in to the noble sacrificial insight that "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one". But is this an absolute truism, or a noble sentiment?! This will indubitably lead to the conclusion that "the ends justify the means" scenario of imposing the will of the collective over the individual. What will that say about the society we've created! That we will willingly silence a voice in order to continue the balance of the system. The act of silencing is a denial of the preciousness and worth of each individual soul. You've turned people into cogs in a machine rather than irreplaceable gifts to the human species.
The Communists did excellent photoshopping long before Photoshop. Mostly B&W, but still.
Wow I really enjoy your podcasts
Actually, Kundera was a communist himself. Twice. After his second ejection from the Communist Party he emigrated. He was a regime guy that finally broke up with his fellow comrades some 20 years after the communist takeover of Czekoslovakia. Almost all those years he was their "champion" in poetry.
Wasn't he just trying to join to fit in?
@@simonb4689 Repeatedly??? He joined in 1948, the year Communists gained power and abolished Liberal Democracy. He was fired first in 1950, because he ridiculed a higher ranking comrade if i'm not mistaken.
Restored in 1956. Fired Again in 1970 because he took some part in the "reform" Communist movement of 1968 opposed by the "Hard-Liners" inside the Communist Party (who won).
@@Isidoros47 doesn't sound like he was taking it very seriously. Thanks for the clarification, had not look into it in over 25 years
@@simonb4689 My pleasure. Believe me, it required a very flexible spine (or none at all) to join (twice) in the worst years of totality. All of this reduces his credibility significantly...
@@simonb4689 He wrote both prose and poetry in praise of Soviet Union and some of Czechoslovakia’s “greatest” communists (Julius Fučík). He was quite inspired by the art of Stalinist ideology.
smarter ???? "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.”
Yet people act like capitalism and imperialism hold the moral high ground which has never been the case. Capitalism has killed more people than socialism worldwide. Westerners only hate socialism because it puts westerns against their own as opposed to capitalists killing "indigenous" people. White people think it's worse if other white people get killed but could care less if the person was brown.
There is some uncanny similarities between the communist and fascist mindset, which are quite different from liberalism, conservatism or traditional social-democracy
It's the authoritarian aspect. The further you go towards one of these forms of government/economies, the harder it is to find people willing to go along, and the more power the government needs to enforce the new rules.
Read the road to serfdom
Someone said that Socialism/Communism and Fascism are different sides of the same coin.
@@RandallOrser horseshoe effect.
My father who grew up in England during WWII, has newspapers where Adolf Hitler indicates that National Socialism was based on Communism.
I seem to recall someone else attempting to answer the question of why communism seems to always attract intellectual types. Might have been Dr. Peterson or someone else.
Intellectual types tend to be very analytical which leads them to be very critical of established systems and institutions. Communism purports itself to be THE radical criticism of everything that exists, i.e., the capitalist economy, religion, social classes, gender roles, etc. It’s no wonder it attracts people with an intellectual streak that are hopeful that they can “improve on” things by manner of dissecting and deconstructing those things down to their minimal parts, thus exposing their contradictions and flaws. In many ways, communism actually honey traps young intellectuals in the same way it honey traps the downtrodden lumpenproletariat which are also naturally attracted to communism, albeit for completely different reasons. Communism offers both groups wish-fulfillment. It offers the intellectual types a chance of participating at a great “recreation” of society from the ground up which will allow them to flex their creative muscles to their maximum capacity in order to solve problems and create new systems not beholden or held back by any conventional wisdoms or traditional moralities. And it offers the lumpenproletariat a radical subversion of social status whereby those at the very bottom are instantly lifted to the very top by means of violent revolution and the so called and so desired “equity”. There’s yet a third group implicitly mentioned by Heather which is responsible for the image of communists being the more charismatic group: The “beautiful people” of the arts and entertainment world. They are also honey trapped by communism as one of the greatest concerns of artists is their funding or patronage. In a market economy artists must prove that their craft can be profitable in order for them to make a living off of it which understandably generates a great deal of economic anxiety on some of the most sensitive people in society. Communism again promises them an utopia, a world where all economic anxieties are dissolved as resources are distributed equally to all and no one needs to prove themselves “marketable” in order to make a living from one’s passion. Ultimately communism is nothing if not a huge faustian bargain that seduces people from all walks of life regardless of their IQ, talent, ability or social position or the lack of any or all of the above. In the end, the only people invulnerable to communist seduction are those who are resigned with the idea that a society made of imperfect beings isn’t perfectable and that no matter how much progress we make life will always imply pain, suffering and multiple challenges and obstacles to overcome. To live by that idea means to offer a bitter pill that is always going to be less attractive than the sweet pill offered by those who promise paradise on earth via revolution.
