The Marxist view of history: Historical materialism 

Since our university doesn't have a Marxist society, it pleases me to listen to you all people. (From: Ambala, Haryana, India)

This guy is a great speaker. Very interesting talk.

I really loved learning history as a kid and came up with the same conclusions as Marx did and just really started to realize that I was Marxist the whole time when this was discussed in Political Science class in college

Josh, this is a brilliant lecture... all cited materials were lucidly quoted and properly placed into the context.... it is very enlightening indeed to watch this... Greetings from Gaza...

Not a marxist but quite good summary. Gave me some food for thought.

"the accountant and the poet have the same mother" nice

Long live IMT❗long live Trotskyism ❗long live socialist revolution ‼

Not a Marxist but found this lecture interesting and well-delivered.

Without Marx anything is nothing. I learned thinking from him the first time. Dialectic and historic materialism is great!

Workers of the world unite!! Long live Revolution!!

Obviously this is amazing. I wish more of these amazing talks were given a visual /video overlay. I hope some comrade with the skills take time to do this.

Thanks for this! I want to replay it to digest it better, but it reminds me of a talk by Evelyn Reed, author of Woman's Evolution, and a book called Historical Materialism.

You should do closed captions for the hearing impaired. Or at least allow auto-captions.

A bit disappointed that the 1848 revolutions was not brought up in the analysis, as you could argue that it was a curtain raiser to the shift in capitalism and its development in relation to its inevitable contradiction involving its antagonism towards labour. A revolution that both occured to early and yet too late, as to its ramifications.

This is a beautiful video, very well done.

A suggestion for when you record future speeches, avoid a background with a face on it as the camera will continually switch focus between the real person and the face in the background.

One could say that Fuchiama's approach was 'teleological', explaining history as being determined by ,end-ststes'.

This video really helps me and good explanation

There is a bit of contradiction, in India Capitalism imported from West lives side by side to more ancient Feudal relations... Rather the surplus of Capitalism is enjoyed by very few who keep the rest denied to the advances. And yet there is no major revolutionary drive for people to better their lives...!

Marxs analysis is so logical to me that its baffling how anyone could disagree.

interesting and informative!

Can someone please link me the thumbnail photo please, would be much appreciated.

This is a great history of the underlying history of the world 🌎🌍

Amazing lecture…thank you!!!!!

Many people look back on the Golden Age of Greece and its "democracy" with fondness . What they leave out it was built and progressed because slavery gave them the time and luxury to think , explain , calculate on the backs of slaves .

Good done!

That was a great explanation, well delivered, thankyou

Good stuff

I am a Marxist

On a purely aesthetic basis, that background looks more KFC than KHM.

feel Pleasure in listening to you .red salute comrade

Red salute

the adaptation to the existing world is mode of surviving, without which life can not exist; human nature means adaptation to the existing environment.

Thanks

I'm starting to believe consciousness does not exist. If we loose our sense of sight, are we then sight unconscious ? Without our senses we are not conscious.

can you explain about leading a marxist life style

How many words..human history in 40 minutes. Wow

Just a reminder that you don't have to be communist to agree with communist ideas and politics. You also don't have to be a conservative to agree with some of their fiscal ideals. You don't have to be a socialist to want gov't aid for the poor. We can simply agree to take the best ideas, work them out, and apply them. When these ideas don't work, we change them. While we're fighting the billionaires are united and happily destroying the world.

There are a dialectical relations between the revolutionary class and the Revolutionary leadership.one depends on the other.

共产主义就一定会实现！

As long as the historical materialist dialectic does not produce a surplus of war nor become the instrument that justifies the acceptance of human aggression you may count me as agreeable. I see Marx’s materialism as fundamentally that of Hegelian idealism, but the former lacked the integrity of accurately reporting his own findings. Marx saw and recorded the fatal flaws of capitalism as an economic criterion. I believe it was that shocking realization that made him hostile to the primary ideal of socialism; i.e. peace. If capitalism was doomed, the nation states were doomed and he just couldn’t handle it. He sought an easier softer way out - approval, appeasement, amalgamation. Marx is a staunch communist without land and he will destroy development of the conservative socialist ideal to prove it. After all the workers earned it. I am right aren’t I? The dictatorship of the proletariat can be easy or hard. You may have it your way.

he contradicts himself when he argues that there is no agency, no individuals who make history, and then mentions Marx as accepting human agency in shaping the world. Ideas change the world, and ideas are originated in learned individuals, not a bunch of random people.

