Far-left faction of the Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party
POPULARITY
3 episodes with bolshevik party
2 episodes with bolshevik party
4 episodes with bolshevik party
2 episodes with bolshevik party
3 episodes with bolshevik party
2 episodes with bolshevik party
2 episodes with bolshevik party
2 episodes with bolshevik party
2 episodes with bolshevik party
Capitalism's defenders love to attack communism by pointing to the atrocities perpetrated by the Stalinist regime in the USSR. Bolshevism—the ideas and methods of Lenin—can only ever result in a totalitarian dictatorship, we're told. As for capitalism, there is no alternative.In reality, a river of blood separates Bolshevism and Stalinism. This presentation will reveal the real traditions of Lenin and his Bolshevik Party, traditions with which the Bolsheviks led the Russian working class to vanquish capitalism on one sixth of the planet. And it will explain how the regime set up by the Russian Revolution—the most democratic regime in history—was hollowed out, replaced by the grotesque caricature of the Stalinist regime.Read More:In Defence of LeninRussia: From Revolution to Counter-Revolution
The EVILution of Communism Workshop, Session 2 Communism is a religious view that has evolved and adapted over the last two centuries, including right up to the present day. Understanding the developments and threats in our present world requires understanding what Communism really is, especially in its Marxist variants, and how it has developed and changed over the years. In response to this need, James Lindsay of New Discourses held a four-lecture workshop series on the EVILution of Communism in Dallas, Texas, at the start of August 2024. The second and third lectures in this series focus on what might be considered two tracks of twentieth-century Communism, both arising in different contexts, East and West, after the failure of Karl Marx's nineteenth century agitational evangelism. In this second lecture, the Eastern track is the focus, tracing the development of the Soviet Union through Vladimir Lenin's Bolshevik Party as a vanguard. Here, James Lindsay characterizes Eastern Marxism as a broadly state-industrial project, referring to Leninism, Stalinism, and Maoism variously as "Industrial Communism" and "State Communisms" for reasons he lays bare. The general theme is turning the state into an industrial apparatus for the socialist transformation of man himself, in addition to society and nature. In the end, the Eastern model of Marxism (Leninism, Stalinism, general Sovietism, and Maoism) failed everywhere it was attempted, leading to one of the greatest tragedies of human history. The other three lectures in this series can be found here: Session 1: Communism 1.0: Theoretical Communism: https://newdiscourses.com/2024/10/communism-1-0-theoretical-communism/ Session 3: Communism 2.5: Social Communism (Coming soon!) Session 4: Communism 3.0: Corporate Communism (Coming soon!) Notes (PDF): https://newdiscourses.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/DallasWorkshop24-Evilution-of-Communism.pdf New book! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2024 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #communism
The New Discourses Podcast with James Lindsay, Ep. 149 Vladimir Lenin established the Bolshevik Party in 1912 to seize control of the socialist movement in Russia and to plan and execute a violent revolution against the Tsar, and by 1917 he was successful in this attack. Also in 1917, on the eve of his victory, he wrote his thoughts about the organization of the state and how the revolution should proceed, both to box out his socialist competitors and to establish a theoretical baseline drawing from Marx and Engels for how to organize what became the Soviet Union. That document bears the title The State and Revolution, and in this episode of the New Discourses Podcast, host James Lindsay reads through the first chapter of Lenin's key work to expose to you what Bolshevik Communists think a state exists to do: repression. Join him to learn how history today is rhyming with Lenin's evil. New book! The Queering of the American Child: https://queeringbook.com/ Support New Discourses: https://newdiscourses.com/support Follow New Discourses on other platforms: https://newdiscourses.com/subscribe Follow James Lindsay: https://linktr.ee/conceptualjames © 2024 New Discourses. All rights reserved. #NewDiscourses #JamesLindsay #Lenin
How did the Bolshevik party endure the adversity it faced leading up to 1917? Antonio Balmer explains how a granite foundation of Marxist theory, firmness in principle, and flexibility in tactics led to the greatest event in human history - the October revolution. Read the full report on the RCI founding conference: https://www.marxist.com/the-revolutionary-communist-international-has-arrived.htm Find all the recorded sessions right here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTEkvx0FabU&list=PLmkivsu9EhGAdQG1hbn36TPMYLquG6vPt&pp=iAQB Join our Party: https://communistusa.org/join Donate: https://communistusa.org/donate
Vladimir Lenin was the greatest revolutionary in history. He built the Bolshevik Party, which led the working class to power in the Russian Revolution of 1917—the greatest event in human history to date. Lenin may have died 100 years ago, but the Revolutionary Communists of America is building a party following in his footsteps. Join the party: https://communistusa.org/join. Donate: https://communistusa.org/donate.
John Reed, the author of Ten Days that Shook the World, once said that Lenin was the most loved and the most hated person alive. He was loved by tens of millions who wanted to change society, but hated by the ruling class and their apologists. As the leader of the Russian Revolution, Lenin was a man who changed the world. A convinced Marxist, he created the Bolshevik Party, the most revolutionary party in history. Lenin translated the ideas of Marxism into reality. One hundred years since his death, the bourgeois historians continue to slander him and his ideas. Join Alan Woods and Rob Sewell, authors of the anticipated book In Defence of Lenin, on the centenary of Lenin's death for a discussion on his real life and ideas. By understanding the significance of Lenin, we can understand how to carry out the revolutionary struggle for communism today. Pre-order the book here: https://wellredbooks.co.uk/product/in-defence-of-lenin/ ✊ Join the campaign to build a Revolutionary Communist Party: socialist.net/join
Here are some notable events in world history that happened on November 10:1775 - The United States Marine Corps was established by the Continental Congress.1871 - Journalist and explorer Henry Morton Stanley located missing Scottish missionary and explorer David Livingstone in Ujiji, near Lake Tanganyika, famously greeting him with the words, "Dr. Livingstone, I presume?"1917 - The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia began when the Red Guards, led by the Bolshevik Party, seized government buildings in Petrograd (now St. Petersburg). This marked the start of the Russian Civil War and eventually led to the establishment of the Soviet Union.1951 - Direct-dial long-distance telephone service was introduced in the United States.1975 - The United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 3379, equating Zionism with racism. The resolution was later repealed in 1991.1989 - The Berlin Wall, which had separated East and West Berlin since 1961, was breached by East Germans, leading to the reunification of Germany.1995 - Ken Saro-Wiwa, a Nigerian writer and environmental activist, and eight other Ogoni leaders were executed by the Nigerian government, sparking international outrage.2001 - The U.S. House of Representatives passed the USA PATRIOT Act in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, granting the government expanded surveillance and investigative powers.2006 - The Great British financial institution, the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), announced the acquisition of Dutch bank ABN AMRO in a deal that would later contribute to the global financial crisis of 2008.2019 - Bolivia's President Evo Morales resigned amid allegations of electoral fraud and widespread protests. He sought asylum in Mexico.These are just a few significant historical events that occurred on November 10. There are many more events that have shaped the course of history on this date throughout the years.Podcast Website:https://atozenglishpodcast.com/a-to-z-this-day-in-history-november-10th/Social Media:Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/671098974684413/Tik Tok:@atozenglish1Instagram:@atozenglish22Twitter:@atozenglish22A to Z Facebook Page:https://www.facebook.com/theatozenglishpodcastCheck out our You Tube Channel:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCds7JR-5dbarBfas4Ve4h8ADonate to the show: https://app.redcircle.com/shows/9472af5c-8580-45e1-b0dd-ff211db08a90/donationsRobin and Jack started a new You Tube channel called English Word Master. You can check it out here:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2aXaXaMY4P2VhVaEre5w7ABecome a member of Podchaser and leave a positive review!https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/the-a-to-z-english-podcast-4779670Join our Whatsapp group: https://forms.gle/zKCS8y1t9jwv2KTn7Intro/Outro Music: Daybird by Broke for Freehttps://freemusicarchive.org/music/Broke_For_Free/Directionless_EP/Broke_For_Free_-_Directionless_EP_-_03_Day_Bird/https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcodehttps://freemusicarchive.org/music/eaters/simian-samba/audrey-horne/https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Scott_Joplin/Piano_Rolls_from_archiveorg/ScottJoplin-RagtimeDance1906/https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/Support this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/the-a-to-z-english-podcast/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy
We are republishing Alan Wood's series on the Russian Revolution as a podcast, originally released to mark the centenary of the greatest event in human history. In part five, Alan Woods discusses the failed coup attempt by General Kornilov and the impact this had on the political consciousness of the masses. Following the events of the "July Days" in 1917, the Bolsheviks were driven underground and the forces of reaction were emboldened. Nevertheless, the terrible conditions facing the workers, peasants, and soldiers meant that the radical mood amongst the masses did not go away. This process culminated in the reactionary forces coalescing around General Kornilov, who attempt to march on Petrograd and crush the revolutionary movement in its entirety. But, with the Bolsheviks taking a leading role, the organised working class was able to defend the city against Kornilov's coup. As a result, Lenin and Bolshevik Party won the support of the vast majority of the workers and soldiers, preparing the way for the October Revolution.
Original Air Date 1-22-2019 Today we take a look at socialism in America from our often violent response to the concept in the wake of the Russian Revolution through the recent revival in interest, driven primarily by the younger generation today Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Get AD FREE Shows and Bonus Content) Join our Discord community! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: Red Dawn Americans and the Bolshevik Revolution - @BackStory - Air Date 11-9-17 One hundred years ago, Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in a revolution that would change the world. Today we explore how that distant revolution had an immediate impact in the United States. Ch. 2: What the Russian Revolution Proved Possible - Empire Files - Air Date 12-18-17 To understand the context of this first socialist experiment, how it happened and what caused the many problems it faced, Abby Martin sits down with Brian Becker, a long-time socialist organizer. Ch. 3: America's Unofficial Religion - The War On An Idea Part 1 - Empire Files - Air Date 11-27-17 Everyone in the United States knows that “socialist” or “communist” is considered a bad word. How did things get that way? Abby Martin explores the history of anti-communism in America and the heavy repression of an idea that became an unofficial religion Ch. 4: "Socialism" in the Air - On the Media - Air Date 7-27-18 The word "socialism" has been trending, appearing on op-ed pages, FOX News, ABC's The View and beyond. In this word watch, Bob speaks with another self-described socialist, Current Affairs editor-in-chief Nathan Robinson Ch. 5: Americans are ready for socialism - @ThisIsHellRadio - Air Date 3-13-18 Columnist Elizabeth Bruenig looks beyond the failures of liberalism, to the possibilities of socialism. Elizabeth wrote the op-ed “It's time to give socialism a try” at the Washington Post. Ch. 6: Richard D. Wolff - What are Capitalism & Socialism? What differentiates them from each other? - acTVism Munich - Air Date 2-21-17 In this interview with Professor of Economics Emeritus (University of Massachusetts), Marxist economist and founder of Democracy at Work, Richard D. Wolff, we talk to him about Capitalism and Socialism. Ch. 7: Why Are People Talking About Socialism? with Paul Jay - @TheRealNews - Air Date 1-2-19 Explaining why socialisms time may have come - the failures of capitalism Ch. 8: Dr. Richard Wolff on Marxism 101: How Capitalism is Killing Itself - Empire Files - Air Date 11-28-17 Prof. Richard Wolff explains some tenets of how a modern socialists system could work Ch. 9: America's Unofficial Religion The War On An Idea Part 2 - Empire Files - Air Date 11-27-17 Capitalism can no longer compare itself with the dysfunctional Soviet Union but can only be compared to itself and it's failures MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions) Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Thanks for listening! Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Check out the BotL iOS/Android App in the App Stores! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Review the show on iTunes and Stitcher!
Welcome to the Instant Trivia podcast episode 841, where we ask the best trivia on the Internet. Round 1. Category: club me 1: To join England's venerable Carlton Club, Margaret Thatcher had to be made an honorary one of these. a man. 2: For many years, Henny Youngman received much of his fan mail at this comedy "club" found on NYC's East 55th Street. the Friar's Club. 3: It's the "happy" name for a group of college singers who perform short pieces of choral music. a glee club. 4: The Baum Bugle is the newsletter of the international club for fans of this tale. The Wizard of Oz. 5: Founded in 1795, this Harvard club is famed for its theatricals. the Hasty Pudding Club. Round 2. Category: jeopardy! place 1: Teri, still on the run with Emily's baby, crossed the border into this country which elected Vicente Fox in 2000. Mexico. 2: Trent tells Drake he came to find his father and that he has a twin he never met (of this type, not identical). Fraternal. 3: Drake, walking through a field to Emily's, jumps to avoid a sidewinder, one of these, falls and cuts his head. a rattlesnake. 4: Teri, in Mexico with Emily's baby, hears on a gossip report Trent was at this TV "Friend"'s wedding July 29, 2000. Jennifer Aniston. 5: Spotting Misou, Teri grabbed the baby and hit the road in her Lincoln LS, this magazine's 2000 Car of the Year. Motor Trend. Round 3. Category: phonies 1: This reclusive "2001" director has been successfully impersonated by a man who looks nothing like him. Stanley Kubrick. 2: "Girl You Know It's True" was the ironic title of a hit by this fraudulent duo. Milli Vanilli. 3: "The Education of" this Cherokee, billed as autobiography, was written by a white segregationist. Little Tree. 4: A medical syndrome is named for this baron famous for tall tales about his exploits. Baron von Munchausen. 5: Forger Hans Van Meegeren tried to increase the small number of works by this Dutch master, who died in 1675. Jan Vermeer. Round 4. Category: 20th century people 1: He was born in Germany, worked in a shaving brush factory, was U.S. Secretary of State and got an hon. knighthood in 1995. Henry Kissinger. 2: This humorist and vaudevillian was fond of saying, "All I know is just what I read in the papers". Will Rogers. 3: In 1991 this founder of the Bolshevik Party had his name stripped from a city. V.I. Lenin. 4: This lover of Lillian Hellman is credited with creating the hard-boiled type of detective fiction. Dashiell Hammett. 5: This sister who inspired Eunice Shriver to found the Special Olympics died in 2005 at the age of 86. Rosemary Kennedy. Round 5. Category: ends with "ist" 1: At the grocery store, one of these can help you remember what to buy. (shopping) List. 2: It connects the hand and the forearm. Wrist. 3: It's like fog but doesn't reduce visibility as much. Mist. 4: It's a person who travels for fun. Tourist. 5: Performer who can put you in a trancelike state that leaves you open to suggestion. Hypnotist. Thanks for listening! Come back tomorrow for more exciting trivia! Special thanks to https://blog.feedspot.com/trivia_podcasts/
In the spring of 1917, the Bolshevik Party was an important, though not dominant player in Russian politics. With a narrow political base in cities and leaders who had long lived in exile, their prospects for carrying out Marx' dream of a proletarian revolution seemed dim. And yet, six months later, their actions would shake the world, launching the world's first Communist society and arguably laying the political foundations of 20th century Europe. How did they accomplish such a dramatic feat? In this episode we explore the breakdown of Russian democracy, while highlighting the ways Lenin and his fellow conspirators consolidated power and seized control of the world's largest country. This is the story of the October revolution.
