the eerie music in the middle made this feel a little like a Ludovico treatment

Maybe it's just me, but I didn't notice anything wrong with the music level. I actually liked it just fine. Perhaps some will notice it and others, like me, won't; but I would definitely say you shouldn't even have been thinking of deleting this over something which I wouldn't even have thought about if I hadn't read the comments. I know you added closed captions in lieu of, but I didn't need them. Great video.

Video is great as it is;

I wouldn't throw away a Rolls-Royce 'cos it's got a dent in it.

What BS , god forbid we attempt to teach our children self control how to read and how to write, cooperate with a larger group. Given the outcomes I have seen in my career in education the mission you describe doesn't seem to catch hold. I have seen what you talking about but in socialist systems. Having worked with thousands of Americans I can tell you the independent thinking is not the rare commodity you argument makes out. If you want to see n oppressive school system it socialism and communism. And I would point out how ironic it is to blame capitalism. the school system in America government mandated State enforced entity. Capitalism allows people to go their own way pursue there own interests to be your own boss.

Thanks for the vote of confidence friend. I'm not very good at marketing it but I figure if the ideas are resonant enough it'll get around eventually.

Always wanted to use "criminally underrated" under a video. I guess this is the time and place :)

@@PlasticPills , no you never will :( Otherwise We would have a different system already. But please continue, if one more watches and awakens it is a gain

Which subreddit?

@@PlasticPills can u plzz tell how ideology works in literature..plzzzzzzzzzz...one short answer plxx

Even the architecture is similar.

You weren't supposed to notice!

@@PlasticPills pure ideology, sniff 🤧

If you (or ur prof, heh) are looking at Marxist theory definitely check out the video I put out today, it's much higher quality than this one👍

Thanks for the feedback, still working at the technical stuff as that's all new to me; I noticed this one particularly sucks on phone speakers

Same, just started following r/CriticalTheory, mind blown!

An oblique and nebulous status quo is such a prominent part of capitalism that everyone across the spectrum can easily identify it

Thanks Digi. Still getting my hands dirty but I don't know how much lefttube cares for what I'm doing. All I do is make the videos I would want watch on KZfaq.

We are very fond of it in the USA!

Low key the fact that a Marxist philosophy course is restricted to just this aspect of that broad field is itself a manifestation of the processes this video discusses. I suggest independent study of Marx, uni courses are inevitably hamstrung by several factors including the social position of the professor themselves (but not only that)

@@nickpayne4724 well said: if you aren't learning about Marx' theories on the contradictions of capitalism and historical materialism, you're being taught a pacified version of Marx!

Damn Marxist universities and lobsters. LOL. That's cool, though. The whole class was centered around ideology?

Of course the education system is bastardizing marks because they want all the little good students to be Marxist and not be critical of Marx... this entire channel is basically the same thing promoting uncritical perspectives of Mars to promote Marxist materialism which is f****** wrong

@@DevastationMtrsports lol no

that's Another Brick In The Wall by Floyd, not Echoes

thanks for showing me this channel homie

@@2tvtv More than happy to do so.

Interesting, just looked him up. Was it a link or a KZfaq recommendation? I did once have a passing interest in negative theology

@@PlasticPills he mentioned you on his last 2 podcasts. The Fundamentalists. He's great. I love your stuff!

Thanks so much Robin! We're all kindred travellers.

Another brick in the wall by Pink Floyd

My bad... was a phase. Might rerelease a few of these from quarantine 😷

Because they are easily co-opted. Capitalism thrives on crises, and the only real threat would be massive direct action on national scales. Unfortunately we can vent on KZfaq to get that sweet catharsis so we are shit outta luck.

Frankly they aren't allowed to exist. They're fought tooth and nail. Only the working class vanguard really keeps our class's historical memory alive, fights for a true cognition of society and history via our own publications. Until we have succeeded in revolution, the education system and media (controlled by capitalists) will do everything in their power to hide and destroy our knowledge and substitute ideology in its place. Some day, what is called "Marxism" will just be economics, philosophy, historiography, etc.

@@nickpayne4724 maybe someday is here...only that idea is solely in the service of capital.

Mark Fisher talks about this in Capitalist Realism: the idea that capitalism has captured anti-capitalist rhetoric in a way that just reinforces the status quo: media lets you consume anti-capitalism in a controlled manner, we try just to mitigate capitalism's worst effects, often through a very individual lens or through consumerism. People have what he calls reflexive impotence: we see the flawed nature of the system yet we can't see effective change. This dissonance ends up affecting our mental health.

Thanks dawg

He names these concepts in the aptly named essay "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses."

I know I know, sorry, didn't really know what I was doing a year ago

Foucault actually wrote his analyses first. The main difference is probably that Althusser is focused on a psychoanalytic structure--how capitalism formulates what you want to believe about yourself, whereas Foucault's version is more about how institutions regulate individuals. This is oversimplified but the first is an inside-out and the latter is an outside-in.