I think John Mackey explained it best in Conscious Capitalism.
@@Guillhez "the only people invulnerable to communist seduction are those who" actually lived in this so called paradise. Don't you know that it never works?
@@castlewindsor5592 Exactly, people who had to live through the attempts at creating the communist heaven often come to realize that it actually produces hell and become immunized against it. That's why some of the most fervent and effective anti-communists are ex-communists themselves, either people who merely lived under communist regimes or people who actively participated in communist revolutions. But that doesn't negate that people outside of communist regimes can also be quite immune against it due to their own values and due to having a more lucid worldview that isn't prone to dream up utopias.
@@Guillhez In other words they possess some common sense versus wishful thinking.
I enjoyed listening, thanks! I would be interested in hearing your opinion of Kundera’s last book called “the festival of insignificance.” He’s getting older now and I think he’s at the point of life where his past has become meaningless to him. Frankly, it is depressing to read the book, because it implies that no matter how hard you struggle to bring light into the world (or just try to live well) the world will continue to spin, and there is a good chance that everyone will move on in a way that will reduce your life, and everything you struggled for, to something insignificant. Considering his life and his stance against communism, I find his novel’s theme very depressing. Kundera is coming to the end of it, so I should leave him alone, but we need him, and people like you two, because people are forgetting too many things and becoming too certain of the veracity of their hopes. Hoping is a good thing, but not when you have to lie. Thanks for all the videos, and thanks for standing up for the Truth, even when it became a horrible nightmare. I feel like America owes you some respect for that. Personally, I will never forget what you both did for truth. God bless you both.
Please interview former Chinese slave and North Korean defector Yeonmi Park? I am a big supporter of her work. She is a very reasonable and accepting voice for common sense.
Heather and Brett's discussion demonstrates that the current culture/social justice war is nothing new. The tensions between objective, aristotelian thinkers and subjective, platonian thinkers has been cycling around and around for centuries.
It’s when the extremes appear that conflict ensues! The ability to know when subjective thinking is prudent without losing your objectivity is crucial in having a healthy society and body politic. When objective reasoning casts aside all feeling for facts and figures without compassion and when subjective convolutions replace factual evidence to manipulate and contort reality with one dominating the other or with an equal split in “followers” you have conflict. The lefts subjective take over of the institutions, societal, and educational systems to perpetuate only the realm of subjective thought is creating the mess we are experiencing!
Nice reply/post. Would agree, but I would add - will always add in the hopes of never forgetting- that objective reality is the final measure of the validity of subjective feelings. When subjective feelings stray too far from that which is real, sane and logical, then objective reality is there waiting to slam on the brakes.
This is from Chapter Four (The Revolt of Instinct and Reason) of Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit":
"Indeed, the basic point of my argument - that morals, including,
especially, our institutions of property, freedom and justice, are not a creation of man's reason but a distinct second endowment conferred on him by cultural evolution - runs counter to the main intellectual outlook of the twentieth century. The influence of rationalism has indeed been so profound and pervasive that, in general, the more intelligent an educated person is, the more likely he or she now is not only to be a rationalist, but also to hold socialist views (regardless of whether he or she is sufficiently doctrinal to attach to his or her views any label, including `socialist'). The higher we climb up the ladder of intelligence, the more we talk with intellectuals, the more likely we are to encounter socialist convictions. Rationalists tend to be intelligent and intellectual; and intelligent intellectuals tend to be socialists."
The intellectual appeal of socialism and the reasons for its inevitable failure were thoroughly worked out by Hayek throughout his career - I'd love to hear your analysis of his critique of collectivism...
Kundera is a brilliant writer. His book "Immortality" was somewhat akin to the movie "Adaptation" in the way that it talks about itself. It is like a verbal mobius strip or klein bottle.