Podcast: The Lunar Society (LS 37 · TOP 2.5% )Episode: Bryan Caplan - Feminists, Billionaires, and DemagoguesRelease date: 2022-10-20It was a fantastic pleasure to welcome Bryan Caplan back for a third time on the podcast! His most recent book is Don't Be a Feminist: Essays on Genuine Justice.He explains why he thinks:* Feminists are mostly wrong,* We shouldn't overtax our centi-billionaires,* Decolonization should have emphasized human rights over democracy,* Eastern Europe shows that we could accept millions of refugees.Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.More really cool guests coming up; subscribe to find out about future episodes!You may also enjoy my interviews with Tyler Cowen (about talent, collapse, & pessimism of sex), Charles Mann (about the Americas before Columbus & scientific wizardry), and Steve Hsu (about intelligence and embryo selection).If you end up enjoying this episode, I would be super grateful if you share it, post it on Twitter, send it to your friends & group chats, and throw it up wherever else people might find it. Can't exaggerate how much it helps a small podcast like mine.A huge thanks to Graham Bessellieu for editing this podcast and Mia Aiyana for producing its transcript.Timestamps(00:12) - Don't Be a Feminist (16:53) - Western Feminism Ignores Infanticide(19:59) - Why The Universe Hates Women(32:02) - Women's Tears Have Too Much Power(46:37) - Bryan Performs Standup Comedy!(51:09) - Affirmative Action is Philanthropic Propaganda(54:12) - Peer-effects as the Only Real Education(58:46) - The Idiocy of Student Loan Forgiveness(1:08:49) - Why Society is Becoming Mentally Ill(1:11:49) - Open Borders & the Ultra-long Term(1:15:37) - Why Cowen's Talent Scouting Strategy is Ludicrous(1:22:11) - Surprising Immigration Victories(1:37:26) - The Most Successful Revolutions(1:55:34) - Anarcho-Capitalism is the Ultimate Government(1:57:00) - Billionaires Deserve their WealthTranscriptDwarkesh PatelToday, I have the great honor of interviewing Bryan Caplan again for the third time. Bryan, thanks so much for coming on the podcast. Bryan CaplanI've got the great honor of being interviewed by you, Dwarkesh. You're one of my favorite people in the world!Don't Be a FeministDwarkesh PatelIt's a greater pleasure every time (for me at least). So let's talk about your book, Don't Be a Feminist. Is there any margin of representation of women in leadership roles at which you think there should be introduced bias to make sure more women get in, even if the original ratio is not because of bias?Bryan CaplanNo, I believe in meritocracy. I think it is a good system. It is one that almost everyone sees the intuitive appeal of, and it works. Just looking at a group and saying, “We need to get more members of Group X,” is the wrong way to approach it. Rather, you need to be focusing on, “Let's try to figure out the best way of getting the top quality people here.”Dwarkesh PatelIf there's an astounding ratio of men in certain positions, could that potentially have an impact on the company's ability to do business well? Perhaps the company could just care about increasing the ratio for that reason alone. Bryan CaplanRight. I mean, one can imagine that! I think in our culture, it really goes the other way. People are more likely to be trying to get rid of men, despite the fact that the men are delivering value. If you really pushed me into starting to think, “Suppose you're running a bar, would you have ladies' night?” well yeah, I would have ladies' night in a bar because that actually works, and it's good business! However, if what you're doing is trying to actually get correct answers to things, if you're trying to go and make something run effectively, and if you're just trying to make progress and you're trying to learn new things, the thing to focus on is what actually leads to knowledge and not focusing on just trying to get demographic representation. I think what we've seen is once you go down that route, it is a slippery slope. So besides defending meritocracy on its merits, I would actually also say that the slippery slope argument is not one that should be dismissed lightly. There's a lot of evidence that it does actually fit the facts. When you make an exception of that kind, it really does lead you to bad places. Dwarkesh PatelOkay. But changing topics a bit, I wonder if this gives you greater sympathy for immigration restrictionists because their argument is similar, that there's no natural shelling point for your keyhole solutions where you let tens of millions of people in, but you don't give them welfare or voting rights. There's a slippery slope when you let them in because, eventually, the civil rights argument is going to extend to them. There'll be adverse consequences that these keyhole solutions can't solve for.Bryan CaplanFirst of all, I would say maybe. That is one of the best arguments against keyhole solutions. I'm also guessing that a lot of your listeners have no idea what keyhole solutions are, Dwarkesh, so maybe we want to back up and explain that. Dwarkesh PatelGo for it. Sure.Bryan CaplanSo I have a totally unrelated book called Open Borders, the Science and Ethics of Immigration. One of the chapters goes over ways of dealing with complaints about immigration that fall short of stopping people from actually excluding or kicking out people that are already there. So just to back up a little bit further, most of the book talks about complaints about immigration–– saying that they're either totally wrong or overstated. But then I have another chapter saying, “Alright, fine, maybe you don't agree with that, but isn't there another way that we could deal with this?” So, for example, if you're worried about immigrants voting poorly, you could say, “Fine, we won't extend voting rights to immigrants or make them wait for a longer time period.” That's one where I would just say that the focal point of citizen versus noncitizen is one of the strongest ones. So I think that it actually is one that has a lot of stability. This line of, “Well, you're not a citizen, therefore…” really does have a lot of intuitive appeal. Although, yes, I do think that keyhole solutions would probably not work multi-generationally, so to go and say this is a keyhole solution where you're not a citizen, your kids are not citizens, and their kids after them are not citizens, that's one that I think would be hard to maintain. However, again, at the same time, the problems people are worried about, if they ever were severe, are also getting diluted over time. So I wouldn't worry about it so much. That is one of the very best objections to keyhole solutions that I know of.Dwarkesh PatelOkay, so going back to feminism. Over time, doesn't feminism naturally become true? One of the things you can say is that the way that society is unfair to men includes how they fight in wars or do difficult and dangerous jobs, but society, over time, becomes more peaceful (or at least has in our timeline), and the difficult jobs get automated. At the same time, the gains for people who are at the very peak of any discipline keep going up fairly, but the implication still is that if men are overrepresented there, even for biological reasons, then the relative gains that they get go up, right? So over time, feminism just becomes more true, not because society necessarily discriminated against women, but just because of the trends in technology. Bryan CaplanOnce again, I feel like we should just back up a little bit. What is feminism anyway, because if we don't know what that is, then it's very hard to talk about whether it's becoming more true over time. In my book, I begin with some popular dictionary definitions that just say feminism is the theory that women should be political, social, economic, and cultural equals of men. I say that this is a terrible definition, which violates normal usage. Why? Well, we actually have public opinion data on, first of all, whether people are or are not feminists, and second of all, what they believe about the political, social, economic, and cultural equality of women. And guess what? An overwhelming majority of people that say they are not feminists still agree with the equality of women in all those mentions, which really makes you realize that really can't be the definition of feminism. That would be like saying feminism is the theory that the sky is blue.Well, feminists do believe the sky is blue, but that isn't what distinguishes feminists from other people. So what distinguishes them? What I say is that the really distinguishing view of feminism is that society treats women less fairly than men. The view is that society treats women less fairly than men or treats men more fairly than women. This definition fits actual usage. It would be very strange for someone to say, “I'm a feminist, but I think that men get terrible treatment in our society, and women are treated like goddesses.” Then you say, “Well, then you're not really a feminist, are you?” That doesn't make sense. On the other hand, for someone to say, “I am not a feminist, but God, we treat women so terribly, we're awful.” That, again, just would not fit. So I'm not saying this is the one true definition, but rather that it is much closer to what people actually mean by feminism than what dictionaries say. So to be fair, every now and then, there'll be a better definition. I think the Wikipedia definition in the second sentence adds that it also has the view that women are treated very unfairly. Dwarkesh PatelIs another way of defining feminism just that we should raise the status of women? That's slightly different from the fairness issue because if you think of a feminist historian, maybe their contention is not that women were treated unfairly in the past. Maybe they just want to raise the status of women in the past who are underrepresented. If you think of somebody today who wants to, let's say, raise the status of Asians in our society, and they want to acknowledge the great things that Asians are doing in our society, then maybe their contention is not even that Asians are treated unfairly. They just want to raise their status. So what would you think of that definition?Bryan CaplanSo first of all, it could be, but I don't think so. Here's what I think. There could be a few people like that, but that's not what the word means in normal use. If someone were to say, “Women are treated absolutely fantastically, way better than men, and I want it to get even higher.” You say, hmm. Well, that's not what I think. Somebody might say, “Well, I can still be a feminist and think that,” okay, but that's not what the word actually means. It's not the typical view of people who call themselves feminists. The typical view is precisely that women are treated very unfairly. They want to raise that and alleviate that in a way that's almost by definition. If you think that someone's being treated unfairly, then to say, “I think they're being really unfair, but I think it's great that it's unfair.” It's almost self-contradictory. Dwarkesh PatelI guess I was making a slightly different point, which is not even that these people don't want to raise the status (the actual living standards of women) in some way. It's just that they want to raise the rhetorical status.Bryan CaplanYes, but again, if someone were to say, “I think that women are treated absolutely fantastically in society, way better than men, who we treat like dogs. But I also want women's status to be even higher than it already is.” That would be something where you could argue that “Well, that person may still be a feminist, but that is not what the word means.” Because hardly anyone who calls themselves a feminist believes that weird thing that you're talking about. Dwarkesh PatelLet me make an analogy. Let's say you or I are libertarians, right? And then we think we should raise the status of billionaires. Now, it's not like we think society mistreats billionaires. They're pretty fine, but we think their status should be even higher.Bryan CaplanYeah, I mean, this just goes to the definition. In order to find out whether a definition is correct, you just have to think, “Well, how is the word commonly used?” Logically speaking, it's possible to have a different view or two things that are compatible. The whole idea of a definition is that, ideally, you're trying to find necessary and sufficient conditions such that everybody who satisfies the conditions falls under the category and that everybody who doesn't satisfy the conditions doesn't. In ordinary language, of course, it's notoriously hard to really do that. Defining a table is actually quite difficult in a necessary and sufficient-condition sense, but we can still say, “Well, a table is not by definition something that people sit on, right?” Someone could say, “Well, I suppose you could sit on a table, but that's not the definition in ordinary use in any language of which I'm aware.”But why don't we actually go back to your real question. Which was..Dwarkesh PatelOverall, the left tail of society is being compressed, and the right tail is being expanded. Does feminism become more true over time?Bryan CaplanThe answer is that we really need to look at all of the main measures to get an idea of this. With some of the ones that you're talking about, it does make more sense. As jobs become less physically dangerous, then at least you might say that things are less unfair to men. Although in the book, what I say is that even that is a bit more superficially complicated, at least on the surface. The immediate reaction is that society's less fair to men because they do the most dangerous jobs. Although I also say, “Yeah, but they get monetary compensation for that.” So, all things considered, you probably shouldn't think of it as unfair. It's something where it's reasonable to say, “Hey, wait a second, how come men are the ones that are enduring 90 percent of the workplace deaths” and say, “Well, because they're getting 90 percent of the combat pay.” Broadly construed it's not mostly actual for combat. So anyway, that's one area where you should be careful. But I can see the possibility there. I do have a section in the book where I go over what's happening over time. What I'll say is, well, one big thing that's happened over time is that people have become very hyper-concerned with the mistreatment of women, which means that feminism is becoming less true as a result because when people are really hyper-concerned that they might be unfair to someone, they are even less likely to be unfair to them. So I think that's one thing where society where feminisms become less true over time. Another area that I talk about and which I think really does tip the scales, although again, you really need to go through the book because I do try to work through a lot of different margins…I think the one that really does settle it against feminism in today's age is precisely the level of false feminist accusations about unfairness. When we go over all the objective measures, then you say, well, it's close to a wash in terms of which gender is treated more or less fairly overall. But then you realize, “Yes, but there's one gender that has to endure a whole lot of grossly exaggerated hyperbolic accusations and unfairness and another gender that gets to make those accusations.” The gender that has to endure the unfair accusations is men, and the gender that gets to make them is women. Obviously, not all women make them, and not all men receive them. But still, if we're talking about the average fairness of the treatment of men and women or society, I say that this climate of false accusation and intimidation is what really tips it. It didn't have to be this way, Dwarkesh! [laughs] We could have just had conditions change without a whole lot of flinging of wildly inaccurate accusations, but that's not the world we're in. Dwarkesh PatelWhen would you say was the flipping point? Was there a particular decade that you thought “unbalanced things are equal now?”Bryan CaplanYeah. So one of the things I say in the book is that there are a bunch of ways where you can say that women were treated less fairly in earlier decades, but there are aspects that are probably more important overall where women are treated worse now. The main one is paternal support for children. In 1940, the odds that you could count on the biological father of your children to help you to raise them was maybe 90%. Now it's probably more like 60%, 70%. So that's one of the main ways that I say that women probably are treated less fairly than men. And the unfairness has gotten worse over time. Again, just understand this is not the kind of book that most people are used to where someone argues like a lawyer and they just say, look, I've got 20 arguments for why I'm right. And everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is the kind of book that I liked to write where I really say, let's just calm down and just go through every issue separately, weigh each one on its merits. There are a bunch of points where someone could say, “Why do you concede that? That makes your argument weaker.” Well, I concede it because it's true! Then in the end, I have my overall judgment. I will just say that there are a number of books that are written in this terrible modern style of lawyerly reasoning, where you basically have a thesis that you just try to defend in every possible way. I don't write books like that. I try to write books that are honest and self-reflective, and where if there's some weakness in what I'm saying, I don't just acknowledge it if someone points it out; I try to be the first person to reveal it so that people feel like they can trust me. It's my own conscience. I don't feel right when I say something not really quite right. I feel like I should've always said the other thing. So I try to just write with candor. Dwarkesh PatelNow, would you say that feminism in the United States is overcorrected but that it's still true in the global sense? In the way that, on average, across the world, women are treated more unfairly than men. Because if that's the case, then if the US is at the center of global feminism, then, of course, they're going to overcorrect here, but overall they're making the world a better place. Bryan CaplanSo that is a much better argument. I would say that if we think about most areas of Europe, then I think that it's very similar to what's going on in the US. In the book, I do go over this especially. I start with Saudi Arabia, where it's really obvious what's going on and how poorly women are treated. But then I go over to India and China and just think about plausible rates of female infanticide. I think it is very likely that overall the treatment of women in India and China is more unfair than that of men. In Saudi Arabia, I'm almost sure that it is. In terms of “Is the US providing a useful corrective for the world while messing up things in the US?” It's possible. I think the problem is that it does discredit a lot of the reasonable points because the US just doesn't focus on the really big issues. The amount of time that American feminists spend on female infanticide in China and India… I don't think it would even be 1% of the rhetoric. It's just not something that they care about.So I would say that there's more harm being done by the sheer distraction of putting so much emphasis upon small, exaggerated, or reverse problems that bother feminists in the first world while ignoring and indirectly causing people to forget or neglect actual serious problems in some other countries. Positively shifting the Overton WindowWestern Feminism Ignores InfanticideDwarkesh PatelBut let me apply the argument you make in Open Borders that you can effect change by shifting the Overton window. So advocating for open borders just shifts immigration policy slightly towards the open end. Can American feminists make the same point that through making the crazy arguments they make in America, they're making Saudi Arabia more liberal for women? Bryan CaplanI would say that when the arguments are crazy, then it's not clear that shifting the Overton window actually happens. That may be where you discredit the other view. In particular, I think what I say in that part of the book is that people generally confuse being radical with being unfriendly. And most of the harm that is done to radical causes is due to the unfriendliness rather than the radicalism. So in that case, I would say that feminism has a definite friendliness problem. It is not a movement that goes out of its way to go and make other people feel like they are respected, where even if you disagree with me, I want to be your friend and listen to what you have to say, and maybe we could go and come to some understanding. I think it is a movement where the main emotional tenure of the elites is, “We are totally right, and anyone who disagrees had better watch out.” So I think that there is a discrediting of it. The other thing is just that I think there's too much cultural separation between the feminist movement as we know it and places like China and India, where I just don't see the attitude of being really angry about exaggerated or false complaints about unfair treatment of women in the United States is going to do anything for infanticide in India. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dwarkesh. Do you see much influence of Western feminism on infanticide in India?Dwarkesh PatelI don't know, but maybe yes. More generally, one of the common arguments that libertarians make about India and its elites is, “Oh, all of India's elites go study in Oxford or something, and they learn about the regulations the West is adopting that make no sense for a country with $2,000 GDP per capita.” I feel like some of the things could be true of feminism where all these Indian elites go to American universities and UK universities where they learn about radical feminism, and they go back, and they adopt some of these things.Bryan CaplanYes, although you might remember what Alex Tabarrok says about these very things. You can go to India and have people pushing paper straws on you, and yet the streets are still totally covered in trash. In fact, the pushing of the paper straws probably actually distracts people from the much more serious problem of the horrible trash, right? Again, I don't know enough about India to speak with any confidence here, but if you go and learn radical feminism in Western universities, come back to India and start complaining about how we need to have more female CEOs in a country where you have millions of female infanticides per year, I think it probably is like the paper straws problem where you are so focused on a trivial problem that maybe is not only a problem, is not even a problem at all. At the same time, that anger really blinds you to an actual, really serious problem that's going on. But you know India better than me, I could be wrong. Why The Universe Hates WomenDwarkesh PatelI believe rape within a marriage is still legal in India and is still not recognized. Maybe it was just recently changed. Let's say this is an interview, and a feminist says, “Oh my gosh, okay Bryan, maybe you're right that society as a whole doesn't mistreat women, but maybe the cosmos mistreats women.” So women are forced to have children. All of these things combined make women's lives worse on average than men's lives. It's not because society mistreats them, but in some sense, there's still unfairness geared toward women. What do you make of this argument?Bryan CaplanSo unfairness, where there's no human being that does it, seems like a very strange idea to me. Just from the get-go, well, so who was unfair to you? “The universe is unfair.” Then I mean, the correct term there is unfortunate, not unfair. So that aside, I would say it's a really interesting question. Who actually has better lives just as a matter of biological endowments, men or women? I mean, in terms of demonstrated preference, I think the overwhelming result is that most people just want to remain in whatever gender they're born in. So this is not actually transgenderism. This is like a genie wish. If you could change your gender just with a wish, costlessly, perfectly, I think a very large majority of people would still want to stay with whatever gender they have because it's part of their identity. It's some kind of endowment effect, status quo bias, or whatever. But then if you say, “Okay, yeah, right, fine. Like you, like you just want to stay whatever you were because that's your identity, but if you could put that aside, what would you want to be?” It's a tough question. You can say, “Well, women have a harder personality to deal with because of higher neuroticism, and they've also got higher agreeableness.” But that gives them some other advantages in terms of getting along with other people. For example, men's disagreeableness makes it hard for men to just bite their tongues and shut up when someone's saying something they don't like. I think that is easier for women to do. You may have noticed that having to shut up and bite your tongue while someone around you says something stupid you don't like is actually a big part of life. That is one thing. Now, in terms of things that I feel that I would get out of being a woman, just being able to have as many kids as I wanted would matter a lot to me. So I only have four kids right now. If it were totally up to me, I would have had more kids. I think, as a woman, it would have been easy to do. [laughs] So again, you know, there is the issue. How are you going to find a guy that wants to have a lot of kids? This is one where I've looked at the data on family size and what determines it. While both men and women seem to have a say on family size, it just looks like women's traits have a much larger effect. Men are more likely to say, “OK, fine, whatever. We'll do what you want to do on family size.” Whereas women seem to have much more pronounced preferences, which they then tend to get. I think that if I were a woman, I could have had more kids, and it would have been easier for me to do it. That would be something that matters to me. It's not something that matters to everybody, but that's something there. Again, there is just the nice fact of people caring about your suffering. In the book, I do talk about the ethos of women and children first, which is very pronounced. It's a modern society where we can simultaneously have something like “women and children first”, but then also have a lot of rhetoric about how people don't care about women. It's like, “Hmm, that's not right.”Dwarkesh PatelWhat do you think of this theory that maybe society cares a lot more about women suffering, but it sympathizes a lot more with men's success? If you think of a default character in a movie or a novel, at least for me, then the default is a man. Then maybe there's some victim that defaults as a woman. But I'd rather be the sympathy of some sort of success than get it for suffering.Bryan CaplanI mean, do you need sympathy for success? Or do you want admiration? I mean, I guess what I would say is that everybody's got suffering, and only a small share of people have any notable success. If all that you knew was you're going to be a man or woman, I would say, “Well, gee, if I'm a woman, then people will sympathize with my suffering, which is almost definitely coming because that's the human condition.” Whereas to have admiration for your success is something where it just affects a much smaller number of people. I know that hanging out in Austin among hyper-successful people may be biasing your sample a bit, but I do think it's believable that men get more unmitigated admiration for their success. Of course, there are also differences in the mating opportunities that you get for being a successful man versus a successful woman. So that is there too, but again, this is something that really is only relevant for a very small share of the population.But then the argument is, “Well, that small share of the population matters so much in terms of the story we tell ourselves about our civilization or just in terms of who controls more resources overall.” So if being a woman billionaire is harder, maybe for biological reasons, maybe for the reasons of our society, you can say, “Well, that only affects a small percentage of women in society.” But on the other hand, billionaires matter a lot.In terms of what life is like for most people, the main way they matter is that billionaires just provide awesome stuff. In terms of the stories that people tell, it's true that if you go and look at most classic movies or novels, the main characters are male. Even in cartoons, actually, the main characters traditionally have been male. But on the other hand, that's just fiction. In terms of daily life. I'd rather have people be really concerned about me in real life but have my perspective underrepresented stories than the other way around. Dwarkesh PatelSo what do you make of the argument that employers hold defects in women's personalities much more against them than they hold defects in men's personalities? I think Tyler cited some of this research in his new book on talent that being too agreeable or being too aggressive harms women more than it harms men. Bryan CaplanI would say that it's complicated in terms of willingness to fire. I think employers are much more willing to fire men. For defects and for insubordination. Another thing on the list is a small one, but I think that it is indicative of a broader trend. For people working at workplaces with dress codes, men are much more likely to be dinged on dress code violations than women because for men, there's a definite thing men are supposed to do. If you're not doing it, you are in violation. For women, on the other hand, it's like, “Well, gee, I mean, it seems kind of like that's not what you should be wearing, but I don't want to be the person that says anything about it. And who knows? Who am I to judge what a woman ought to be wearing on the job?” But a man, on the other hand, needs to be wearing a suit in 110-degree weather. What was the high this summer over in Austin? [laughter] Dwarkesh PatelWhy do you think that women have gotten less happy since the sixties in America?Bryan CaplanRight. So the main thing I know about this is Stevenson and Wolfer's research on this. The main thing to remember is the magnitude. If I remember correctly, they find that in the sixties, women had about a two percentage point advantage relative to men in terms of their odds of saying they're very happy. 25% of men said they were very happy, then 27% of women in the sixties said that they were very happy. Whereas now, it seems like women have a two percentage point deficit relative to men. So now, if 25% of men say they're very happy, then 23% of women say they're very happy. It's always important in these papers to look at those magnitudes because the media coverage is going to say, “Oh, women are miserable now.” It's not that women are miserable now! We're talking about a two-percentage point difference. It's a data set large enough for this to actually be meaningful, but we do want to keep it in perspective in terms of what's really going on. The paper probably actually goes over a bunch of stories and says the obvious ones are all wrong. That would be what Justin Wolfersustin especially would normally do. I think he's usually right that simple stories about something like this are wrong. In terms of what I would pursue if I read through the paper and reminded myself of what they found and then said, “Okay, well, what will work?” I think I would, on one end, focus on single moms because they'll become much more common, and their lives really are hard. A rise in single motherhood is coming. I would guess that's one important part of it. Then, I would also be wondering how much of it is actual feminism telling women that they should be unhappy because the world is unfair and that causes unhappiness. Again, I'm not saying that these are right. It's plausible to me. The main thing I would say about feminism causing unhappiness in the adherents is that it probably doesn't matter most for most self-identified feminists because most people just are not that intellectual and they don't think about their ideas very often. So it's one thing to say, look, if you believe you're going to hell, you'll be unhappy. It's like, well, if you believe it once a year, does it make you unhappy? If you remember, “Oh yeah, once a year, I think I'm going to hell.” The rest of the time, you don't think it.On the other hand, the person who is always thinking, “I'm going to hell, I'm going to hell,” probably will be unhappy. So I think feminism is very likely to reduce the happiness of people who are feminist elites and take it really seriously, where they're talking about it all the time. That is likely to cause unhappiness. I'd be amazed if it didn't. But on the other hand, for the vast majority of people who say, “Yeah, I am a feminist. Moving on…” I don't think it's too likely to be messing up their lives. Dwarkesh PatelThat raises an interesting possibility. This is not my theory, but let's run with this. So feminism has actually gotten more true over time, but it's precisely because of feminism. Maybe it's made elite women more unhappy. As you said earlier, the amount of single mothers has gone up. Maybe part of that is the reason, and part of that is because of feminist trends in terms of family formation. Maybe women prefer to be at home caring for children on average more, but then feminism encourages them to have careers, which makes them less happy. So if you add all these things up, plus mentorship, which men are less likely to give because of #metoo. So add all these things up, maybe they're the result of feminism, but they still make feminism more right. Would you agree with that?Bryan CaplanYeah. If we go back to this definition of feminism and this theory that our society treats women less fairly than men, then if the story is that women have made a lot of false accusations against men and then men have responded by changing their behavior, that would seem to be a strange example of saying the society is treating women less fairly than men. It would seem to be a case that society is treating men unfairly, and this is having some negative side effects for women as well. But it's one where if you really were trying to draw the line… Well actually, here's actually one of the weaknesses of the definition that I proposed. So foot binding in China. From my understanding, the main drivers of foot binding in China were women. So women are binding feet, and they're also telling their daughters they have to have their feet bound. Men seemed to care less, actually, it was more of an intra-female abuse. This is one where you could say that in China, women are treated less fairly than men, even though the perpetrators are women. I think that does actually make sense. I would just say that the definition that we use in our society isn't really calibrated to deal with that kind of thing. When it comes to what the right way to describe it would be, it just gets a bit confusing. It's useful just to say, all right, well, if women are mistreating women and that's what's making women's lives hard, how do we count that? I think I would just say that we don't have any really good way of counting it, and might be useful to just come up with a new word to describe this kind of thing. Women's Tears Have Too Much PowerDwarkesh PatelWhat do you make of Hanania's argument that women's tears win in the marketplace of ideas? Bryan CaplanYeah. So we might want to back up a little bit and explain what the argument is. So Richard Hanania on his substack has a very famous essay where he points out that in fiction, when there is a mob of angry college students, it's very demographically diverse. But when you look at actual footage, it seems like women are highly overrepresented. He generalizes this by saying that a lot of what's going on in terms of cancel culture and related problems is that women are the main ones that get angry about these things, and people don't know what to do about it. So he, if I remember correctly, says that a man can, in a way, actually enjoy an argument with another man. Even if you lose or even if it's a physical fight, he says, you can sort of feel invigorated by it. We got through this. We resolved something. Whereas no guy feels this way about an argument with his wife. “What do I need to do in order for this argument to end as soon as possible” would be a more normal reaction. This sort of generalizes to the majority of social arguments, specifically ones that involve someone being offended or angry, or hurt. He says a lot of what's going on is that it is mainly women that are presenting these complaints and that it's hard to deal with it because men don't want to argue with angry women. It just makes them feel bad. It's sort of a no-win situation. So anyway, that is Hanania's argument. Overall, it seemed pretty plausible to me. I haven't thought about it that much more, but it's one that does seem to make a fair bit of sense in terms of just what I'm writing about feminism. You know, one really striking thing is just how one-sided this conversation is. It is a conversation where women have complaints, and men mostly just listen in silence. Ofcourse, men will sometimes complain amongst each other when women aren't around. It's not a real dialogue where women have complaints about men, and then men are very eager to say, “Oh, but I have something I would like to say in rebuttal to that.” A lot of it is what he calls “women's tears.” It's sadness, but mingled with or supported by intimidation: “If you don't give me what I want, if you don't pretend that you agree with me, I will be very angry, and I will be fairly sad.” So you should be afraid. I think a lot of what's probably going on with the rhetorical dominance of feminism, is that people are just afraid to argue against it because, in a way, it does sort of violate the women and children first ethos. If women complain about something, you aren't supposed to go and say, “I disagree. Your complaints are unjustified.” You're supposed to say, “Look, what can I do to make it better?” Dwarkesh PatelBut that seems like a good description of race issues and class issues as well. Bryan CaplanI mean, the main difference there is that there are a lot of people who have a lot more firsthand experience of intergender relations, and they spend a lot more time in intergender relations than they spend in all of the other ones. So I mean, the dynamic is probably pretty similar, but in terms of the really negative firsthand experience that men have, Hanania probably is right about that. Then that generalizes to bigger issues. Dwarkesh PatelYou have an essay about endogenous sexism. Could this just not be the cause of society being unfair to a woman? We start off with men being in power, they get sexist just because they're around other men and they like them more. So then, the starting position matters a lot, even if men aren't trying to be sexist. Bryan CaplanSo let me just back up and explain the argument. The argument says to imagine that in reality, men and women are equally good in absolutely every way, but people are more likely to have close friends with their own gender, (which is totally true). So if I remember the essay, I think that for close male friends, the male-to-female ratio was 6:1, and for women, it was 4:1. So most people's close friends are of the same gender. When you meet these people, and they're your close friends, you know them really well. Furthermore, because you have handpicked them, you're going to think well of them. So then the question is, “What about people of the opposite gender? What will your interaction with them be like?” What I point out is that a lot of the opposite gender you hang out with will be the spouses and partners of your friends. On average, you're going to think worse of them because you didn't pick them. Basically, there are two filters there: I like you because you're my friend, and I put up with your partner because that person is your partner. So this means that the women that men are around are going to be the partners of their friends. They're not going to like them less and think less of them than they think of their friends. On the other hand, the partners of women's friends will be men, and women will get to know them and say, “Wow, they're not that great. They're at least kind of disappointing relative to my same-gender friends.” So anyway, this is an argument about how the illusion of your own gender being superior could arise. Now, as to whether this is actually the right story, I leave that open. This was just more of a thought experiment to understand what could happen here. Could this actually explain the unfair treatment of women in society? Especially if we start off with men being the gatekeepers for most of the business world? It's totally plausible that it could. That's why we really want to go to the data and see what we actually find. In the data I know of, the evidence of women earning less money than men while doing the same job is quite low. So there's very little gender disparity in earnings once you make the obvious statistical adjustments for being in the same occupation. Again, the main area that probably actually has gotten worse for women is mentoring. Mentoring is partly based on friendship. I like this person. I like working with them. So I will go and help them to go and acquire more human capital on the job. This is one that feminism has visibly messed up, and many feminists will, in a strange way, admit that they have done it while not taking responsibility for the harm. I've got an essay on that in the book as well.Looking at the evidence, it is totally standard now for male managers to admit that they are reluctant to mentor female employees because they're so worried. When I go and track down a bunch of feminist reactions to this, they basically just say, “I can't believe how horrible these guys are.” But it's like, look, you're asking them for a favor to get mentorship. They're scared. If someone's scared, do you really want to yell at them more and offer more mostly empty threats? It's really hard to scare someone into doing something this informal, so you really do need to win them over. Dwarkesh PatelTactically, that might be correct, but it seems to just be a matter of “Is their argument justified?” I can see why they'd be frustrated. Obviously, you want to point out when there's a sexual harassment allegation, and that may have the effect of less mentorship. Bryan CaplanWell, is it obvious that you want to point that out? Part of what I'm saying is that there are different perceptions here. There are differences of opinion. If you want to get along with people, a lot of it is saying, “How does it seem from the other person's point of view?” Obviously, do not assume that the most hypersensitive person is correct. So much of the problem with mentorship comes down to hypersensitivity. I've got another piece in the book where I talk about misunderstandings and how we have so much lost sight of this very possibility. When there's a conflict between two people, who's right and who's wrong? Ofcourse, it could be that one person is the conscious malefactor and the other person is an obvious victim that no one could deny. That does happen sometimes. But much more often in the real world, there's a misunderstanding where each person, because of the imperfection of the human mind, has the inability to go and get inside another person's head. To each person, it seems like they're in the right and the other person is in the wrong, and one of the most helpful ways for people to get along with each other is to realize that this is the norm. Most conflicts are caused by misunderstandings, not by deliberate wrongdoing. This is the way the people who keep their friends keep their friends. If any time there's a conflict with a friend, you assume that you're right and your friend is in the wrong, and you demand an immediate abject apology, you're going to be losing friends left and right. It is a foolish person who does that. Friendship is more important than any particular issue. This is not only my personal view, it is the advice that I give to everyone listening. Keep your friends, bend over backward in order to keep your friends, and realize that most conflicts are caused by misunderstandings. It's not the other person is going out of their way to hurt you. They probably don't see it that way. If you just insist, “I'm right, I demand a full apology and