Against academic 'Marxism' 

A good debunking of the pessimism-inducing 'Marxism' that dominates university campuses, which confines us to the futile task of trying to change society by changing our perceptions of it.

zizek is very strange... He calls the Soviet Union a total failure. It was not a total failure! ridiculous

Very interesting insight, specially with regard of Frankfurt School.., Frankly, Marxism is very powerful theory & has such a magnetic appeal since it offers the only rational explanation of history as well as reality as it is: Hence, it cannot but be used and abused by bourgeoisie ... There is no escape from it

thank you for debunking the ideas of the Frankfurt school

This is a brilliant, clear discussion on what Marxism theory is, and is not, and the concrete example of a Marxist, and of not. I learned from this talk. Definitely worthwhile to listen.

I've noticed this too. It's as if they want the subject of Marxism to be the football in the Charlie Brown comics, and that they fulfill the role of Lucy. At every turn in their talks, as Daniel stated, they set up the the "possibilities'' and "hopes" of Marxian analysis, and the socialist project, and then they "pull the football'', just as we are about to allow our morale to be boosted, and our intellect to be illuminated. In my view, they fulfill the role of the priest, the imam, the rabbi, and others; they are the secularist ''holy ones'' who talk of the perfection that could have been, that still could be, but that; in the end, is still absolutely unobtainable. He is right to point out that this is fodder for their academic careers. It allows them to be ''eternal students'' who can kick back and enjoy academic life, far removed from the stresses and strains of blue collar existence. He is correct in reasserting that this investigation is a science, and not a speculative ''metaphysical exercise'', that Marx and Engels were working in the social sciences, much like Charles Darwin worked in the evolutionary sciences. And it must be treated as such, to continue their scientific work as a class, and to learn from the events that we are immersed in which effect our lives. This is an excellent video. I still watch David Harvey, but always with '' A grain of salt."

In his biography we are told that Eric Hobsbawm was frightened of being interviewed by Sue Lawley because of her searching questions.Tells you everything

I wish I could have heard this presentation before wasting so much time and money on this trendy nonsense for faculty house parties.

This was so satisfying

A great presentation. This is very helpful. Thank you for your work.

Look at the comments below. Sums up the sterile approach of academia. Great analysis Daniel.

Another amazing lecture by Daniel!

Zizek has a certain Falstaffian appeal, but he is essentially useless. His takes on Cuba are telling. He is a showbiz philosopher. I prefer Prashad and of course Parenti.

Daniel you hoisted the Frankfurt School by its own anti-mechanist petard! I’d never thought about how critical theorists are the determinists. Consciousness can only be a reflection of the superstructure! And the predominance of the superstructure makes revolutionary change impossible.

What a great video!

Academic 'marxists' are cancelld.

Such a grate presentation. Thank you for the effort

What do you think of Ralph Milliband and his sons -David and Ed

They sound like boomers who blame phones for being the number one problem with society

Pretty thought provoking but due to time constraints, this subject is worthy of greater discussion. I was a tad disappointed that the observations and theories of Gramsci was omitted from this discussion, as his idea of the 'organic intellectual' would or could prove to be a powerful antidote to the 'academic intellectual'. I had visions of Christopher Hitchens being the subject of ire, as his 'Marxist' credentials was certainly used in which to shamefully promote his work and observations - which in Hitchen's defence have proved very useful in promoting a progressive thought-base. I would also contend - from the personal - a conversation I had with my Dad, who had communist sympathies. Where we discussed the role of the academic and the contribution to communist and socialist thought. My Dad stated - The academics contribution to the improvement, advancement and elevation of the workers condition is small. In my naivety I enquired as to why? My Dad simply said, they've never got dirty or have drawn sweat. But as a light lecture, this was good but really needs a greater exploration, as a severe hint was identified. Not wanting to negate the contribution of the Marxist academic, but you could contend the points raised, as to the quality of leadership and the numerous mistaken positions not only taken by 'Marxist Academics' but by the political leadership of Marxist & Socialist leadership in a time where potential to organise, develop and construct a more militant and conscious working class leadership and individuals is once again being fluffed.

"They "never put [their] ideas at the disposal of the working class in any way"?? They wrote books, they did lectures, Adorno made over a hundred lectures on the radio. Do you think the working class can't read and don't have ears? Adolph L. Reed Jr. read and was very influenced by the Frankfurt School, just for one example.

But isn't 13:21 speaking to the same observation the speaker himself makes @4:10? Even more so, since many Marxists in academia or the petty Marxists have a working class background themselves. Those who managed to climb up the socio-economic ladder after WW2. Also this remark about Social Democrats: 'The sigh of an oppressed creature': Marxism and religion ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-6_msqWpxvdA.html

A rather dubious, conspiratorial take on FS.

I think it's a little silly and, quite frankly, intellectually dishonest to dismiss critiques of Marxism by saying "they're not using marxism to critique marxism". Any person claiming to be an intellectual actually worth their salt should be able to provide a critique of their own theoretical framework, as well as be able to recognise how opposing perspectives may have some form of viability. The dismissal of intellectuals and academics without a proper analysis of what theoretical framework that individual is using and understanding of that frameworks strengths and limitations or even your own frameworks strengths and limitations is ridiculous. I see a genuine appeal in marxism and Marxist thought, but it is people like this who seem incapable of providing a critique of the theory that they are using and instead use their extraordinary rational capabilities (something which all humans possess) to make everything fit into their framework. It's kinda like if a clinical psychologist thought that attachment theory is the one and only way to explain human behaviour and tried to make everything fit into that. But hey, I'm just a proletarian Australian bloke with a mild interest in academics. Lmao, when you work as 50+ hours a week as a general labourer concreting and then get mad at a video discussing marxism and claiming marxism to be "the most profound theory".

still like zizek though

I will say academics in the humanities is one of our more powerful tools. The humanist/socialist personality expresses herself differently & the Frankfurt school sought to highlight those differences and make them a beacon. Marxism is a science that asserts an irrefutable statement about capitalism as it was so constituted by ruling hereditary classes. You won’t often hear this but capitalism in and of itself is not an insurmountable problem. Iron out the internal contradictions and it can work fine, i.e. FDR. Marx criticized the fundamental contradiction and widening gap between the upper crust and workers that will magnify any lack of equality, and what is worse always manifest into a violent struggle-within the system of nation states. Marx declared we should look at things from the perspective of laborers, farmers, slaves if nation states were to maintain and fix the capitalist system. I’ve heard it said that Marx was of a Republican mind but I’ve not independently verified that in his writing. Indeed, Lenin seems the careful conscientious one while Marx was a communist who wanted to change the aggressive aspects of tribalism in the world. Depending on where a country started the process of implementing equality, democracy and justice was the main factor that would shape its way forward. So we simply must respect an academic version of the Marxist dialectic that is ever evolving and respects various stages and forms of socialism. We can criticize the state actor but not the efforts of those trying to change it. Such efforts will stand or fail based on pragmatic measurements.

There's much caricaturing and distortion in this account. The best way to approach Adorno's work is to read his lectures - eg "History and Freedom", "Problems of Moral Philosophy", "Philosophical Elements of a Theory of Society" (unfortunately not well translated but still important to read), "Introduction to Sociology" and "Metaphysics".

Anti-intellectual nonsense.

The problem with radical students is that they eventually grow up. People will become less radical as they grow up. The problem is that Revolutionary Marxism has failed over and over again; the revolution will never come as Capitalist hegemony has won. So, Capitalism must be changed from the inside.