Even if people had a guaranteed income, many would not know how to use it responsibly. I spent 20 years in the Army. Everybody of the same rank gets paid the same however, living standards varied drastically. The only solution is total control, it is impossible to legislate poor decision making. I spent a good bit of my career trying to convince young people not to do stupid shit. I got tired of it and retired.
I got goose-bumps.
He says you want people who "bring great things to the world" to be rewarded. He's ignoring the fact that, under the current system, people who bring terrible destructive things to the world are rewarded. And others are punished and even prevented from fighting against them. In the words of Christopher Hitchens, "Capitalism, downfall."
Hitchens: downfall. Communism: Has never been tried.
Which current system? The one where the women have to wear sacks over their heads? :: ))
In the words of a strange capitalist Marxist? Not sure what that proves. Also, in all systems bad people are rewarded or can be, that's just human corruption and faulty systems and sub-systems that are innate to all peoples and countries; however, it's only capitalism that does what it does best: generates all the money and gives ultimate credit to the human geniuses and generators. Bill Gates is the best example. Beyond this, I don't know what your point is. Are you pro-capitalism or anti-capitalism and what is your plan? ...
@@TheClassicWorld It's inherent to capitalism that the psychopath is rewarded. It's a heartless system that is destroying civilization.
“There may be a problem with the words” we have all thought that at some point, but we all lack the influence and drive to apply it to the problems in American culture.
Hey - I love listening to you two. I fell asleep listening to you and had a dream that I was hanging out with both of you and Sam Harris in Portland ...lol. We were devising ways to turn this country around.
On the issue of intelligence: it doesn't necessarily follow tgat revolutionaries are the "smart" ones, but they are often the "nimble" ones. They are typically young, have not calcified in their habits, believe that they have little to lose and much to gain, and being typically young, have more energy and less sense of how they can and will fail. So of course they are dynamic.
The problem is, it is not in reality a meritocracy. While there are exceptions, inherited wealth is a big factor. Also personal wealth can also be amassed through destruction rather than production.
If YOUR prescription is correct then why hasn't it worked?
Wonderfully constructed conversation. You're getting to the point why communism continues to appeal to the educated youths, even though it's tried and failed over and over in all the countries that communist ideology was implemented.
Men who have a greater capacity of thought, or of body, merely just have a greater capacity to go wrong.
I wonder what brand of sweater Bret is wearing. I like it
Well, at least they THINK they are smarter than everyone else....
Some of the most educated people know have problems paying the electric company and simply surviving, and its not from lack of a job. They just barely function in reality.
Nishiki so brilliant didn't have to write dissertation become professor. Brilliance doesn't mean absolute truth....
Or wisdom.
That's a nice passage, but I've already read Animal Farm.
LOL!
Dont read it. Geroge Orwell was a socialist.
Well said! Thank you
Define smarter.
A floor is desirable as is a ceiling.
A classic example.
2 people come upon a fence in the middle of no where. One is conservative the other is progressive.
The conservative preserves the fence and goes around. The progressive tears it down.
Naturally the progressive is more charismatic..."clearly this fence has no use! See there is nothing around! It doesn't even separate anything of value apart!". And people are motivated.
The conservative appeals to people that clearly this fence is important..."why else would someone build it in the middle of nowhere? It must serve some significant purpose. So let's respect it." Not nearly as fun.
Progressive only become conservative with time. Because the morons have destroyed enough blind fences and been tramples like Pamplona running of the bulls.
The problem with communism/socialism is the same issue as with pure capitalism, monopolies. What is worse is that under communism these monopolies are absolute and they inherently have no check on their corruption. The strange thing is that under communism the fundamental most successful group will be the conservatives, with a small C, who make up the bureaucratic elite. These people will be illiberal because change can only disadvantage them. They will enforce a rigid system and there are no checks and balances because the state controls everything. What I find odd is the term progressive for the current illiberal left when they seek a regression to 20th century failed systems rather than a genuine progressive agenda which sees the freeing of people under a liberal framework which takes the strengths of a capital based system and a social responsible framework.
I think a big problem with communication is that different people have different denotations, connotations, and associative meanings for words. Of course, this assumes everyone is honest in their discourse (rather than trying to play mind games or something like that)
11:30 "Equity, in general, is referring to equality of outcome".
Equality of outcome and equality of opportunity are two concepts I would never associate with the word equity.