admission of your wrongdoing,” you're probably going to be losing friends, and that's a bad idea. The same thing I think is going on in workplaces where there is an ideology saying that we should take the side of the most hypersensitive person. This is not a good approach for human beings to get along with each other.Dwarkesh PatelYeah. That's very wise. What do you make the argument that a lot of these professions that are dominated by men are not intrinsically things that must appeal to men, but the way that they are taught or advertised is very conducive to what males find interesting? So take computer science, for example; there are claims that you could teach that or economics in a way that focuses on the implications on people from those practices rather than just focusing on the abstractions or the “thing-focused stuff.” So the argument is these things shouldn't be inherently interesting to men. It's just in the way they are taught. Bryan CaplanThe word inherently is so overused. It's one where you say, "Well, are you saying that inherently X?” Then someone says, “Well, not inherently X, just you'd have to bend over backward and move heaven and earth for it not to be. So I guess it's not really inherent.” That is a lot of what is worth pointing out. So if you're going to put the standard to that level, then it's going to be hard to find differences. You could say, “There's absolutely no way under the sun to go and teach math in a less male way.” On the other hand, maybe we should ask, “Is it reasonable to expect the whole world to revolve around making every subject equally appealing to men and women?” That's an unreasonable demand. If there's a subject like math that is male-dominated, the reasonable thing is to say, “Well, if you want to get in on that, you're going to need to go and become simpatico with the mindset of the people that are already there and then push the margin.” You can say that it's “so unfair that male ways of doing math are dominant.” Or maybe you could say that it's unfair for someone who's just shown up to demand that an entire discipline change its way of doing things to make you feel better about it. Obviously, there are large areas that are very female-dominated, and there's no pressure on women to go and change the way that flower arranging is done, or cooking in order to make it more welcoming to men.So this is one where if you had a really high bar for how things are fair, then unless the rigorous conditions are met, you're going to see a lot of unfairness in the world. Although even then, as long as you have an equally high bar for both men and women, I don't think it's going to make feminism any more true by my definition. I also just say, I think these really high bars are unreasonable. If a friend had these bars of standards saying, “Look, why is it that when we meet for food, we have to go and meet at standard hours of breakfast, lunch, and dinner? I actually like meeting in the middle of the night. Why can't we have half of the time be my way?” You respond, “Well yeah, but you're only one person, so why should I change?” It depends upon what subfield you're in as well. There are actually groups of people really like hanging out in the middle of the night, so if you ask, “Why is it we always have to meet in the middle of the night? Why can't we do it my way?” You are entering into a subculture that works this way. You could demand that we totally change our way of being to accommodate you, but it just seems like an unreasonable imposition on the people who are already here. Now, when you sort of go through the list of different things that people think of as making something a male or a not-male field, sometimes people will treat things like acting like there's an objectively correct answer as a male trait. If that's a male trait, then we need to keep that trait because that is vital to really any field where there are right and wrong answers. I mean, that's an area where I am very tempted rhetorically to say, “It's just so sexist to say that it's male to think that things are right and wrong. I think that is a trait of both genders”. In a way, I end the essay stating, “Yes, these are not male; not only do they not make a male monopoly, but they are also not uniquely male virtues. They are virtues that can and should be enjoyed by all human beings.” At the same time, you could ask whether virtues are equally represented by both genders and well, that's an empirical question. We have to look at that. Bryan Performs Standup Comedy!Dwarkesh PatelWe're shifting subjects. You recently performed at the Comedy Cellar. How was that experience? Bryan CaplanYeah, that was super fun and a big challenge! I am a professional public speaker. Standup comedy is professional public speaking. I was curious about how much transfer of learning there would be. How many of the things that I know as a regular public speaker can I take with me to do standup comedy? I'm also just a big fan of standup comedy– if you know me personally, I just find life constantly funny. Dwarkesh PatelYes, I can confirm that. You're a very pleasant person to be around. Bryan CaplanLife is funny to me. I like pointing out funny things. I like using my imagination. A lot of comedy is just imagination and saying, look, “Imagine that was the opposite way. What would that be like?” Well, actually, just to back up again: during COVID, I did just create a wiki of comedy ideas just on the idea that maybe one day I'll go and do standup comedy. Comedy Cellar actually has a podcast, kind of like Joe Rogan, where comedians go and talk about serious issues. I was invited to that, and as a result, I was able to talk my way into getting to perform on the actual live stage of the biggest comedy club in New York. The main thing I could say about my performance is that it was me and nine professional comedians, and I don't think I was obviously the worst person. So that felt pretty good.Dwarkesh PatelIt was a pretty good performance.Bryan CaplanI felt good about it! There were some main differences that I realized between the kind of public speaking I was used to doing and what I actually did there. One is the importance of memorizing the script. It just looks a lot worse if you're reading off a note. Normally I have some basic notes, and then I ad-lib. I don't memorize. The only time I have a script is if I have a very time-constrained debate, then I'd normally write an opening statement, but otherwise, I don't. The thing with comedy is it depends so heavily upon exact word choice. You could go and put the same sentence into Google Translate and then back-translate it and get another sentence that is synonymous but isn't funny at all. That was something that I was very mindful of. Then obviously, there are things like timing and being able to read an audience (which I'm more used to). That was what was so hard during COVID–– not being able to look at the faces of a live audience. I can see their eyes, but I can't tell their emotions or reactions to their eyes. I don't know whether I should talk more or less about something. I don't know whether they're angry or annoyed or curious or bored. So these are all things that I would normally be adjusting my talk for in normal public speaking. But with comedy, it's a bit hard to do. What successful comedians actually do is they try it in a bunch of different ways, and then they remember which ways work and which ones don't. Then they just keep tweaking it, so finally, when they do the Netflix special, they have basically done A/B testing on a hundred different audiences, and then it sounds great–– but the first time? Not that funny. Dwarkesh PatelIt didn't occur to me until you mentioned it, but it makes a lot of sense that there are transfers of learning there in both disciplines. There are a lot of hypotheticals, non-extra events, and putting things in strange situations to see what the result is…Bryan CaplanA lot of it is just not having stage fright. So I probably had just a tiny bit of stage fright at the Comedy Cellar, which normally I would have basically zero, but there it was a little bit different because it's like, “Am I going to forget something?” I actually have a joke in the set about how nothing is scarier than staying silent while thousands of people stare at you. So that was a self-referential joke that I worked in there.Dwarkesh PatelI can't remember if it was Robin Hanson who said this, but didn't he have a theory about how the reason we have stage fright is because somehow, you're showing dominance or status, and you don't want to do that if you're not actually the most confident. Bryan CaplanYou're making a bid for status. In the ancestral environment, we're in small groups of 20-40 people. If you go and want to speak, you're saying, “I'm one of the most important people in this band here.” If you're not, or if there are a lot of people voicing that that guy is not important, then who knows? They might shove you off the cliff the next time they get a chance. So yeah, watch out. Affirmative Action is Philanthropic PropagandaDwarkesh PatelI wonder if this explains the cringe emotion. When somebody makes a bid for status, and it's not deserved. Okay, I want to talk about discrimination. So as you know, there's a Supreme court case about Harvard and affirmative action. You might also know that a lot of companies have filed a brief in favor of Harvard, saying that affirmative action is necessary for them to hire diverse work for ourselves, including Apple, Lyft, General Motors. So what is the explanation for corporations wanting to extend affirmative action? Or are they just saying this, but they don't want it? Bryan CaplanIf those individual corporations could press a button that would immunize them from all employment lawsuits, I think they would press it. When you look at their behavior, they don't just give in whenever they get sued. They have a normal team of lawyers that try to minimize the damage to the company and pay as little as possible to make the problem go away. So I think really what's going on is public relations. They are trying to be on that team. As to whether it's public relations vis a vis their consumers or public relations vis a vis other people in the executive boardroom is an interesting question. I think these days, it probably is more of the latter. Although even under Reagan, there were a bunch of major corporations that did make a similar statement saying that they wanted affirmative action to continue. I think that the real story is that they want to get the status of saying, “we are really in favor of this. We love this stuff.” But at the same time, if it just went away, they wouldn't voluntarily adopt a policy where they give you a right to go and sue them for mistreatment.I think there would still be a lot of propaganda. I mean, here's the general thing. You think about this as a species of corporate philanthropy sticking your neck out in favor of a broad social cause. Some people disagree and say that it's self-interest. They say, “Look, the odds that even Apple is going to change the Supreme Court's mind is super low.” So I don't think it's that. Basically, what they're doing is a kind of philanthropy. What's the deal with corporate philanthropy? The deal with corporate philanthropy is you are trying to go and, first of all, make the public like you, but also, you're trying to look good and jockey for influence within your own company. One really striking thing about corporate philanthropy is when you look closer, normally, they spend way more resources marketing the philanthropy and letting everyone know, “Oh, we did all this philanthropy!” Then they actually spend on philanthropy. So I had a friend who was a marketing person in charge of publicizing her company's philanthropy. They gave away about a thousand dollars a year to the Girl Scouts, and she had a hundred thousand dollars salary telling everyone about how great they were for giving this money to the Girl Scouts. So I think that's the real story. Get maximally cynical. I think without denying the fact that there are true believers now in corporate boardrooms who are pushing it past the point of profitability. The cost of philanthropy is just the production budget of the TV commercial. A rounding error. The donations are a rounding error, and then they go, “Hey, everyone, look at us. We're so freaking philanthropic!” Peer effects as the Only Real EducationDwarkesh PatelOkay. So this question is one that Tyler actually suggested I ask you. So in The Myth of the Rational Voter, you say that education makes you more pro-free market. Now, this may have changed in the meantime, but let's just say that's still true. If you're not really learning anything, why is education making you more free market? Bryan CaplanIt's particularly striking that even people who don't seem to take any economics classes are involved. I think that the best story is about peer effects. When you go to college, you're around other peers who though not pro-market, are less anti-market than the general population. The thing about peer effects is that they really are a double-edged sword from a social point of view. Think about this. Right now, if you are one of the 1% of non-Mormons that goes to Brigham Young University, what do you think the odds are that you'll convert to Mormonism? Dwarkesh PatelHigher than normal. Bryan CaplanYeah. I don't know the numbers, but I think it's pretty high. But suppose that Brigham Young let in all the non-Mormons. What would Brigham Young do for conversion to Mormonism? Probably very little. Furthermore, you realize, “Huh, well, what if those Mormons at Brigham Young were dispersed among a bunch of other schools where they were that were a minority?” Seems quite plausible. They'd be making a lot more converts over there. So if you achieve your peer effects by segregation (which is literally what college does, it takes one part of society and segregates it from another part of society physically when you're in school, and then there's social segregation caused by the fact that people want to hang out with other people in their own social circles, your own education levels, etc.), in that case, in terms of whether or not education actually makes society overall pro-free market, I think it's totally unclear because, basically, when people go to college, they make each other more pro-free market. At the same time, they remove the possibility of influencing people of other social classes who don't go to college, who probably then influence each other and make each other less free market. I think that's the most plausible story.Dwarkesh PatelWhat about the argument that the people who go to elite universities are people who are going to control things? If you can engineer a situation in which the peer effects in some particular direction are very strong at Harvard (maybe because the upper class is very liberal or woke), they make the underclass even more woke, and then it's a reinforcing cycle after every generation of people who come into college. Then that still matters a lot, even though presumably somebody becomes more right-wing once they don't go to Harvard because there are no peers there. But it doesn't matter. They're not going to be an elite, or it doesn't matter as much. Bryan CaplanIt could be, although what we've seen is that we now just have very big gaps between elite opinion and mass opinion. Of course, it is a democracy. If you want to run for office, that is a reason to go and say, “Yeah, what is the actual common view here? Not just the view that is common among elites.” However, I will say that this is a topic that deserves a lot more study. Now the other thing to question is, “Wouldn't there be peer effects even without college?” If elites didn't go to college and instead they went and did elite apprenticeships at top corporations instead, I think you'd still wind up getting a very similar elite subculture. I think that this kind of social segregation is very natural in every human society. Of course, you can see it under communism very strongly where it's like, “I don't want my kid going and playing with a kid whose parents aren't in the communist party.” So every society has this kind of thing. Now, if you push the dynamics enough…. let's put it this way. If you were the prophet of the Mormon religion, what would be the very best thing for you to do to maximize the spread of Mormonism? It is not at all clear to me that trying to get all Mormons to go bring them young is a good strategy.Dwarkesh PatelI wonder if there are nonlinear dynamics to this. Bryan CaplanYeah. Well, there's gotta be, right? But as soon as you're talking about nonlinear dynamics, those are truly hard to understand. So I would just say to keep a much more open mind about this, and if anyone is listening and wants to do research on this, that sounds cool, I'll read it. Dwarkesh PatelRight. I remember you saying that one of the things you're trying to do with your books is influence the common view of elite opinion. So in that sense, there are elite subcultures in every society, but they're not the same elite subcultures, and therefore you might care very much about which particular subculture it is. Bryan CaplanNotice that that's one where I'm taking it as a given that we have the current segregation, and I'm going to try to go and take advantage of it. But if it were a question of if I could change the dial of what kind of segregation we have, then it's much less clear. The Idiocy of Student Loan Forgiveness Dwarkesh PatelStudent loan forgiveness. What is your reaction? Bryan CaplanOh, give me a freaking break. This is one subject where I think it's very hard to find almost any economist, no matter how left-wing and progressive, who really wants to stick their necks out and defend this garbage. Look, it's a regressive transfer. Why then? Why is it that someone who is left-wing or progressive would go and favor it? Maybe it's because people who have a lot of education and colleges are on our team, and we just want to go and help our team. Obviously, the forgiveness really means, “We're going to go and transfer the cost of this debt from the elites that actually ran up the bill to the general population.” Which includes, of course, a whole lot of people who did not go to college and did not get whatever premium that you got out of it. So there's that. In terms of efficiency, since the people have already gotten the education, you're not even “increasing the amount of education” if you really think that's good. The only margin that is really increasing education is how it's making people think, “Well, maybe there'll be another round of debt forgiveness later on, so I'll rack up more debt. The actual true price of education is less than it seems to be.” Although even there, you have to say, “Huh, well, but could people knowing this and the great willingness to borrow actually wind up increasing the ban for college and raising tuition further?” There's good evidence for that. Not 100%, but still a substantial degree.Again, just to back up–– that can be my catchphrase [laughter]. So I have a book called The Case Against Education, and my view is much more extreme than that of almost any normal economist who opposes student loan debt forgiveness. I think that the real problem with education is that we have way too much of it. Most of it is very socially wasteful. What we're doing with student loan forgiveness is we're basically going and transferring money to people who wasted a lot of social resources. The story that you are on the slippery slope to free college for all is, in a way, the best argument in favor of it. If you thought that free college for all was a good idea, then this puts us on th
In this special episode I look at the event that defined the last 105 years, that October Revolution of 1917. In doing so I trace the origins of the Bolsheviks victory back to the early days of Russian Marxism, the role played by Plekhanov, the development of Russian capitalism and the birth of the Bolshevik Party. Particularly important is the development of the Bolshevik relationship with the masses and how this developed over time to reach it's apex in the revolutionary period of 1917-1922. Here are some links to further reading on the subject: The April Theses - Lenin The State and Revolution - Lenin History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union - Chapter 7 by J.V.Stalin The History of the Russian Revolution - L.D. Trotsky 10 Days That Shook The World - John Reed The Russian Revolution - William Z Foster Episode art is the work 'Lenin in October' by the Soviet Artist Igor Reznik Episode Music is 'The International' performed by the Red Army Choir