What about the people, largely, in America who live more freely not dominated by kings/queens or the statist systems? It is/was broken down to smaller groups where people serve each other in communities. The industrial revolution brings these Marxist/socialist concepts to the fore. Even in America when the industrial revolution occurred as well, these concepts emerged more clearly as US turns away from the agrarian to more industrialized, probably inspired, from European influence. Ultimately, in USA, people want to be the authors of their own life story so to speak. Not part of some tribalist movement with constant conflict, that seems to be part of human nature which seems to be rejected or ignored by the Marxist. The points are made and some of it is legitimate. Now it is the same forces; the political elite working with/enabling the big corporations to exploit the masses. They don’t even need the masses labor anymore due to technological innovations. I agree masses unite against the forces trying to control us instead of allowing us to form our own little communities separate from exploitation (in different forms now), in America anyway. Good presentation but I don’t see it as me wanting Marxist to be “in charge” of society. We the People in charge of our society with a common bond to protect our individual freedoms and borders from those who want to dominate the individual. Marxist is still trying to exert force upon me, an individual, to follow their form of rule versus some other statist, monarchy, or whatever other overlord other than God.

Lenin was a intellectual like Trotsky,did the ordinary serf's who struggled with the life that dependent on nature like drought famines earthquake ,that can effect the crop's and food prices. Am sure the uneducated serfs or the poor farmers really understood what you talking about.

I don't think we should separate ideas from things. An idea gives rise to objects, and those objects(technology) also change the way we live.

Prince William saying the world is over populated on the birth of his third child is a guillotinable offence

Karl Marx and Adam Smith return from the Great Beyond to have a discussion sipping coffee at a Starbucks. They reflect that ironically, they had similar views and sentiments on the nature of labor-owner relationships. Smith notes that,for example, that laborers after the Black Death had more bargaining power due to so many of them being killed off by the fatal disease. He says now they were liberated to move up ladders in the free market and gain control over the means of production. Marx says, ah, good point, but all boomerangs eventually come full circle, have you heard? Smith sees his point, they realize, like Lord Buddha, that a Middle Way Solution must emerge. I was sitting at an adjacent table and could not help but eavesdrop on the two distinguished fellas. So, I devised that solution. Click on my icon for the free audiobooks 9with graphics).

Is does not matter about the young or old it depends on the awareness and wisdom of the person. This young man shows excellent awareness and wisdom

37:00

Marxism is good perspective to understand society,but Human society is so complex that we can't understand it only through one perspective ,we will have to read and understand other thinkers also....i think nobody knows the future of human society ,now we are living in the era of technological revolution which is different from industrial revolution and I don't think that we can understand it from Marxist perspective.....

Understanding Marxism and Historical materialism requires a little recking of brains.

Some of Marx's ideas are not feasible in practice, so what, let's improve these ideas.

Time to get past all these and into 21st century approaches

Largely a good presentation, aside from the gratuitous mention of Trotsky

Value is subjective.

this is great but his understanding of postmodernism is juvenile. that part was disappointing

Why did you name it socialist appeal? It should have been communist-appeal or anarchist-appeal or anarcho-communist-appeal.

The state is merely the catalyzed reflection of the tribe - stop complaining about the life-extending luxuries of capitalism which are impossible under notions of mythic and/or flawed communism, socialism, Marxism.

:V

Yeah, great. Everything is material. Thank you, speaker. And then you go on to talk about 'relations' being real. You said it. How can abstract immaterial 'relations' be real on the materialist worldview. Does it make sense to talk about relations the way the speaker does 'on his worldview'"? I did not say does it make sense. I asked if it makes sense on his worldview? Do you want the answer? It is no. Ergo, materialists don't believe the worldview they purport to reveal. Why? Uh Oh. St. Paul was right. In Romans 1 we read his words that those who deny God "suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Theologically, epistemologically, philosophically, anthropologically bankrupt - the Marxist worldview.

What about Hegel. He thought that human nature moves historical epochs.human nature never changes. Nothing new under the sun. The great civilisations like Egypt who built the pyramids, yet it nothing now. Same with China , advanced like Egypt, India same, Greece, history written by the conqueror's. They claim many inventions but borrowed from the country they conquered. Islam golden age myth borrowed from the Greeks and others.

It's ironic that you talk about the transfer of value from the head to the hand, when all concepts of value exist as a subjective concept in the individual human mind. Labor does not create value, only the human mind can perceive value as the human relation to the goods available as understood as means for ends desired.

1898 . the beginning ov history.

the simple fact is that his predicts based on his theory of history is totally wrong.

Stalinist view of history* premptively refuted by late marx

this guy can rail me whenever he want

In short two wrongs don’t make a right.

Capitalism didn't grow in the "womb" of feudalism. The Renaissance gave birth to the invention of devices and discovery of processes, which in turn change the modes of production.

Very interesting. It's like an explanation of how to explain something you made up.

16:36 Incorrect conjecture. There wasn't any private property back then. Sure. But how do you know the nomads did not pick up and accrue things ? It is fundamental nature to keep things and horde them. Comes from a psychology of being incomplete and need of fulfilment from external material. Even a bird making a nest does that. Same with a dog pissing over place to mark territory. It is evolutionary if not fundamental. And as per me societies should be built to cater to all urges. The communists need to learn this. The capitalists on the other hand , need to learn that this can't go on forever. There are ecological and social constraints. That is why neither socialism not capitalism. We need a balance. Need to build a society on mindfulness and self-awareness.