For me, the first thing that comes to mind is stocks and any phrases/concepts derived from this - i.e. Sweat Equity, when someone who doesn't have a financial stake but has put a lot of time into something.
Google also lists "the quality of being fair and impartial." Personally, I would never use "equity" to mean this, so if there's not enough context, I might not understand the speaker's intent.
Very very good
I think that working solutions are only going to be found in honest debate between reasonable conservative and progressive voices. The goal should not be about some "equality of outcome" ideal, but building a more inclusive society that is healthy, educated and productive. Everybody across the political spectrum should be able to agree with that goal.
Ladders are immoral because they allow some to rise higher than other.
Conservative people should not be clamouring for law and order and the holy free market but for the return of God, King and country!
Why is "greater equalitry" a general good ? There's nothing natural about equality, it's an imposition on the natural order of things ..... and given the inevitability of mission creep, once "equality" is recognised and worked towards then you have no argument that can be decently framed against that creep ..... without the accusation that you don't care about this or that. It'll be your words against their actions ..... and which one speaks louder.
Equality is a slippery slope .... best not go there for fear of tumbling.
NO SAFETY NET!
Safety net infers government involvement, and that is exactly what we want to avoid.
Private charity is the best means to care for the truly needy.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@hectorhernandez7299
You laugh Hector, but would you think that the following scenario would be funny? I knock on your door and tell you I know someone who is out of work, and needs money to pay for his rent, and to buy some food; then I point a gun at you and say to give me $100 to help that person. That's what the government does. You don't get to decide who gets helped, and you get punished if you don't pay up. Furthermore you don't get any credit for paying, the politicians get all the credit for what they do with your money. Once people get money from the government, that's your money, Hector, they don't want to stop getting it. And those people always vote for the politicians who promise to keep your money going to them. Do you start to see now?
@@deezynar 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Equality of opportunity is also impossible.
It’s more nearly possible than equality of outcomes.
“All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.”
The Nomenklatura always do well for themselves.
@@bwake It is closer, but no one is entirely equal, so no one will ever have the same exact opportunity. I do believe we could (and should) have equality of rights, freedom and equality before the law however.
@@UnknownRex I assumed it meant 'you have the right to X opportunity but it's not ensured that you will get X'. That's when it crosses into equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity literally just means 'black men and white men are equally allowed to join X baseball team'. It doesn't say anything else. So, it's not only possible, it happens all the time and we have had that kind of system (roughly) for decades now.
Note: Of course, there are many people who won't be able to even get to the location of X baseball team; thus, it renders the whole thing moot. It's more of a rights and freedoms thing, though it's also a bad argument to say that you can't get there because that's pretty much true for everybody at all times for everything. Unless you live next to the baseball team/field, you are forced to travel there or not get there at all. It's still equality of opportunity, though.
It could still be a lot more fair though. For instance, billionaires who own millions of acres of land is ludicrous! We can can easily put a limit on how much resources an individual can have.
Kundera collaborated with the communistic regime and got many of his colleagues into serious troubles. People in Czechoslovakia have a bitter feeling about him.
Having a plan doesn't make you smart. More often than not the opposite is true.
can you do an episode on "fully automated luxury communism"
Is that like the Huxleyan view or?
@@TheClassicWorld dunno, just know that their are hipsters who believe in it.
And they were often given airtime on the BBC when I used to watch it.
Heather: Please articulate more when you are reading passages, you go fast with your low voice and some more articulation would allow us to understand the words you are quoting. Thank you for your great work!
You two are exceptional. I wonder what caused you to veer away from the ideology of your smart and charismatic peers.
People who deny their ignorance always appear smart without close examination.
They also use "more" instead of units of measurement, don't know where that comes from.
Also they still use examples with bread because even the best of them can't find a non totalitarian way to build a Tesla without capitalism.
Smarter people seem to fall to hubris. Their eyes are bigger than their stomachs.
A smart person isn't necessarily a wise person (or even a moral one).
Who got to space first?
best clip you guys have ever made!
It fails because humans are not Gods, and to create means you must also destroy. When I was young I too thought these ideas had merit, for I was clever. As I aged, evidence and experience showed me my folly, for I have accepted I am a fool. The irony of course, is allowing life to unfold bottom-up v. top-down as the clever would like, means that the route to collective choice and outcome is through the free-market. Then, where would these individuals who have such grand plans for others stand in the face of the world? They would be equals, and That was never what they wanted from the start.