It was a fantastic pleasure to welcome Bryan Caplan back for a third time on the podcast! His most recent book is Don't Be a Feminist: Essays on Genuine Justice.He explains why he thinks:* Feminists are mostly wrong,* We shouldn't overtax our centi-billionaires,* Decolonization should have emphasized human rights over democracy,* Eastern Europe shows that we could accept millions of refugees.Watch on YouTube. Listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or any other podcast platform. Read the full transcript here.Follow me on Twitter for updates on future episodes.More really cool guests coming up; subscribe to find out about future episodes!You may also enjoy my interviews with Tyler Cowen (about talent, collapse, & pessimism of sex), Charles Mann (about the Americas before Columbus & scientific wizardry), and Steve Hsu (about intelligence and embryo selection).If you end up enjoying this episode, I would be super grateful if you share it, post it on Twitter, send it to your friends & group chats, and throw it up wherever else people might find it. Can't exaggerate how much it helps a small podcast like mine.A huge thanks to Graham Bessellieu for editing this podcast and Mia Aiyana for producing its transcript.Timestamps(00:12) - Don't Be a Feminist (16:53) - Western Feminism Ignores Infanticide(19:59) - Why The Universe Hates Women(32:02) - Women's Tears Have Too Much Power(46:37) - Bryan Performs Standup Comedy!(51:09) - Affirmative Action is Philanthropic Propaganda(54:12) - Peer-effects as the Only Real Education(58:46) - The Idiocy of Student Loan Forgiveness(1:08:49) - Why Society is Becoming Mentally Ill(1:11:49) - Open Borders & the Ultra-long Term(1:15:37) - Why Cowen's Talent Scouting Strategy is Ludicrous(1:22:11) - Surprising Immigration Victories(1:37:26) - The Most Successful Revolutions(1:55:34) - Anarcho-Capitalism is the Ultimate Government(1:57:00) - Billionaires Deserve their WealthTranscriptDwarkesh PatelToday, I have the great honor of interviewing Bryan Caplan again for the third time. Bryan, thanks so much for coming on the podcast. Bryan CaplanI've got the great honor of being interviewed by you, Dwarkesh. You're one of my favorite people in the world!Don't Be a FeministDwarkesh PatelIt's a greater pleasure every time (for me at least). So let's talk about your book, Don't Be a Feminist. Is there any margin of representation of women in leadership roles at which you think there should be introduced bias to make sure more women get in, even if the original ratio is not because of bias?Bryan CaplanNo, I believe in meritocracy. I think it is a good system. It is one that almost everyone sees the intuitive appeal of, and it works. Just looking at a group and saying, “We need to get more members of Group X,” is the wrong way to approach it. Rather, you need to be focusing on, “Let's try to figure out the best way of getting the top quality people here.”Dwarkesh PatelIf there's an astounding ratio of men in certain positions, could that potentially have an impact on the company's ability to do business well? Perhaps the company could just care about increasing the ratio for that reason alone. Bryan CaplanRight. I mean, one can imagine that! I think in our culture, it really goes the other way. People are more likely to be trying to get rid of men, despite the fact that the men are delivering value. If you really pushed me into starting to think, “Suppose you're running a bar, would you have ladies' night?” well yeah, I would have ladies' night in a bar because that actually works, and it's good business! However, if what you're doing is trying to actually get correct answers to things, if you're trying to go and make something run effectively, and if you're just trying to make progress and you're trying to learn new things, the thing to focus on is what actually leads to knowledge and not focusing on just trying to get demographic representation. I think what we've seen is once you go down that route, it is a slippery slope. So besides defending meritocracy on its merits, I would actually also say that the slippery slope argument is not one that should be dismissed lightly. There's a lot of evidence that it does actually fit the facts. When you make an exception of that kind, it really does lead you to bad places. Dwarkesh PatelOkay. But changing topics a bit, I wonder if this gives you greater sympathy for immigration restrictionists because their argument is similar, that there's no natural shelling point for your keyhole solutions where you let tens of millions of people in, but you don't give them welfare or voting rights. There's a slippery slope when you let them in because, eventually, the civil rights argument is going to extend to them. There'll be adverse consequences that these keyhole solutions can't solve for.Bryan CaplanFirst of all, I would say maybe. That is one of the best arguments against keyhole solutions. I'm also guessing that a lot of your listeners have no idea what keyhole solutions are, Dwarkesh, so maybe we want to back up and explain that. Dwarkesh PatelGo for it. Sure.Bryan CaplanSo I have a totally unrelated book called Open Borders, the Science and Ethics of Immigration. One of the chapters goes over ways of dealing with complaints about immigration that fall short of stopping people from actually excluding or kicking out people that are already there. So just to back up a little bit further, most of the book talks about complaints about immigration–– saying that they're either totally wrong or overstated. But then I have another chapter saying, “Alright, fine, maybe you don't agree with that, but isn't there another way that we could deal with this?” So, for example, if you're worried about immigrants voting poorly, you could say, “Fine, we won't extend voting rights to immigrants or make them wait for a longer time period.” That's one where I would just say that the focal point of citizen versus noncitizen is one of the strongest ones. So I think that it actually is one that has a lot of stability. This line of, “Well, you're not a citizen, therefore…” really does have a lot of intuitive appeal. Although, yes, I do think that keyhole solutions would probably not work multi-generationally, so to go and say this is a keyhole solution where you're not a citizen, your kids are not citizens, and their kids after them are not citizens, that's one that I think would be hard to maintain. However, again, at the same time, the problems people are worried about, if they ever were severe, are also getting diluted over time. So I wouldn't worry about it so much. That is one of the very best objections to keyhole solutions that I know of.Dwarkesh PatelOkay, so going back to feminism. Over time, doesn't feminism naturally become true? One of the things you can say is that the way that society is unfair to men includes how they fight in wars or do difficult and dangerous jobs, but society, over time, becomes more peaceful (or at least has in our timeline), and the difficult jobs get automated. At the same time, the gains for people who are at the very peak of any discipline keep going up fairly, but the implication still is that if men are overrepresented there, even for biological reasons, then the relative gains that they get go up, right? So over time, feminism just becomes more true, not because society necessarily discriminated against women, but just because of the trends in technology. Bryan CaplanOnce again, I feel like we should just back up a little bit. What is feminism anyway, because if we don't know what that is, then it's very hard to talk about whether it's becoming more true over time. In my book, I begin with some popular dictionary definitions that just say feminism is the theory that women should be political, social, economic, and cultural equals of men. I say that this is a terrible definition, which violates normal usage. Why? Well, we actually have public opinion data on, first of all, whether people are or are not feminists, and second of all, what they believe about the political, social, economic, and cultural equality of women. And guess what? An overwhelming majority of people that say they are not feminists still agree with the equality of women in all those mentions, which really makes you realize that really can't be the definition of feminism. That would be like saying feminism is the theory that the sky is blue.Well, feminists do believe the sky is blue, but that isn't what distinguishes feminists from other people. So what distinguishes them? What I say is that the really distinguishing view of feminism is that society treats women less fairly than men. The view is that society treats women less fairly than men or treats men more fairly than women. This definition fits actual usage. It would be very strange for someone to say, “I'm a feminist, but I think that men get terrible treatment in our society, and women are treated like goddesses.” Then you say, “Well, then you're not really a feminist, are you?” That doesn't make sense. On the other hand, for someone to say, “I am not a feminist, but God, we treat women so terribly, we're awful.” That, again, just would not fit. So I'm not saying this is the one true definition, but rather that it is much closer to what people actually mean by feminism than what dictionaries say. So to be fair, every now and then, there'll be a better definition. I think the Wikipedia definition in the second sentence adds that it also has the view that women are treated very unfairly. Dwarkesh PatelIs another way of defining feminism just that we should raise the status of women? That's slightly different from the fairness issue because if you think of a feminist historian, maybe their contention is not that women were treated unfairly in the past. Maybe they just want to raise the status of women in the past who are underrepresented. If you think of somebody today who wants to, let's say, raise the status of Asians in our society, and they want to acknowledge the great things that Asians are doing in our society, then maybe their contention is not even that Asians are treated unfairly. They just want to raise their status. So what would you think of that definition?Bryan CaplanSo first of all, it could be, but I don't think so. Here's what I think. There could be a few people like that, but that's not what the word means in normal use. If someone were to say, “Women are treated absolutely fantastically, way better than men, and I want it to get even higher.” You say, hmm. Well, that's not what I think. Somebody might say, “Well, I can still be a feminist and think that,” okay, but that's not what the word actually means. It's not the typical view of people who call themselves feminists. The typical view is precisely that women are treated very unfairly. They want to raise that and alleviate that in a way that's almost by definition. If you think that someone's being treated unfairly, then to say, “I think they're being really unfair, but I think it's great that it's unfair.” It's almost self-contradictory. Dwarkesh PatelI guess I was making a slightly different point, which is not even that these people don't want to raise the status (the actual living standards of women) in some way. It's just that they want to raise the rhetorical status.Bryan CaplanYes, but again, if someone were to say, “I think that women are treated absolutely fantastically in society, way better than men, who we treat like dogs. But I also want women's status to be even higher than it already is.” That would be something where you could argue that “Well, that person may still be a feminist, but that is not what the word means.” Because hardly anyone who calls themselves a feminist believes that weird thing that you're talking about. Dwarkesh PatelLet me make an analogy. Let's say you or I are libertarians, right? And then we think we should raise the status of billionaires. Now, it's not like we think society mistreats billionaires. They're pretty fine, but we think their status should be even higher.Bryan CaplanYeah, I mean, this just goes to the definition. In order to find out whether a definition is correct, you just have to think, “Well, how is the word commonly used?” Logically speaking, it's possible to have a different view or two things that are compatible. The whole idea of a definition is that, ideally, you're trying to find necessary and sufficient conditions such that everybody who satisfies the conditions falls under the category and that everybody who doesn't satisfy the conditions doesn't. In ordinary language, of course, it's notoriously hard to really do that. Defining a table is actually quite difficult in a necessary and sufficient-condition sense, but we can still say, “Well, a table is not by definition something that people sit on, right?” Someone could say, “Well, I suppose you could sit on a table, but that's not the definition in ordinary use in any language of which I'm aware.”But why don't we actually go back to your real question. Which was..Dwarkesh PatelOverall, the left tail of society is being compressed, and the right tail is being expanded. Does feminism become more true over time?Bryan CaplanThe answer is that we really need to look at all of the main measures to get an idea of this. With some of the ones that you're talking about, it does make more sense. As jobs become less physically dangerous, then at least you might say that things are less unfair to men. Although in the book, what I say is that even that is a bit more superficially complicated, at least on the surface. The immediate reaction is that society's less fair to men because they do the most dangerous jobs. Although I also say, “Yeah, but they get monetary compensation for that.” So, all things considered, you probably shouldn't think of it as unfair. It's something where it's reasonable to say, “Hey, wait a second, how come men are the ones that are enduring 90 percent of the workplace deaths” and say, “Well, because they're getting 90 percent of the combat pay.” Broadly construed it's not mostly actual for combat. So anyway, that's one area where you should be careful. But I can see the possibility there. I do have a section in the book where I go over what's happening over time. What I'll say is, well, one big thing that's happened over time is that people have become very hyper-concerned with the mistreatment of women, which means that feminism is becoming less true as a result because when people are really hyper-concerned that they might be unfair to someone, they are even less likely to be unfair to them. So I think that's one thing where society where feminisms become less true over time. Another area that I talk about and which I think really does tip the scales, although again, you really need to go through the book because I do try to work through a lot of different margins…I think the one that really does settle it against feminism in today's age is precisely the level of false feminist accusations about unfairness. When we go over all the objective measures, then you say, well, it's close to a wash in terms of which gender is treated more or less fairly overall. But then you realize, “Yes, but there's one gender that has to endure a whole lot of grossly exaggerated hyperbolic accusations and unfairness and another gender that gets to make those accusations.” The gender that has to endure the unfair accusations is men, and the gender that gets to make them is women. Obviously, not all women make them, and not all men receive them. But still, if we're talking about the average fairness of the treatment of men and women or society, I say that this climate of false accusation and intimidation is what really tips it. It didn't have to be this way, Dwarkesh! [laughs] We could have just had conditions change without a whole lot of flinging of wildly inaccurate accusations, but that's not the world we're in. Dwarkesh PatelWhen would you say was the flipping point? Was there a particular decade that you thought “unbalanced things are equal now?”Bryan CaplanYeah. So one of the things I say in the book is that there are a bunch of ways where you can say that women were treated less fairly in earlier decades, but there are aspects that are probably more important overall where women are treated worse now. The main one is paternal support for children. In 1940, the odds that you could count on the biological father of your children to help you to raise them was maybe 90%. Now it's probably more like 60%, 70%. So that's one of the main ways that I say that women probably are treated less fairly than men. And the unfairness has gotten worse over time. Again, just understand this is not the kind of book that most people are used to where someone argues like a lawyer and they just say, look, I've got 20 arguments for why I'm right. And everyone who disagrees with me is stupid and doesn't have a leg to stand on. This is the kind of book that I liked to write where I really say, let's just calm down and just go through every issue separately, weigh each one on its merits. There are a bunch of points where someone could say, “Why do you concede that? That makes your argument weaker.” Well, I concede it because it's true! Then in the end, I have my overall judgment. I will just say that there are a number of books that are written in this terrible modern style of lawyerly reasoning, where you basically have a thesis that you just try to defend in every possible way. I don't write books like that. I try to write books that are honest and self-reflective, and where if there's some weakness in what I'm saying, I don't just acknowledge it if someone points it out; I try to be the first person to reveal it so that people feel like they can trust me. It's my own conscience. I don't feel right when I say something not really quite right. I feel like I should've always said the other thing. So I try to just write with candor. Dwarkesh PatelNow, would you say that feminism in the United States is overcorrected but that it's still true in the global sense? In the way that, on average, across the world, women are treated more unfairly than men. Because if that's the case, then if the US is at the center of global feminism, then, of course, they're going to overcorrect here, but overall they're making the world a better place. Bryan CaplanSo that is a much better argument. I would say that if we think about most areas of Europe, then I think that it's very similar to what's going on in the US. In the book, I do go over this especially. I start with Saudi Arabia, where it's really obvious what's going on and how poorly women are treated. But then I go over to India and China and just think about plausible rates of female infanticide. I think it is very likely that overall the treatment of women in India and China is more unfair than that of men. In Saudi Arabia, I'm almost sure that it is. In terms of “Is the US providing a useful corrective for the world while messing up things in the US?” It's possible. I think the problem is that it does discredit a lot of the reasonable points because the US just doesn't focus on the really big issues. The amount of time that American feminists spend on female infanticide in China and India… I don't think it would even be 1% of the rhetoric. It's just not something that they care about.So I would say that there's more harm being done by the sheer distraction of putting so much emphasis upon small, exaggerated, or reverse problems that bother feminists in the first world while ignoring and indirectly causing people to forget or neglect actual serious problems in some other countries. Positively shifting the Overton WindowWestern Feminism Ignores InfanticideDwarkesh PatelBut let me apply the argument you make in Open Borders that you can effect change by shifting the Overton window. So advocating for open borders just shifts immigration policy slightly towards the open end. Can American feminists make the same point that through making the crazy arguments they make in America, they're making Saudi Arabia more liberal for women? Bryan CaplanI would say that when the arguments are crazy, then it's not clear that shifting the Overton window actually happens. That may be where you discredit the other view. In particular, I think what I say in that part of the book is that people generally confuse being radical with being unfriendly. And most of the harm that is done to radical causes is due to the unfriendliness rather than the radicalism. So in that case, I would say that feminism has a definite friendliness problem. It is not a movement that goes out of its way to go and make other people feel like they are respected, where even if you disagree with me, I want to be your friend and listen to what you have to say, and maybe we could go and come to some understanding. I think it is a movement where the main emotional tenure of the elites is, “We are totally right, and anyone who disagrees had better watch out.” So I think that there is a discrediting of it. The other thing is just that I think there's too much cultural separation between the feminist movement as we know it and places like China and India, where I just don't see the attitude of being really angry about exaggerated or false complaints about unfair treatment of women in the United States is going to do anything for infanticide in India. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dwarkesh. Do you see much influence of Western feminism on infanticide in India?Dwarkesh PatelI don't know, but maybe yes. More generally, one of the common arguments that libertarians make about India and its elites is, “Oh, all of India's elites go study in Oxford or something, and they learn about the regulations the West is adopting that make no sense for a country with $2,000 GDP per capita.” I feel like some of the things could be true of feminism where all these Indian elites go to American universities and UK universities where they learn about radical feminism, and they go back, and they adopt some of these things.Bryan CaplanYes, although you might remember what Alex Tabarrok says about these very things. You can go to India and have people pushing paper straws on you, and yet the streets are still totally covered in trash. In fact, the pushing of the paper straws probably actually distracts people from the much more serious problem of the horrible trash, right? Again, I don't know enough about India to speak with any confidence here, but if you go and learn radical feminism in Western universities, come back to India and start complaining about how we need to have more female CEOs in a country where you have millions of female infanticides per year, I think it probably is like the paper straws problem where you are so focused on a trivial problem that maybe is not only a problem, is not even a problem at all. At the same time, that anger really blinds you to an actual, really serious problem that's going on. But you know India better than me, I could be wrong. Why The Universe Hates WomenDwarkesh PatelI believe rape within a marriage is still legal in India and is still not recognized. Maybe it was just recently changed. Let's say this is an interview, and a feminist says, “Oh my gosh, okay Bryan, maybe you're right that society as a whole doesn't mistreat women, but maybe the cosmos mistreats women.” So women are forced to have children. All of these things combined make women's lives worse on average than men's lives. It's not because society mistreats them, but in some sense, there's still unfairness geared toward women. What do you make of this argument?Bryan CaplanSo unfairness, where there's no human being that does it, seems like a very strange idea to me. Just from the get-go, well, so who was unfair to you? “The universe is unfair.” Then I mean, the correct term there is unfortunate, not unfair. So that aside, I would say it's a really interesting question. Who actually has better lives just as a matter of biological endowments, men or women? I mean, in terms of demonstrated preference, I think the overwhelming result is that most people just want to remain in whatever gender they're born in. So this is not actually transgenderism. This is like a genie wish. If you could change your gender just with a wish, costlessly, perfectly, I think a very large majority of people would still want to stay with whatever gender they have because it's part of their identity. It's some kind of endowment effect, status quo bias, or whatever. But then if you say, “Okay, yeah, right, fine. Like you, like you just want to stay whatever you were because that's your identity, but if you could put that aside, what would you want to be?” It's a tough question. You can say, “Well, women have a harder personality to deal with because of higher neuroticism, and they've also got higher agreeableness.” But that gives them some other advantages in terms of getting along with other people. For example, men's disagreeableness makes it hard for men to just bite their tongues and shut up when someone's saying something they don't like. I think that is easier for women to do. You may have noticed that having to shut up and bite your tongue while someone around you says something stupid you don't like is actually a big part of life. That is one thing. Now, in terms of things that I feel that I would get out of being a woman, just being able to have as many kids as I wanted would matter a lot to me. So I only have four kids right now. If it were totally up to me, I would have had more kids. I think, as a woman, it would have been easy to do. [laughs] So again, you know, there is the issue. How are you going to find a guy that wants to have a lot of kids? This is one where I've looked at the data on family size and what determines it. While both men and women seem to have a say on family size, it just looks like women's traits have a much larger effect. Men are more likely to say, “OK, fine, whatever. We'll do what you want to do on family size.” Whereas women seem to have much more pronounced preferences, which they then tend to get. I think that if I were a woman, I could have had more kids, and it would have been easier for me to do it. That would be something that matters to me. It's not something that matters to everybody, but that's something there. Again, there is just the nice fact of people caring about your suffering. In the book, I do talk about the ethos of women and children first, which is very pronounced. It's a modern society where we can simultaneously have something like “women and children first”, but then also have a lot of rhetoric about how people don't care about women. It's like, “Hmm, that's not right.”Dwarkesh PatelWhat do you think of this theory that maybe society cares a lot more about women suffering, but it sympathizes a lot more with men's success? If you think of a default character in a movie or a novel, at least for me, then the default is a man. Then maybe there's some victim that defaults as a woman. But I'd rather be the sympathy of some sort of success than get it for suffering.Bryan CaplanI mean, do you need sympathy for success? Or do you want admiration? I mean, I guess what I would say is that everybody's got suffering, and only a small share of people have any notable success. If all that you knew was you're going to be a man or woman, I would say, “Well, gee, if I'm a woman, then people will sympathize with my suffering, which is almost definitely coming because that's the human condition.” Whereas to have admiration for your success is something where it just affects a much smaller number of people. I know that hanging out in Austin among hyper-successful people may be biasing your sample a bit, but I do think it's believable that men get more unmitigated admiration for their success. Of course, there are also differences in the mating opportunities that you get for being a successful man versus a successful woman. So that is there too, but again, this is something that really is only relevant for a very small share of the population.But then the argument is, “Well, that small share of the population matters so much in terms of the story we tell ourselves about our civilization or just in terms of who controls more resources overall.” So if being a woman billionaire is harder, maybe for biological reasons, maybe for the reasons of our society, you can say, “Well, that only affects a small percentage of women in society.” But on the other hand, billionaires matter a lot.In terms of what life is like for most people, the main way they matter is that billionaires just provide awesome stuff. In terms of the stories that people tell, it's true that if you go and look at most classic movies or novels, the main characters are male. Even in cartoons, actually, the main characters traditionally have been male. But on the other hand, that's just fiction. In terms of daily life. I'd rather have people be really concerned about me in real life but have my perspective underrepresented stories than the other way around. Dwarkesh PatelSo what do you make of the argument that employers hold defects in women's personalities much more against them than they hold defects in men's personalities? I think Tyler cited some of this research in his new book on talent that being too agreeable or being too aggressive harms women more than it harms men. Bryan CaplanI would say that it's complicated in terms of willingness to fire. I think employers are much more willing to fire men. For defects and for insubordination. Another thing on the list is a small one, but I think that it is indicative of a broader trend. For people working at workplaces with dress codes, men are much more likely to be dinged on dress code violations than women because for men, there's a definite thing men are supposed to do. If you're not doing it, you are in violation. For women, on the other hand, it's like, “Well, gee, I mean, it seems kind of like that's not what you should be wearing, but I don't want to be the person that says anything about it. And who knows? Who am I to judge what a woman ought to be wearing on the job?” But a man, on the other hand, needs to be wearing a suit in 110-degree weather. What was the high this summer over in Austin? [laughter] Dwarkesh PatelWhy do you think that women have gotten less happy since the sixties in America?Bryan CaplanRight. So the main thing I know about this is Stevenson and Wolfer's research on this. The main thing to remember is the magnitude. If I remember correctly, they find that in the sixties, women had about a two percentage point advantage relative to men in terms of their odds of saying they're very happy. 25% of men said they were very happy, then 27% of women in the sixties said that they were very happy. Whereas now, it seems like women have a two percentage point deficit relative to men. So now, if 25% of men say they're very happy, then 23% of women say they're very happy. It's always important in these papers to look at those magnitudes because the media coverage is going to say, “Oh, women are miserable now.” It's not that women are miserable now! We're talking about a two-percentage point difference. It's a data set large enough for this to actually be meaningful, but we do want to keep it in perspective in terms of what's really going on. The paper probably actually goes over a bunch of stories and says the obvious ones are all wrong. That would be what Justin Wolfersustin especially would normally do. I think he's usually right that simple stories about something like this are wrong. In terms of what I would pursue if I read through the paper and reminded myself of what they found and then said, “Okay, well, what will work?” I think I would, on one end, focus on single moms because they'll become much more common, and their lives really are hard. A rise in single motherhood is coming. I would guess that's one important part of it. Then, I would also be wondering how much of it is actual feminism telling women that they should be unhappy because the world is unfair and that causes unhappiness. Again, I'm not saying that these are right. It's plausible to me. The main thing I would say about feminism causing unhappiness in the adherents is that it probably doesn't matter most for most self-identified feminists because most people just are not that intellectual and they don't think about their ideas very often. So it's one thing to say, look, if you believe you're going to hell, you'll be unhappy. It's like, well, if you believe it once a year, does it make you unhappy? If you remember, “Oh yeah, once a year, I think I'm going to hell.” The rest of the time, you don't think it.On the other hand, the person who is always thinking, “I'm going to hell, I'm going to hell,” probably will be unhappy. So I think feminism is very likely to reduce the happiness of people who are feminist elites and take it really seriously, where they're talking about it all the time. That is likely to cause unhappiness. I'd be amazed if it didn't. But on the other hand, for the vast majority of people who say, “Yeah, I am a feminist. Moving on…” I don't think it's too likely to be messing up their lives. Dwarkesh PatelThat raises an interesting possibility. This is not my theory, but let's run with this. So feminism has actually gotten more true over time, but it's precisely because of feminism. Maybe it's made elite women more unhappy. As you said earlier, the amount of single mothers has gone up. Maybe part of that is the reason, and part of that is because of feminist trends in terms of family formation. Maybe women prefer to be at home caring for children on average more, but then feminism encourages them to have careers, which makes them less happy. So if you add all these things up, plus mentorship, which men are less likely to give because of #metoo. So add all these things up, maybe they're the result of feminism, but they still make feminism more right. Would you agree with that?Bryan CaplanYeah. If we go back to this definition of feminism and this theory that our society treats women less fairly than men, then if the story is that women have made a lot of false accusations against men and then men have responded by changing their behavior, that would seem to be a strange example of saying the society is treating women less fairly than men. It would seem to be a case that society is treating men unfairly, and this is having some negative side effects for women as well. But it's one where if you really were trying to draw the line… Well actually, here's actually one of the weaknesses of the definition that I proposed. So foot binding in China. From my understanding, the main drivers of foot binding in China were women. So women are binding feet, and they're also telling their daughters they have to have their feet bound. Men seemed to care less, actually, it was more of an intra-female abuse. This is one where you could say that in China, women are treated less fairly than men, even though the perpetrators are women. I think that does actually make sense. I would just say that the definition that we use in our society isn't really calibrated to deal with that kind of thing. When it comes to what the right way to describe it would be, it just gets a bit confusing. It's useful just to say, all right, well, if women are mistreating women and that's what's making women's lives hard, how do we count that? I think I would just say that we don't have any really good way of counting it, and might be useful to just come up with a new word to describe this kind of thing. Women's Tears Have Too Much PowerDwarkesh PatelWhat do you make of Hanania's argument that women's tears win in the marketplace of ideas? Bryan CaplanYeah. So we might want to back up a little bit and explain what the argument is. So Richard Hanania on his substack has a very famous essay where he points out that in fiction, when there is a mob of angry college students, it's very demographically diverse. But when you look at actual footage, it seems like women are highly overrepresented. He generalizes this by saying that a lot of what's going on in terms of cancel culture and related problems is that women are the main ones that get angry about these things, and people don't know what to do about it. So he, if I remember correctly, says that a man can, in a way, actually enjoy an argument with another man. Even if you lose or even if it's a physical fight, he says, you can sort of feel invigorated by it. We got through this. We resolved something. Whereas no guy feels this way about an argument with his wife. “What do I need to do in order for this argument to end as soon as possible” would be a more normal reaction. This sort of generalizes to the majority of social arguments, specifically ones that involve someone being offended or angry, or hurt. He says a lot of what's going on is that it is mainly women that are presenting these complaints and that it's hard to deal with it because men don't want to argue with angry women. It just makes them feel bad. It's sort of a no-win situation. So anyway, that is Hanania's argument. Overall, it seemed pretty plausible to me. I haven't thought about it that much more, but it's one that does seem to make a fair bit of sense in terms of just what I'm writing about feminism. You know, one really striking thing is just how one-sided this conversation is. It is a conversation where women have complaints, and men mostly just listen in silence. Ofcourse, men will sometimes complain amongst each other when women aren't around. It's not a real dialogue where women have complaints about men, and then men are very eager to say, “Oh, but I have something I would like to say in rebuttal to that.” A lot of it is what he calls “women's tears.” It's sadness, but mingled with or supported by intimidation: “If you don't give me what I want, if you don't pretend that you agree with me, I will be very angry, and I will be fairly sad.” So you should be afraid. I think a lot of what's probably going on with the rhetorical dominance of feminism, is that people are just afraid to argue against it because, in a way, it does sort of violate the women and children first ethos. If women complain about something, you aren't supposed to go and say, “I disagree. Your complaints are unjustified.” You're supposed to say, “Look, what can I do to make it better?” Dwarkesh PatelBut that seems like a good description of race issues and class issues as well. Bryan CaplanI mean, the main difference there is that there are a lot of people who have a lot more firsthand experience of intergender relations, and they spend a lot more time in intergender relations than they spend in all of the other ones. So I mean, the dynamic is probably pretty similar, but in terms of the really negative firsthand experience that men have, Hanania probably is right about that. Then that generalizes to bigger issues. Dwarkesh PatelYou have an essay about endogenous sexism. Could this just not be the cause of society being unfair to a woman? We start off with men being in power, they get sexist just because they're around other men and they like them more. So then, the starting position matters a lot, even if men aren't trying to be sexist. Bryan CaplanSo let me just back up and explain the argument. The argument says to imagine that in reality, men and women are equally good in absolutely every way, but people are more likely to have close friends with their own gender, (which is totally true). So if I remember the essay, I think that for close male friends, the male-to-female ratio was 6:1, and for women, it was 4:1. So most people's close friends are of the same gender. When you meet these people, and they're your close friends, you know them really well. Furthermore, because you have handpicked them, you're going to think well of them. So then the question is, “What about people of the opposite gender? What will your interaction with them be like?” What I point out is that a lot of the opposite gender you hang out with will be the spouses and partners of your friends. On average, you're going to think worse of them because you didn't pick them. Basically, there are two filters there: I like you because you're my friend, and I put up with your partner because that person is your partner. So this means that the women that men are around are going to be the partners of their friends. They're not going to like them less and think less of them than they think of their friends. On the other hand, the partners of women's friends will be men, and women will get to know them and say, “Wow, they're not that great. They're at least kind of disappointing relative to my same-gender friends.” So anyway, this is an argument about how the illusion of your own gender being superior could arise. Now, as to whether this is actually the right story, I leave that open. This was just more of a thought experiment to understand what could happen here. Could this actually explain the unfair treatment of women in society? Especially if we start off with men being the gatekeepers for most of the business world? It's totally plausible that it could. That's why we really want to go to the data and see what we actually find. In the data I know of, the evidence of women earning less money than men while doing the same job is quite low. So there's very little gender disparity in earnings once you make the obvious statistical adjustments for being in the same occupation. Again, the main area that probably actually has gotten worse for women is mentoring. Mentoring is partly based on friendship. I like this person. I like working with them. So I will go and help them to go and acquire more human capital on the job. This is one that feminism has visibly messed up, and many feminists will, in a strange way, admit that they have done it while not taking responsibility for the harm. I've got an essay on that in the book as well.Looking at the evidence, it is totally standard now for male managers to admit that they are reluctant to mentor female employees because they're so worried. When I go and track down a bunch of feminist reactions to this, they basically just say, “I can't believe how horrible these guys are.” But it's like, look, you're asking them for a favor to get mentorship. They're scared. If someone's scared, do you really want to yell at them more and offer more mostly empty threats? It's really hard to scare someone into doing something this informal, so you really do need to win them over. Dwarkesh PatelTactically, that might be correct, but it seems to just be a matter of “Is their argument justified?” I can see why they'd be frustrated. Obviously, you want to point out when there's a sexual harassment allegation, and that may have the effect of less mentorship. Bryan CaplanWell, is it obvious that you want to point that out? Part of what I'm saying is that there are different perceptions here. There are differences of opinion. If you want to get along with people, a lot of it is saying, “How does it seem from the other person's point of view?” Obviously, do not assume that the most hypersensitive person is correct. So much of the problem with mentorship comes down to hypersensitivity. I've got another piece in the book where I talk about misunderstandings and how we have so much lost sight of this very possibility. When there's a conflict between two people, who's right and who's wrong? Ofcourse, it could be that one person is the conscious malefactor and the other person is an obvious victim that no one could deny. That does happen sometimes. But much more often in the real world, there's a misunderstanding where each person, because of the imperfection of the human mind, has the inability to go and get inside another person's head. To each person, it seems like they're in the right and the other person is in the wrong, and one of the most helpful ways for people to get along with each other is to realize that this is the norm. Most conflicts are caused by misunderstandings, not by deliberate wrongdoing. This is the way the people who keep their friends keep their friends. If any time there's a conflict with a friend, you assume that you're right and your friend is in the wrong, and you demand an immediate abject apology, you're going to be losing friends left and right. It is a foolish person who does that. Friendship is more important than any particular issue. This is not only my personal view, it is the advice that I give to everyone listening. Keep your friends, bend over backward in order to keep your friends, and realize that most conflicts are caused by misunderstandings. It's not the other person is going out of their way to hurt you. They probably don't see it that way. If you just insist, “I'm right, I demand a full apology and admission of your wrongdoing,” you're probably going to be losing friends, and that's a bad idea. The same thing I think is going on in workplaces where there is an ideology saying that we should take the side of the most hypersensitive person. This is not a good approach for human beings to get along with each other.Dwarkesh PatelYeah. That's very wise. What do you make the argument that a lot of these professions that are dominated by men are not intrinsically things that must appeal to men, but the way that they are taught or advertised is very conducive to what males find interesting? So take computer science, for example; there are claims that you could teach that or economics in a way that focuses on the implications on people from those practices rather than just focusing on the abstractions or the “thing-focused stuff.” So the argument is these things shouldn't be inherently interesting to men. It's just in the way they are taught. Bryan CaplanThe word inherently is so overused. It's one where you say, "Well, are you saying that inherently X?” Then someone says, “Well, not inherently X, just you'd have to bend over backward and move heaven and earth for it not to be. So I guess it's not really inherent.” That is a lot of what is worth pointing out. So if you're going to put the standard to that level, then it's going to be hard to find differences. You could say, “There's absolutely no way under the sun to go and teach math in a less male way.” On the other hand, maybe we should ask, “Is it reasonable to expect the whole world to revolve around making every subject equally appealing to men and