@@situational476 I appreciate the response. I'll preface this by saying my economic views align with anarchocapitalism, though I recognize certain flaws and limitations of its ethical-political program, and thus seek something that, to my mind, exists beyond both capitalism and communism (as I understand them). As far as I can tell, the repressive apparatus is unavoidable. A society's governance requires enforcement of some norms. Private property is a norm, but so is collective property. I would distinguish ancap from feudalism in how the private armies are funded - voluntarily or via taxation. Consolidation of power is stymied by two conditions: no (artificial) barriers to entry and the right to free exit. Whether or not ancap security firms, or any form of law enforcement, will maintain these conditions is an open question. But I don't see how these problems solved by mere collective ownership of property. Aren't those safeguards to protect capital the exact things Marx advocated for as the socialism that would be necessary to prefigure communism? As for government involvement in the money supply, there is some evidence to lend credence to the view that government in concert with monied interests, exacerbated financial crises to establish the Fed. The existence of the state makes it profitable to tank the money supply because of the possibility of renumeration via taxation under the guise of intervention, enabled by the monopolization of currency in the first place (as opposed to competing currencies). These conditions destabilize a nation's finance and increase moral hazard - the "interests of capital" are not served here, only the interests of the crisis engineers. Tho tbh I don't like the use of rhetoric like "interests of capital/labor" because I think class analysis glosses over a lot of nuance. The rest of your comment would follow from the premise that the state is necessary to capitalism, but as of yet I am not convinced. But I seek alternatives, so let me ask of you: what system either (1) does not require a repressive apparatus to enforce property norms (private/public) or (2) maintains the conditions against power (free entry and exit), and how does it accomplish either 1 or 2.

@@situational476 Lol I didn't realize fascism marketed itself as a "third way." I agree that so far there is no third way, but there might be something between fully private and fully communal ownership that isn't simply "capitalism with a welfare state." I've been mulling over the details in my head, and right now it looks something like worker cooperatives with revenue-shares that taper off after quitting/being fired but otherwise fully capitalistic outside the firm. I digress. Is capitalism/communism truly a dichotomy? If it is what do you call feudalism? Capitalism-lite? Once you concede that there are "versions" of capitalism you open up the possibility that capitalism's flaws can be overcome, and the failures of current capitalism do not immediately prove the correctness of communism. Same goes for saying communism historically had different forms; communism would then not be the arbiter of whether or not an economic system was correct, there would be some other subfactor within communist experiments that was more decisive than communism per se. You gotta call a spade a spade. If it enforces norms with violence it is a repressive apparatus/state. I find it interesting that you think the communist community will all be 100% equally armed, and that no specialization/division of labor will occur. If an ancap society did the same thing, where everyone happened to be equally armed and policed themselves rather than relied on an outside entity, would that not be a repressive apparatus then? The organization of security production is distinct from the property norms being enforced. Also, the argument that it isn't a repressive apparatus because it can't be used to exercise class domination is assuming the conclusion. It is still up for debate whether or not it is likely that absolutely everyone will be equally armed, and whether or not all members of the community that ARE in fact part of the enforcement of norms will agree on which norms to enforce. Also what is the threshold for collective ownership? The people involved in the specific labor of the firm? Does it extend to the janitors that clean the office of the firm? Everyone in the city impacted by the firm's existence? Everyone in the country? To what degree do they have meaningful choice in the actions of a firm? If a bunch of immigrants show up on shore do they suddenly get a vote as to what every firm is doing (regardless of whether or not their vote is meaningful in a sea of votes)? So it seems like a contradiction that the things that Marx advocated for also happen to be what the interests of capital will do to preserve itself. That makes your statement about how Soviet Russia devolved from a dictatorship of the proletariat to another dictatorship of capital seem kind of ironic. You say a transition period is no longer needed but if it takes a generation to complete what is to say that that time delay won't introduce the same problems? As for government engineering, there are quite a few ways that the government was directly responsible for the great depression and 2008 financial crisis, anything they did once the crisis was already underway proved meaningless, but they could have avoided setting them up in the first place. If you want more on this I suggest you look up Austrian Business Cycle Theory on the topic. I will briefly say that the Fed was established in 1913, and enacted various policies to lower the reserve requirement and interest rate, expanding the money supply via cheap credit. Only by 1927-1928 did they notice the problem, and only attempted to raise the interest rate from 3.5% to 6% (which was hilariously low considering what it was prior) but was meaningless since they had to buy back banker's acceptances. Then Hoover handled the situation in the worst possible way - increasing taxes, gov spending, and tariffs while encouraging wages to stay high. Prices start falling but not wages, so reducing labor hours and eventually unemployment were the result. Then there was other BS like the Federal Farm Board that acted as a cartel to keep food prices high, exacerbating the issue. And all the while bankers were protected from bank runs because of FDR's imposed banking holidays. Regardless of how you understand the events of the Depression, a general drop in prices caused by easy credit is literally only possible with a monopolized currency under a state where bankers are all held to uniform regulation. It creates a fragile system that can catastrophically go down all at once. And the extent and severity of crises has only gotten worse since the institution of the Fed, which was established specifically to avoid this situation. Between the Rothschilds and other politically connected magnates of the time, the fact that a lot of money was directly given to them by government and that they were in a position to buy back the majority of stocks after the market crashed strikes me as planned.

That is Althusser's position also--by the time you can understand ideology you're already profoundly within it.