Perhaps smarter, but certainly not wiser
For the record, I think the 'smarter' bit is objectionable as well
I couldn't understand what either just said.
"You want people to have an upgrade... Bring great things to the world... blah, blah, blah..." You may. I don't.
Not sure why I said this idiotic, mean-spirited thing. REALLY not sure why you highlighted it, but thanks. You Tube notified me so I get to revisit. Something along the lines of... let's be careful what new things we designate "great", I suppose. A new song? Sure. Why not? A new motorcycle? Maybe not so much (even though I love motorcycles), given the carbon implications. A new solar panel? That's a tougher one. Any cost/benefit (from Gaia's POV, and that of those who identify as her children) analysis of post-(say)-neolithic technological humanity seems to defy easy calculation.
save us from the intellectuals
Funny that's what Stalin said.
Mao as well.
@@KingMinosxxvi the intellectuals and their vision of a submissive working class are what created Stalin. Stalin was the ruthless murderer required to instill fear in the working class so they dare not resist communism. and communism is the vision of the intellectuals. i'll be more clear. save us from the intellectuals and the murderous thugs that their policies create.
@@patrickdaniels8942 czcams.com/video/CZIINXhGDcs/video.html Here's an intellectual. Should we get rid of him? Though the brilliant Mr. Graeber has already passed away. Ive written several papers on the collapse of the soviet union maybe you should have me snuffed out. Generally speaking academics (that is to say most of those whom we might consider intellectuals) don't make policies.
@@KingMinosxxvi did i say eliminate intellctuals? no. i said save us from intellectuals. university professors, intellectuals, are now activists. they are constantly attempting to set policy in almost every aspect of our lives. do i mean ALL intellectuals? no. but in general, intellectuals think they know whats best for me. they think i am too ignorant to know whats best for me or whats best for my kids. intellectuals are just as fallible as us working class slobs. they are just too arrogant to recognize it
Milan Kundera never won a Nobel prize and it tells more of the prize than of him.
7:00 oh no he's contracted zizekism
Wisdom != Intelligence
The only link/parallels that I've been able to draw to explain this notion of communist being smarter than anyone is this - If you're smart and dedicate enough time into trying to figure out the system you're in, you quickly start to wish there was another way, a better way. Communism takes advantage of that inner voice and feeds you all the lies you can take in order to get you to agree with their notions of how to govern a country and it's peoples. America has been under constant attack for decades, the system has been altered so much that the only reality left is a tattered version of what once stood true. It's basically been water boarded into looking like the kind of system people want to move away from.
I went looking for this quote and its not easily found I had to search everywhere for so I could share it with others who really need to hear it because they are being indoctrinated. Here is is copied for anyone who wishes to try and liberate anyone.
''Since we can no longer assume any single historical event, no matter how recent, to be common knowledge, I must treat events dating back only a few years as if they were a thousand years old. In 1939,
German troops marched into Bohemia, and the Czech state ceased to exist. In 1945, Russian troops marched into Bohemia, and the country was once again declared an independent republic. The people showed great enthusiasm for Russia-which had driven the Germans from their country-and because they considered the Czech Communist Party its faithful representative, they shifted their sympathies to it.
And so it happened that in February 1948 the Communists took power not in bloodshed and violence, but to the cheers of about half the population. And please note, the half that cheered was the more dynamic, the more intelligent, the better half.
Yes, say what you will-the Communists were more intelligent. They had a grandiose program, a plan for a brand-new world in which everyone would find his place. The Communists' opponents had no great dream; all they had was a few moral principles, stale and lifeless, to patch up the tattered trousers of the established order. So of course the grandiose enthusiasts won out over the cautious compromisers and lost no time turning their dream into reality: the creation of an idyll of justice for all.
Now let me repeat: an idyll, for all. People have always aspired to an idyll, a garden where nightingales sing, a realm of harmony where the world does not rise up as a stranger against man nor man against other men, where the world and all its people are molded from a single stock and the fire lighting up the heavens is the fire burning in the hearts of men, where every man is a note in a magnificent Bach fugue and anyone who refuses his note is a mere black dot, useless and meaningless, easily caught and squashed between the fingers like an insect.