women?” That's an unreasonable demand. If there's a subject like math that is male-dominated, the reasonable thing is to say, “Well, if you want to get in on that, you're going to need to go and become simpatico with the mindset of the people that are already there and then push the margin.” You can say that it's “so unfair that male ways of doing math are dominant.” Or maybe you could say that it's unfair for someone who's just shown up to demand that an entire discipline change its way of doing things to make you feel better about it. Obviously, there are large areas that are very female-dominated, and there's no pressure on women to go and change the way that flower arranging is done, or cooking in order to make it more welcoming to men.So this is one where if you had a really high bar for how things are fair, then unless the rigorous conditions are met, you're going to see a lot of unfairness in the world. Although even then, as long as you have an equally high bar for both men and women, I don't think it's going to make feminism any more true by my definition. I also just say, I think these really high bars are unreasonable. If a friend had these bars of standards saying, “Look, why is it that when we meet for food, we have to go and meet at standard hours of breakfast, lunch, and dinner? I actually like meeting in the middle of the night. Why can't we have half of the time be my way?” You respond, “Well yeah, but you're only one person, so why should I change?” It depends upon what subfield you're in as well. There are actually groups of people really like hanging out in the middle of the night, so if you ask, “Why is it we always have to meet in the middle of the night? Why can't we do it my way?” You are entering into a subculture that works this way. You could demand that we totally change our way of being to accommodate you, but it just seems like an unreasonable imposition on the people who are already here. Now, when you sort of go through the list of different things that people think of as making something a male or a not-male field, sometimes people will treat things like acting like there's an objectively correct answer as a male trait. If that's a male trait, then we need to keep that trait because that is vital to really any field where there are right and wrong answers. I mean, that's an area where I am very tempted rhetorically to say, “It's just so sexist to say that it's male to think that things are right and wrong. I think that is a trait of both genders”. In a way, I end the essay stating, “Yes, these are not male; not only do they not make a male monopoly, but they are also not uniquely male virtues. They are virtues that can and should be enjoyed by all human beings.” At the same time, you could ask whether virtues are equally represented by both genders and well, that's an empirical question. We have to look at that. Bryan Performs Standup Comedy!Dwarkesh PatelWe're shifting subjects. You recently performed at the Comedy Cellar. How was that experience? Bryan CaplanYeah, that was super fun and a big challenge! I am a professional public speaker. Standup comedy is professional public speaking. I was curious about how much transfer of learning there would be. How many of the things that I know as a regular public speaker can I take with me to do standup comedy? I'm also just a big fan of standup comedy– if you know me personally, I just find life constantly funny. Dwarkesh PatelYes, I can confirm that. You're a very pleasant person to be around. Bryan CaplanLife is funny to me. I like pointing out funny things. I like using my imagination. A lot of comedy is just imagination and saying, look, “Imagine that was the opposite way. What would that be like?” Well, actually, just to back up again: during COVID, I did just create a wiki of comedy ideas just on the idea that maybe one day I'll go and do standup comedy. Comedy Cellar actually has a podcast, kind of like Joe Rogan, where comedians go and talk about serious issues. I was invited to that, and as a result, I was able to talk my way into getting to perform on the actual live stage of the biggest comedy club in New York. The main thing I could say about my performance is that it was me and nine professional comedians, and I don't think I was obviously the worst person. So that felt pretty good.Dwarkesh PatelIt was a pretty good performance.Bryan CaplanI felt good about it! There were some main differences that I realized between the kind of public speaking I was used to doing and what I actually did there. One is the importance of memorizing the script. It just looks a lot worse if you're reading off a note. Normally I have some basic notes, and then I ad-lib. I don't memorize. The only time I have a script is if I have a very time-constrained debate, then I'd normally write an opening statement, but otherwise, I don't. The thing with comedy is it depends so heavily upon exact word choice. You could go and put the same sentence into Google Translate and then back-translate it and get another sentence that is synonymous but isn't funny at all. That was something that I was very mindful of. Then obviously, there are things like timing and being able to read an audience (which I'm more used to). That was what was so hard during COVID–– not being able to look at the faces of a live audience. I can see their eyes, but I can't tell their emotions or reactions to their eyes. I don't know whether I should talk more or less about something. I don't know whether they're angry or annoyed or curious or bored. So these are all things that I would normally be adjusting my talk for in normal public speaking. But with comedy, it's a bit hard to do. What successful comedians actually do is they try it in a bunch of different ways, and then they remember which ways work and which ones don't. Then they just keep tweaking it, so finally, when they do the Netflix special, they have basically done A/B testing on a hundred different audiences, and then it sounds great–– but the first time? Not that funny. Dwarkesh PatelIt didn't occur to me until you mentioned it, but it makes a lot of sense that there are transfers of learning there in both disciplines. There are a lot of hypotheticals, non-extra events, and putting things in strange situations to see what the result is…Bryan CaplanA lot of it is just not having stage fright. So I probably had just a tiny bit of stage fright at the Comedy Cellar, which normally I would have basically zero, but there it was a little bit different because it's like, “Am I going to forget something?” I actually have a joke in the set about how nothing is scarier than staying silent while thousands of people stare at you. So that was a self-referential joke that I worked in there.Dwarkesh PatelI can't remember if it was Robin Hanson who said this, but didn't he have a theory about how the reason we have stage fright is because somehow, you're showing dominance or status, and you don't want to do that if you're not actually the most confident. Bryan CaplanYou're making a bid for status. In the ancestral environment, we're in small groups of 20-40 people. If you go and want to speak, you're saying, “I'm one of the most important people in this band here.” If you're not, or if there are a lot of people voicing that that guy is not important, then who knows? They might shove you off the cliff the next time they get a chance. So yeah, watch out. Affirmative Action is Philanthropic PropagandaDwarkesh PatelI wonder if this explains the cringe emotion. When somebody makes a bid for status, and it's not deserved. Okay, I want to talk about discrimination. So as you know, there's a Supreme court case about Harvard and affirmative action. You might also know that a lot of companies have filed a brief in favor of Harvard, saying that affirmative action is necessary for them to hire diverse work for ourselves, including Apple, Lyft, General Motors. So what is the explanation for corporations wanting to extend affirmative action? Or are they just saying this, but they don't want it? Bryan CaplanIf those individual corporations could press a button that would immunize them from all employment lawsuits, I think they would press it. When you look at their behavior, they don't just give in whenever they get sued. They have a normal team of lawyers that try to minimize the damage to the company and pay as little as possible to make the problem go away. So I think really what's going on is public relations. They are trying to be on that team. As to whether it's public relations vis a vis their consumers or public relations vis a vis other people in the executive boardroom is an interesting question. I think these days, it probably is more of the latter. Although even under Reagan, there were a bunch of major corporations that did make a similar statement saying that they wanted affirmative action to continue. I think that the real story is that they want to get the status of saying, “we are really in favor of this. We love this stuff.” But at the same time, if it just went away, they wouldn't voluntarily adopt a policy where they give you a right to go and sue them for mistreatment.I think there would still be a lot of propaganda. I mean, here's the general thing. You think about this as a species of corporate philanthropy sticking your neck out in favor of a broad social cause. Some people disagree and say that it's self-interest. They say, “Look, the odds that even Apple is going to change the Supreme Court's mind is super low.” So I don't think it's that. Basically, what they're doing is a kind of philanthropy. What's the deal with corporate philanthropy? The deal with corporate philanthropy is you are trying to go and, first of all, make the public like you, but also, you're trying to look good and jockey for influence within your own company. One really striking thing about corporate philanthropy is when you look closer, normally, they spend way more resources marketing the philanthropy and letting everyone know, “Oh, we did all this philanthropy!” Then they actually spend on philanthropy. So I had a friend who was a marketing person in charge of publicizing her company's philanthropy. They gave away about a thousand dollars a year to the Girl Scouts, and she had a hundred thousand dollars salary telling everyone about how great they were for giving this money to the Girl Scouts. So I think that's the real story. Get maximally cynical. I think without denying the fact that there are true believers now in corporate boardrooms who are pushing it past the point of profitability. The cost of philanthropy is just the production budget of the TV commercial. A rounding error. The donations are a rounding error, and then they go, “Hey, everyone, look at us. We're so freaking philanthropic!” Peer effects as the Only Real EducationDwarkesh PatelOkay. So this question is one that Tyler actually suggested I ask you. So in The Myth of the Rational Voter, you say that education makes you more pro-free market. Now, this may have changed in the meantime, but let's just say that's still true. If you're not really learning anything, why is education making you more free market? Bryan CaplanIt's particularly striking that even people who don't seem to take any economics classes are involved. I think that the best story is about peer effects. When you go to college, you're around other peers who though not pro-market, are less anti-market than the general population. The thing about peer effects is that they really are a double-edged sword from a social point of view. Think about this. Right now, if you are one of the 1% of non-Mormons that goes to Brigham Young University, what do you think the odds are that you'll convert to Mormonism? Dwarkesh PatelHigher than normal. Bryan CaplanYeah. I don't know the numbers, but I think it's pretty high. But suppose that Brigham Young let in all the non-Mormons. What would Brigham Young do for conversion to Mormonism? Probably very little. Furthermore, you realize, “Huh, well, what if those Mormons at Brigham Young were dispersed among a bunch of other schools where they were that were a minority?” Seems quite plausible. They'd be making a lot more converts over there. So if you achieve your peer effects by segregation (which is literally what college does, it takes one part of society and segregates it from another part of society physically when you're in school, and then there's social segregation caused by the fact that people want to hang out with other people in their own social circles, your own education levels, etc.), in that case, in terms of whether or not education actually makes society overall pro-free market, I think it's totally unclear because, basically, when people go to college, they make each other more pro-free market. At the same time, they remove the possibility of influencing people of other social classes who don't go to college, who probably then influence each other and make each other less free market. I think that's the most plausible story.Dwarkesh PatelWhat about the argument that the people who go to elite universities are people who are going to control things? If you can engineer a situation in which the peer effects in some particular direction are very strong at Harvard (maybe because the upper class is very liberal or woke), they make the underclass even more woke, and then it's a reinforcing cycle after every generation of people who come into college. Then that still matters a lot, even though presumably somebody becomes more right-wing once they don't go to Harvard because there are no peers there. But it doesn't matter. They're not going to be an elite, or it doesn't matter as much. Bryan CaplanIt could be, although what we've seen is that we now just have very big gaps between elite opinion and mass opinion. Of course, it is a democracy. If you want to run for office, that is a reason to go and say, “Yeah, what is the actual common view here? Not just the view that is common among elites.” However, I will say that this is a topic that deserves a lot more study. Now the other thing to question is, “Wouldn't there be peer effects even without college?” If elites didn't go to college and instead they went and did elite apprenticeships at top corporations instead, I think you'd still wind up getting a very similar elite subculture. I think that this kind of social segregation is very natural in every human society. Of course, you can see it under communism very strongly where it's like, “I don't want my kid going and playing with a kid whose parents aren't in the communist party.” So every society has this kind of thing. Now, if you push the dynamics enough…. let's put it this way. If you were the prophet of the Mormon religion, what would be the very best thing for you to do to maximize the spread of Mormonism? It is not at all clear to me that trying to get all Mormons to go bring them young is a good strategy.Dwarkesh PatelI wonder if there are nonlinear dynamics to this. Bryan CaplanYeah. Well, there's gotta be, right? But as soon as you're talking about nonlinear dynamics, those are truly hard to understand. So I would just say to keep a much more open mind about this, and if anyone is listening and wants to do research on this, that sounds cool, I'll read it. Dwarkesh PatelRight. I remember you saying that one of the things you're trying to do with your books is influence the common view of elite opinion. So in that sense, there are elite subcultures in every society, but they're not the same elite subcultures, and therefore you might care very much about which particular subculture it is. Bryan CaplanNotice that that's one where I'm taking it as a given that we have the current segregation, and I'm going to try to go and take advantage of it. But if it were a question of if I could change the dial of what kind of segregation we have, then it's much less clear. The Idiocy of Student Loan Forgiveness Dwarkesh PatelStudent loan forgiveness. What is your reaction? Bryan CaplanOh, give me a freaking break. This is one subject where I think it's very hard to find almost any economist, no matter how left-wing and progressive, who really wants to stick their necks out and defend this garbage. Look, it's a regressive transfer. Why then? Why is it that someone who is left-wing or progressive would go and favor it? Maybe it's because people who have a lot of education and colleges are on our team, and we just want to go and help our team. Obviously, the forgiveness really means, “We're going to go and transfer the cost of this debt from the elites that actually ran up the bill to the general population.” Which includes, of course, a whole lot of people who did not go to college and did not get whatever premium that you got out of it. So there's that. In terms of efficiency, since the people have already gotten the education, you're not even “increasing the amount of education” if you really think that's good. The only margin that is really increasing education is how it's making people think, “Well, maybe there'll be another round of debt forgiveness later on, so I'll rack up more debt. The actual true price of education is less than it seems to be.” Although even there, you have to say, “Huh, well, but could people knowing this and the great willingness to borrow actually wind up increasing the ban for college and raising tuition further?” There's good evidence for that. Not 100%, but still a substantial degree.Again, just to back up–– that can be my catchphrase [laughter]. So I have a book called The Case Against Education, and my view is much more extreme than that of almost any normal economist who opposes student loan debt forgiveness. I think that the real problem with education is that we have way too much of it. Most of it is very socially wasteful. What we're doing with student loan forgiveness is we're basically going and transferring money to people who wasted a lot of social resources. The story that you are on the slippery slope to free college for all is, in a way, the best argument in favor of it. If you thought that free college for all was a good idea, then this puts us on that slippery slope. It's terrible because the real problem with education is that we just spend way too many years in school. It is generally
Tune in for a debate between Kshama Sawant and Eric Blanc, on the relevance of the Russian Revolution Today. Few political questions from the 20th century were so fraught as how to understand the Russian Revolution. Inspiring example of workers throwing off the Tsarist yoke and rattling the foundations of capitalism, or well-spring of tyranny and the antithesis of the benighted values of ‘The West'? Even among its most ardent defenders debates raged about what lessons to draw from the experience of the revolution, and how (or whether) to replicate the organizational model of Lenin and the Bolshevik Party. Though these very questions animated several generations of activists and organizers on the Left in countries across the globe, how relevant are they for today's burgeoning socialist movement in a modern democratic state? What lessons can we apply to the current world situation? Taking as their starting point the ground-breaking contributions of Eric Blanc's Revolutionary Social Democracy, Blanc and Seattle's socialist city councilwoman Kshama Sawant will debate exactly what we can learn from the Russian Revolution for our contemporary struggles. Blanc and Sawant will be joined by Bryan Koulouris of Socialist Alternative, for a debate moderated by Bhaskar Sunkara. Get a copy of Revolutionary Social Democracy from Haymarket: https://www.haymarketbooks.org/books/1907-revolutionary-social-democracy ———————————————————————————————— Speakers: Kshama Sawant is a Seattle city councilwoman and member of Socialist Alternative and the Democratic Socialists of America. Eric Blanc is the author of Revolutionary Social Democracy: Working-Class Politics Across the Russian Empire, 1882-1917, a member of Democratic Socialists of America, and an organizer with the Emergency Workplace Organizing Committee. Bryan Koulouris is the national organizer for Socialist Alternative, and an executive committee member of International Socialist Alternative Bhaskar Sunkara (moderator) is the founding editor of Jacobin and the author of The Socialist Manifesto: The Case for Radical Politics in an Era of Extreme Inequality. Watch the live event recording: Buy books from Haymarket: www.haymarketbooks.org Follow us on Soundcloud: soundcloud.com/haymarketbooks
Episode 106:This week we're continuing Russia in Revolution An Empire in Crisis 1890 - 1928 by S. A. Smith[Part 1]Introduction[Part 2-5]1. Roots of Revolution, 1880s–1905[Part 6-8]2. From Reform to War, 1906-1917[Part 9-12]3. From February to October 1917[Part 13 - 17]4. Civil War and Bolshevik Power[Part 18 - This Week]5. War Communism - 0:21Mobilising Industry - 6:39[Part 19 - 21?]5. War Communism[Part 22 - 24?]6. The New Economic Policy: Politics and the Economy[Part 25 - 28?]7. The New Economic Policy: Society and Culture[Part 29?]ConclusionFootnotes:1) 0:31Diane Koenker, William Rosenberg, and Ronald Suny (eds), Party, State and Society in the Russian Civil War (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989).2) 1:39.3) 3:01Mauricio Borrero, Hungry Moscow: Scarcity and Urban Society in the Russian Civil War, 1917–1920 (New York: Peter Lang, 2003).4) 3:39A. A. Il'iukhov, Zhizn' v epokhu peremen: material'noe polozhenie gorodskikh zhitelei v gody revoliutsii i grazhdanskoi voiny (Moscow: ROSSPEN, 2007), 36.5) 4:24Viktor Shklovskii, A Sentimental Journey (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), 175.6) 5:16Il'iukhov, Zhizn', 169–70.7) 5:26Il'iukhov, Zhizn', 83.8) 6:05Il'iukhov, Zhizn', 178–9.9) 6:38Cited in Il'iukhov, Zhizn', 168.10) 7:01Silvana Malle, The Economic Organization of War Communism 1918–1921 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).11) 9:17V. I. Lenin, The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, .12) 10:56Smith, Red Petrograd, 224.13) 14:27Ronald Kowalski, The Bolshevik Party in Conflict: The Left Communist Opposition of 1918 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991).14) 17:04.15) 18:52Thomas F. Remington, Building Socialism in Bolshevik Russia: Ideology and Industrial Organization, 1917–1921 (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1984).