Profe flojo xd

Gravity is not relational, it's only observed by it's interactions. Correlation is not causation. This basic mistake throws the whole video into doubt.

I hear you give Karl great credit for "new" ideas about how we think about history. The point of his work was to throw down capitalism and replace it with a system where workers owned their work. All the rest of it is meaningless if it cannot work. Karl was about destroying history and replacing it. It was part of his overall strategy to first destroy capitalism. I strongly prefer to keep history as it is: a recounting of what happened by those that saw it or discovered it, as eye-witnesses and archaeologists do.

this guy is comparing a complex society like ours with primitive nomads. That's folly. And archaeology also shows that even in such simple conditions, they also share work. They constantly wanted to improve their brutish conditions.

“Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point is to change it” - seems cynical at best and destructively hypercritical in its worst effect. The whole point of philosophy is to understand what is there. That is what people like Marx do, they endeavor to understand and make plain. Once an axiom sustains itself and is understood, it will meander forward and outward of its own inertia. And yes, you can encourage the process by printing pamphlets. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I also think that we want to credit Marx’s thought to the Leninist, but they are not the same. The essential communist wants to avoid war, while the penultimate socialist wants to build structures that will efficiently produce & distribute products. Other than those small difference, I can agree with the better part of the presentation.

Families. Marx didn't have one, he never understood how one should go about caring for and building one.

This fellow is failing to take into consideration two possibilities: Sociological Evolution, that the societies that came later were fundamentally superior to earlier iterations, and further the possibility that altering earlier concepts, such as the nature of a decision making hierarchy, will undermine the later processes, such as the necessary economic processes that would be needed even after a revolution. Psychological Evolution, that biological human evolution took place due to the Neolithic revolution, that through natural selection the element of humanity that could function well in anarchist circumstances has died out or been killed, losing out to the superior and enduring civilisational element.

Says the man in the shirt made in Bangladesh

Mark was a failure Engels helped him alot. Mark blamed the system as always.

UFOology or Marxism? The only good thing you can say about Marxism is that makes Ufology look like legitimate field of study. The facts are poor old Karl Marx was an unwell person. He was not a just a racist ( see N. Weyl, KarlMarx Racist) but complete failure at everything he touched. Karl’s life course and total moral failure as a person, husband, father, provider, employer, friend and citizen is more that adequately documented. Most of Karl’s life was wasted on his rather “kooky” journalistic ranting’s that make no sense as serous economic or social commentary or analysis. His writings were however a “successful” form of physiological denial regarding his own failure as a person. Karl’s writing operated as a psychological defense mechanism that reduced his anxieties arising from an unacceptable life of ethical and personal failure. His “ journalism” expressed a pattern of ego grandiosity, one buttressing the denial of the horrid life he subjected himself and family to. Sadly Karl Marx’s pattern of ego grandiosity and denial went on unchecked and led not only to his own continuing failure as a person but the destruction of his family, and later through his neurotic writing to hurting countless others. The sad fact is that Karl’s psychotic ego grandiosity and corresponding physiological denial of a failed self is embedded in his “kooky journalism” in a manner that still appeals to weak and physiologically venerable individuals today. Those seeking a rhetorically closed and “unassailable” political position have found in Karl’s nonsense verse a physiological premise for projecting their own problems. The unwell have always found Marx appealing. Healthy, self reflective, naturally self-sustaining people find Karl’s work quite repugnant, (if they pay any attention to it at all). Marxism is more a physiological condition or pathology, our own experience tells us that. We all know too many grandiose “Cultural Leftists” other “politically correct” people who don’t seem to have real or healthy self sustaining lives, (often tax funded union, government, welfare or otherwise dependent l moms basement, types) but who want to “change the world” and everyone else’s lives with their own narcissistic projections. Their sense of ego grandiosity and political activism continues to damage others and their own healthy social development. This sad pattern of ‘Leftist” activists and their “change the world” ego grandiosity can be traced back to the “kooky journalistic” writings of poor old Karl and his failed life. It is a pattern that can be followed through some of the leading screwballs of the last century, Mao, Robert Mugabe, Lenin, Hitler ( yes he was a socialist) , Stalin, Pol Pot, and followed through to the failures of the former Soviet Union, North Korea, and Venezuela today. For most of us we must still endure tiresomeness and endless “virtue signaling” “politically correctness” “Cultural Leftist” rhetoric nonsense we are subject to every day by these unwell people. Sad but true. @ Today the term “Capitalism” and “anti- capitalist” is still used to attack the Jewish people ( example the 1%) as well as the basic Human Rights (see UDHR 1948) that has developed out of a Judo-Christian culture and protects everyone from the cultural and human rights abuse that the Cultural Leftists of the world never tire of infliction on others (see art. 7 and 17 UDHR).ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rZh01xRO_Qg.html @

this guy tripped over his own tounge. . climate change for sure, but not man made global warming!? please dont move the goal post`s. . . two differnt concepts with or without 5G lollol

Haha Communist.

Hey look ma, a cult .