From the start there were people who realized they lacked the proper temperament for the idyll and wished to leave the country. But since by definition an idyll is one world for all, the people who wished to emigrate were implicitly denying its validity. Instead of going abroad, they went behind bars. They were soon joined by
thousands and tens of thousands more, including many Communists, such as Foreign Minister Clementis, the man who lent Gott-wald his cap. Timid lovers held hands on movie screens, marital infidelity received harsh penalties at citizens' courts of honor, nightingales sang, and the body of Clementis swung back and forth like a bell ringing in the new dawn for mankind.
And suddenly those young, intelligent radicals had the strange feeling of having sent something into the world, a deed of their own making, which had taken on a life of its own, lost all resemblance to the original idea, and totally ignored the originators of the idea. So those young, intelligent radicals started shouting to their deed, calling it back, scolding it, chasing it, hunting it down. If I were to write a novel about that generation of talented radical thinkers, I would call it Stalking a Lost Deed.''
If communists are 'smarter' why aren't they smart enough to figure out that Marxism is wrong?
@@autodidact537 they are smarter in the way that they are university graduates and professors in the norm. They are in a closed circle as far as I can see and they spur each other on and then teach it to their students. That's why Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying stick out if the crowd so obviously they aren't conforming. By smarter I believe he means the most educated people which in turn makes others think ''they are the well educated therefore must be smarter than we are so they must be right so we will follow''. Age wise, I find it tends to always catch people who have less life experience and peer pressure is a huge part of it but generally they grow out if it as they grow older, buy property, have children and want to achieve more and move onwards and upwards which if course makes no difference in a communist country because of control. As a general rule they can be charming, powerful, can put together a very good argument and they know exactly who to target. It's all very believable on the outside and as they said the idyll is very attractive. I don't know enough yet to combat it, I never expected anyone would hope to live in that way but I see now it's been slowly creeping in for a few years and now I need to educate myself because I'm not giving up my freedom.
Let's go back to 1789 and be honest about what the " smart" people achieved. I am re-reading Milovan Djilas The new class. Everything is explained in plain English.
In postwar Europe, Communism was welcomed by a portion of those who opposed fascism. Fairly or unfairly, the democracies were discredited because of their appeasement of Hitler prior to the war. Additionally, Stalin benefited from being an ally of the West. It gave him and his regime an undeserved credibility. Propaganda during the war soft pedalled the horrors of communism in order to maintain harmony within the Allied camp. Unfortunately, Eastern Europe had to suffer through many decades of totalitarian rule.
At 10:34 Brett says, 'you want people who decide they don't want to do anything for planet Earth to do less well' Hopefully that's just a poorly worded comment. :: ))
Absolving lower classes of all responsibility for the outcomes of a voluntary system is incorrect
Sounds familiar ^^
Bret continues to get one thing wrong. He says that the observations of Marxism are correct but the prospective part is the problem. In actuality, Marxism does criticize government but it often attributes the result of government action to capitalism when, in fact, those things it points out are the result of the types of policies it pushes for.
Bingo! The classic Rope-a-Dope! Straight sleight of hand, my friend. Exactly what you might expect from a con artist snake oil salesman of hollow rhetoric and sophistry.
And, really, when you realize who his “patrons” were, it begins to make a whole lot more sense why he’d pull that kind of nonsense (hint: they were insiders, who more than most anyone else, were directly responsible for the very strife the guy acted like he opposed).
Heather, if you have not, Ivan Klima's Love and Garbage was described by Philip Roth as The Unbearable Lightness of Being turned inside out. I read ALL of Kundera. I am So much more practical in my approach to words now; thank you for saying abomination. We do need to get back to such usage. A trashed doctor in both stories, and Klima's much realer. I think too much knowledge and with it the metric of time, have taken a piece of my humanity. G(o)d riddance.
Heather's last statement should be broadcast 24/7 over loudspeakers in every city in america
They’re smarter, but they get fooled by the first paragraph? Doesn’t sound too smart to me. They may sound smarter because of the specialized language they couch their ideas in, but maybe it’s possible that they aren’t really that smart for a couple of different reasons. The most obvious reason being that almost all of their ideas, and even lots of the jargon, have been around for decades, if not centuries. The other reason is that they don’t do the most fundamental component of knowledge - they do not learn.
Arrogance abounds! Communists weren't smarter they just fought god harder...and paid accordingly!
Ask yourself this: if communists are 'smarter' why aren't they smart enough to figure out that Marxism is wrong?
Equality of outcome is not the goal of Communism; this is a schoolboy error, neither is conflating Communism with totalitarianism particularly intelligent.
Why then does Communism result in totalitarianism every damned time?
Celestial Teapot, read these replies below. Every time communism results in a totalitarian state, without exception! That is why one should run as fast as they can away from it. One should school their children to "know better". If someone is teaching you a different message then calling them a "fool" is the correct response, less some "innocent lamb" fall for the message.
You are correct, it's not the 'goal' but it becomes the goal or outcome, regardless. That's what happens every single time, which makes the overarching goal meaningless. Only things that matters are reality, the real world, and biology/human nature, in the context of the stability and survival thereof.
Giants in the bible have enormous heads. Their height comes from their long head. Its a symbolic description of having theories that don’t match reality. When the giants take power a flood comes because when people with big ideas that don’t work in the real world take power it results in chaos.
@12.05 She says men and women and changes it to male and female . Why ?
To include boys and girls, and also other spices.
Maybe we mistake "empathetic" for "smart" - when the "empathy" was never really about empathy, but rather covered up personal insecurities. Don't get me wrong - this late capitalist model is a beast in sheep's clothing - then I realized that communism isn't a solution, but an inevitable conclusion to the evolution of late capitalism's ouroboros nature.
In other words, the greatest flaw of capitalism is it's tendency to give rise to communism. Like, when capitalism reaches critical mass, it burns up in a fire called communism that burns away all the wealth that was built up.
Neither of those statements are true, though. We don't have and haven't had actual capitalism in a long time. If you want to call the state socialism of serious and heavy-handed regularion, mass bailouts of multinational corporations and investment banks, a private bank controlling the currency by fiat, a Congress full of and controlled by lobbyists (because we let legislatures control buying and selling like they weren't supposed to), etc. etc.
It's just a delusion to call this capitalism, particularly with the growing synthesis between Silicon Valley and the US government, intelligence apparatus, and military-industrial complex.
"As for what concerns our relations with our fellow men, the anguish in our neighbor's soul must break all precept. All that we do is a means to an end, but love is an end in itself, because God is love."
Edith Stein
Thanks for admitting the truth. Comrade.
Are smarter people perhaps generally more prone to intellectual cascades?
They're more likely to think that there is a solution and they can create it. Or they should at least try. Rather than something semi-religious like "let the market decide" ; religious faith in the status quo.
I wonder if it might be related what Michael Crichton called “Murray-Gellman amnesia”. We read news reports of something we know about personally and immediately spot the errors, but when we turn to the next article we assume the writer knows what they are talking about.
“Two classes of people make up the world: those who have found God, and those who are looking for Him - thirsting, hungering, seeking! And the great sinners came closer to Him than the proud intellectuals! Pride swells and inflates the ego; gross sinners are depressed, deflated and empty. They, therefore, have room for God. God prefers a loving sinner to a loveless 'saint'. Love can be trained; pride cannot. The man who thinks that he knows will rarely find truth; the man who knows he is a miserable, unhappy sinner, like the woman at the well, is closer to peace, joy and salvation than he knows.”
― Fulton J. Sheen, Life of Christ
You've got to ask yourself both what an intellectual is. Hayek called intellectuals "second-hand dealers in ideas" while Orwell, like Sowell, acknowledged that "some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual would believe them."
But a better question is what do intellectuals do? What do they make? How can we objectively evaluate an intellectuals idea if the only thing they produce is ideas that are untested?
A smart person isn't necessarily a wise one.
Why do you think Trump has been so popular. Say what you will about the man and you may be right. He is however, by the standards of past conservatives, wildly charismatic and enthusiastic. And to some extent delivers the anti socialist message with popular gusto unseen in the Conservative party for a generation.
When was the last time people really studied the Bible?
To stay at Czech Republic, there's a new movie currently in cinema about the life of Vaclav Havel. Highly recommended to watch, just like Milada and Palach, about historic moments in European history.
I spent a long time trying to define intelligence, its really such a fundamental question that one feels it should be answered on instinct, but in my case at least that instinct is lacking. Eventually I came to the conclusion that being intelligent is simply the art of being objectively correct more often then not. By this definition, young communists are not smart although old communists tend to be.
We should not be surprised that communists appear superficially intelligent however. Rhetoric, and manipulation is their stock and trade. When your survival niche is rent seeking parasitism then you better become good enough at it to convince society to support you. When you get enough of these people to form rent seeking networks as we see broadly across he west today (for example diversity and inclusion departments), they become a powerful force in the creation of two things, structures which facilitate their parasitism, and structures targeting critics.
Rationally dismantling communism is an intellectually trivial undertaking. Smart communists build walls to keep the productive people from escaping, and smart capitalists build walls to keep the parasites from invading. A system which has an evolutionary drive against individual productivity and towards individual parasitism cannot endure beyond adaption.
Because of this, the defense of communism inevitably becomes meta very quickly. You can't win the argument, so stop the arguer from speaking. You can't win the argument, so shame the arguer into remaining silent or lying. Structures, such as peer review boards are corrupted to enforce these absurd social justice belief systems. In Canada, the human rights tribunals mirror almost perfectly the Maoist revolutionary courts.
As an aside it is important to note why academics are attracted to communism isn't about intelligence, it is about a predilection for technocratic structure. Almost everything that social academics do is theoretical, it never has to endure he tests of the real world. Only in the academic world can someone espouse the most absurd ideas and never be proven wrong since they rarely are faced with real world test. Ironically in this particular case, even when an idea like communism fails so utterly and completely in application, it still doesn't matter to academics who simply claim that the issue was one of implementation. None of this represents the behavior of objectively intelligent people, it represents the behavior of a con artist. More intelligent then average perhaps, but by no means intelligent.
That was just a great reply. I enjoyed reading it!
@@ronbell7920 Thank you. I appreciate that at least one person doesn't think I am insane, or maybe that is taking your statement to far.
@@jimsourdif2374 , no you are on point!
An intelligent person isn't necessarily a wise one (or a moral one).
Intelligence =/= Wisdom
He who does not work should not eat - the Bible.
They did place a high value on education. Since that was one of the only avenues to succeed, they eventually produced quite a lot of scientists, engineers, doctors, and skilled mechanics.
But what did all those scientists, engineers, doctors & skilled mechanics actually achieve? Better gulags & people lining up to buy toilet paper.
@@autodidact537 the gulags were mostly shutdown by the time a large portion of the population got reasonably good at being scientists, engineers, doctors, or skilled mechanics. while the soviets were terrible at many things, they were capable of some things. the only way to defeat the soviet union...is to just stand back and wait for them to stop being communists.
@@macrosense What did they achieve? Being 'reasonably good' means bugger all if there are no results.
@@autodidact537 i recommend reading Dmitry Orlov's Closing the Collapse gap. it is free online. there may even be a youtube video of him presenting it.
I have the feeling that intelligence is being confused with education, one example, two of my friends, one has a sociology degree and one is a tradesman, and I can say with all honesty that the one with the degree is nowhere near as intelligent as the tradesman... Guess which one is left-leaning & which is conservative
:) I envy good tradesmen, I'd trade my degree for their skills any day.
That's because to put it rather bluntly if you educate a stupid person, you don't get an intelligent/smart person you just get a well educated stupid person.
Communism does attract smart people, because communism presents itself as a kind of puzzle to be solved. To these people, the failures of communism are not a consequence of Marx being wrong, but rather the failures are due to the deficiencies of those in the past who have tried to solve the puzzle.
I don't mind if you keep working on the puzzle, just count your own money and leave me out of it.
@carlson mujem No matter what you think you'd be willing to do to make me part of your puzzle, it's nothing compared to what a man like me would be willing to do in order to not be part of your puzzle. Believe it...I'm not that good of a person.
@carlson mujem We were talking about communism, not capitalism. But if you'd like to switch topics, I'll just say that if capitalism is now the puzzle we're talking about then it's a puzzle I am quite content to remain in.
@carlson mujem I like that it pisses off communists.
@carlson mujem Pray tell, what are these 'great things' that the Soviet Union achieved?
Kundera is my favorite author