Episode 98:This week we're continuing Russia in Revolution An Empire in Crisis 1890 - 1928 by S. A. Smith[Part 1]Introduction[Part 2-5]1. Roots of Revolution, 1880s–1905[Part 6-8]2. From Reform to War, 1906-1917[Part 9]3. From February to October 1917Dual Power[Part 10 - This Week]Lenin and the Bolsheviks - 0:31The Aspirations of Soldiers and Workers - 13:31The Provisional Government in Crisis - 25:42[Part 11 -12?]3. From February to October 1917[Part 13 - 16?]4. Civil War and Bolshevik Power[Part 17 - 19?]5. War Communism[Part 20 - 22?]6. The New Economic Policy: Politics and the Economy[Part 23 - 26?]7. The New Economic Policy: Society and Culture[Part 27?]ConclusionFigure 3.2 - 23:54A factory meeting on May Day 1917. The banners read: ‘Long live the holiday of the world proletariat' and ‘If we repair a single steam engine it means we bring the end of hunger and poverty nearer and thereby bring an end to capitalism'.Figure 3.3 - 29:00Kerensky tours the front June 1917. He here is greeting the Czech Legion.[see figures on AbnormalMapping.com here]Footnotes:26) 0:41Christopher Read, Lenin: A Revolutionary Life (Abingdon: Routledge, 2005).27) 2:35N. N. Sukhanov, The Russian Revolution 1917: A Personal Record, ed. Joel Carmichael (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983), 272–3.28) 3:05Angelica Balabanoff, Impressions of Lenin (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1964), 2.29) 3:36A. N. Potresov, Izbrannoe (Moscow: Mosgosarkhiv, 2002), 284.30) 5:28Robert Service, Lenin: A Political Life (3 vols), vol. 2: Worlds in Collision (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1991).31) 5:37Neil Harding, Lenin's Political Thought: Theory and Practice in the Democratic and Socialist Revolutions (Chicago: Haymarket, 2009), 59–70.32) 7:40V. I. Lenin, ‘The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution', .33) 7:52Robert Service, The Bolshevik Party in Revolution: A Study in Organizational Change (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1979).34) 8:27V. I. Miller, ‘K voprosu o sravnitel'noi chislennosti partii bol'shevikov i men'shevikov v 1917g.', Voprosy istorii KPSS, 12 (1988), 109–18.35) 9:10There are no biographies in English of Zinoviev and Kamenev. However, the following entries are good: ; . See, too, Catherine Merridale, ‘The Making of a Moderate Bolshevik: An Introduction to L. B. Kamenev's Political Biography', in Julian Cooper, Maureen Perrie, and E. A. Rees (eds), Soviet History, 1917–1953: Essays in Honour of R. W. Davies (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1995), 22–41.36) 9:37Ian D. Thatcher, Trotsky (London: Routledge, 2003); Isaac Deutscher, The Prophet Armed: Trotsky, 1879–1921 (London: Oxford University Press, 1954).37) 10:29Ian D. Thatcher, ‘The St Petersburg/Petrograd Mezhraionka, 1913–1917: The Rise and Fall of a Russian Social Democratic Workers' Party Unity Faction', Slavonic and East European Review, 87: 2 (2009), 284–321.38) 12:35Shestoi s''ezd RSDRP (bol'shevikov) avgust 1917 goda: Protokoly, 20, 23.39) 13:43Christopher Read, From Tsar to Soviets: The Russian People and their Revolution, 1917–21 (London: UCL Press, 1996), chs 4–6; Allan Wildman, The End of the Russian Imperial Army, vol. 1 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980).40) 14:17Evan Mawdsley, The Russian Revolution and the Baltic Fleet: War and Politics, February 1917–April 1918 (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1978).41) 15:19.42) 16:08Pravda, 21, 30 Mar. 1917.43) 17:09Startsev, Vnutrenniaia politika.44) 18:08‘Vserossiiskaia konferentsiia frontovykh i tylovykh voennykh organizatsii RSDRP(b)', Politicheskie deiateli Rossii 1917. Biograficheskii slovar' (Moscow: Bol'shaia rossiiskaia entsiklopediia, 1993).45) 18:21K. A. Tarasov, ‘Chislennost' voennoi organizatsii bol'shevikov nakanune oktiabria 1917 goda', Trudy Karel'skoi nauchnogo tsentra RAN, 3 (2014), 146–8.46) 18:36David Mandel, The Petrograd Workers and the Fall of the Old Regime (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1983); David Mandel, The Petrograd Workers and the Soviet Seizure of Power (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1984); Diane Koenker, Moscow Workers and the 1917 Revolution (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981).47) 20:23Smith, Red Petrograd.48) 25:49Figes, People's Tragedy, ch. 10.49) 29:57Izvestiia, 96, 20 June 1917.50) 30:46Wildman, End of the Russian Imperial Army.51) 31:44Richard Pipes, The Russian Revolution: 1899–1919 (New York: Knopf, 1990), 770; Alexander Rabinowitch, Prelude to Revolution: The Petrograd Bolsheviks and the July 1917 Uprising (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1968).52) 33:05Rabinowitch, Prelude, 173.53) 34:25Sukhanov, The Russian Revolution, 446.54) 35:51O. N. Znamenskii, Iiul'skii krizis 1917 goda (Moscow: Nauka, 1964), 124.
A native of Van in Ottoman Armenia, Aghasi Khanjyan arrived in the Armenian republic as a refugee. Attending Gevorgyan Seminary at Etchmiadzin, he was quickly drawn to revolutionary activity and soon became a member of the Bolshevik Party. By the early 1930s, Khanjyan had ascended to the post of Armenia's First Secretary and became a popular leader known for encouraging a flexible policy toward Armenian national expression. His death at the hands of Georgian leader Lavrentii Beria in 1936 became a pivotal moment for Soviet Armenia during the years of the Stalinist repressions. The series is hosted by historian Pietro A. Shakarian and produced by Sona Nersesyan.
We sit down to talk with Hampton's own Labor Issues Chair, Dr. Nick Partyka, in the second part of our Stalin series. In this episode, we talk about Stalin's rise to leadership on the Bolshevik Party, his relationship with Lenin, the October 1917 Revolution, and the Russian civil war. If there are any questions, comments, or concerns, please email me at devondb@mail.com.
The People's School for Marxist-Leninist Studies presents a 1929 article entitled "The Party and Party Discipline" by V.I. Lenin from Vol. 8, No. 3 of "The Communist," the former theoretical organ of the Communist Party USA, and the current theoretical organ of the Party of Communists USA. This is a collection of passages from comrade Lenin regarding the importance of discipline, and how it is related to the functioning of a Bolshevik Party. As comrade Lenin said: "Bolsheviks could not have maintained themselves in power for two-and-a-half months, let alone two-and-a-half years, without the strictest, truly iron discipline in our Party...” ("Left-Wing" Communism: an Infantile Disorder, 1920). Connect with PSMLS: linktr.ee/PSMLS Literature Used: The Communist Vol. 8, No. 3 (March 1929) www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/communist/v08n03… Recommended Literature: Readers' Guide to Marxist Classics by Maurice Cornforth (1954) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/maurice-cornforth/readers-… Dialectical and Historical Materialism by J.V. Stalin (1938) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/j-stalin/dialectical-and-h… Foundations of Leninism by J.V. Stalin (1924) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jv-stalin/foundations-of-l… Communists and the Liberation of Europe by Maxine Levi (1945) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/maxine-levi/communists-and… Party of Communists USA Link Tree: linktr.ee/partyofcommunists
The People's School for Marxist-Leninist Studies presents a 1932 article entitled "To The Study of Lenin and Our Party" by Alexander Bittelman from Vol. 11, No. 1 of "The Communist," the former theoretical organ of the Communist Party USA, and the current theoretical organ of the Party of Communists USA. The birth and founding of the Communist Party USA are intimately bound up with the study of Lenin, and the question of how the study of Lenin should be approached in the Party's work. This wonderful article by Alexander Bittelman gives a fantastic outline of how the study of Lenin should be connected with a Bolshevik Party. We hope you learn something new! Connect with PSMLS: linktr.ee/PSMLS Literature Used: The Communist Vol. 11, No. 1 (January 1932) www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/communist/v11n01… Recommended Literature: Readers' Guide to Marxist Classics by Maurice Cornforth (1954) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/maurice-cornforth/readers-… Dialectical and Historical Materialism by J.V. Stalin (1938) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/j-stalin/dialectical-and-h… Foundations of Leninism by J.V. Stalin (1924) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jv-stalin/foundations-of-l… Communists and the Liberation of Europe by Maxine Levi (1945) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/maxine-levi/communists-and… Party of Communists USA Link Tree: linktr.ee/partyofcommunists
This clip is a speech given by comrade Laura R. from the League of Young Communists USA (LYCUSA). The LYC is the youth league of the only Bolshevik Party in America, the Party of Communists USA (PCUSA). On Sunday, May 1, our Party comrades participated in May Day demonstrations in 6 cities across the country. This speech was from the Washington DC demonstrations, where PCUSA flags were flown in front of the White House. Enjoy! Connect with PSMLS: linktr.ee/PSMLS No Literature Used Recommended Literature: Foundations of Leninism by J.V. Stalin (1924) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jv-stalin/foundations-of-l… Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder by V.I. Lenin (1920) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/vi-lenin/left-wing-communi… Mastering Bolshevism by J.V. Stalin (1937) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/joseph-stalin/mastering-bo… www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/MB37.html The Communists and the Liberation of Europe by Maxine Levi (1945) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/maxine-levi/communists-and… Materialism and the Dialectical Method by Maurice Cornforth (1953) www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/maurice-cornforth/material… The Collapse of the Second International by V.I. Lenin (1915) www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/ Marxism & Revisionism by V.I. Lenin (1908) www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/apr/03.h… Speeches on the American Communist Party by J.V. Stalin (1929) moses.law.umn.edu/darrow/documents/Stalin_Speeches… PSMLS Website: peoplesschool.org/contact/ Party of Communists USA Website: partyofcommunistsusa.org/about/
The Russian Revolution that began with the fall of Tsar Nicholas II in February of 1917 and continued into a second revolution the following October, is unquestionably one of the most significant events in modern history. The October Revolution brought Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Party from relative obscurity to the leaders of the first communist nation, later called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), and the economic and ideological system espoused by Soviet leaders transformed Russia from an underdeveloped nation on the periphery of Europe into a global super power in just a few decades. In this episode we speak with Russian history expert (and Ben's former dissertation advisor) Lewis Siegelbaum to discuss the series of events that led to the Russian Revolution and the establishment of the Soviet Union, and why he tells his students that ignoring the Soviet Union in 20th century is like “clapping with one hand.” Dr. Lewis Siegelbaum is the Jack & Margaret Sweet Professor of History at Michigan State University, and one of the most prolific historians on the history of the Soviet era. He has published and edited twelve books, the most recent of which are Cars for Comrades: The Life of the Soviet Automobile (Cornell University Press, 2008) and Broad is My Native Land: Repertoires and Regimes of Migration in Russia's Twentieth Century (Cornell, 2014), which he co-wrote w Leslie Page Moch. His most recent book is Stuck on Communism: Memoir of a Russian Historian (NIU Press, 2019). This episode was edited by Ben Sawyer and is a rebroadcast of episode 79, which originally aired on November 16, 2017.
Episode 93: The Bolshevik Revolution was a revolution in Russia led by the Bolshevik Party of Vladimir Lenin that was instrumental in the larger Russian Revolution of 1917–1923. It was the second revolutionary change of government in Russia in 1917. It took place through an armed insurrection in Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg) on 7 November 1917. It was the precipitating event of the Russian Civil War.thefacthunter.com
Please enjoy the first of a two-part series covering the constitution of the Party of Communists USA (PCUSA), the only Marxist-Leninist Bolshevik Party of a New Type in the US. This series is a great introduction to what a Bolshevik Party constitution looks like and how the structure of Bolshevik Parties is connected to the history of the world Communist movement. Connect with PSMLS: https://linktr.ee/PSMLS Literature Used In This Class: Constitution of the Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) https://partyofcommunistsusa.org/abou... Recommended Literature: The Communist Party A Manual on Organization by J. Peters (1935) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/j-pet... Foundations of Leninism by J.V. Stalin (1924) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/jv-st... History of the Three Internationals by William Z. Foster (1955) https://www.marxists.org/archive/brow... Why Communism? by Moissaye J. Olgin (1933) https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/moiss... History of the Communist Party of the United States by William Z. Foster (1952) https://archive.org/details/history-o... PSMLS Website: http://peoplesschool.org Party of Communists USA Website: https://partyofcommunistsusa.org/about/ Timecode Key: (Q&A) = Question & Answer / Response 0:00 Introduction 0:14 Reading 1 3:00 The term 'vanguard' 3:39 Reading 2 6:07 Additional commissions 6:25 CC vs. PB? (Q&A) 7:26 Dialectical & historical materialism? (Q&A) 9:15 'The Communist' magazine? (Q&A) 10:11 Constitution's history 10:39 Reading 3 11:26 PCUSA's Pledge 13:36 Reading 3 cont. 14:42 Carry the torch 15:11 Pledge's history? (Q&A) 17:21 Reading 4 20:41 Criticism & self-criticism 21:36 Bureaucracy? (Q&A) 23:23 Reading 5 26:30 Crisis in the Socialist Party 28:19 Stalin on criticism 28:39 Good standing? (Q&A) 29:47 Concluding remarks & ending
(Bonus) The October Revolution, officially known as the Great October Socialist Revolution[b] under the Soviet Union, also known as the Bolshevik Coup, the Bolshevik Revolution, the October Uprising, the October Coup or Red October, was a revolution in Russia led by the Bolshevik Party of Vladimir Lenin that was instrumental in the larger Russian Revolution of 1917–1923. It was the second revolutionary change of government in Russia in 1917. It took place through an armed insurrection in Petrograd (now Saint Petersburg) on 7 November 1917 [O.S. 25 October]. It was the precipitating event of the Russian Civil War.
In 1917 the Bolshevik Party seized power in a revolution that would have profound implications not only in Russia but the entire world. The new socialist government faced a host of problems - an ongoing war, a largely agrarian economy, and prevailing disorder. However, one of the most significant issues was the national-question. Far from being a consolidated nation-state, Tsarist Russia was a sprawling multinational empire populated by a diverse set of ethno-religious communities with differing sets of political aspirations.How did the USSR deal with Tsarist Russia's ethnic diversity? What kind of policies did they adopt to resolve the so-called national question? And how successful were they? About Dr. Yilmaz: Dr Harun Yilmaz is a regional expert on history, national identities, and political propaganda. His academic and popular publications cover Ukraine, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. He received his Master's and PhD from Oxford University. Dr. Yilmaz was a research fellow at Harvard University and British Academy. He lectured on Stalinism at Queen Mary University of London. Currently, Dr Yilmaz is Central Asia Research Forum Series editor at Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Thank you, guys, again for taking the time to check this out. We appreciate each and every one of you. If you have the means, and you feel so inclined, BECOME A PATRON! We're creating patron only programing, you'll get bonus content from many of the episodes, and you get MERCH! Become a patron now https://www.patreon.com/join/BitterLakePresents? Please also like, subscribe, and follow us on these platforms as well, (specially YouTube!) THANKS Y'ALL YouTube: www.youtube.com/thisisrevolutionpodcast Twitch: www.twitch.tv/thisisrevolutionpodcast www.twitch.tv/leftflankvets Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Thisisrevolutionpodcast/ Twitter: @TIRShowOakland Instagram: @thisisrevolutionoakland The Dispatch on Zero Books (video essay series): https://youtu.be/nSTpCvIoRgw Medium: https://jasonmyles.medium.com/i-was-a-teenage-anarchist... Pascal Robert's Black Agenda Report: https://www.blackagendareport.com/author/PascalRobert Get THIS IS REVOLUTION Merch here: www.thisisrevolutionpodcast.com Get the music from the show here: https://bitterlakeoakland.bandcamp.com/.../coronavirus...
The Paris Commune took place 150 years ago this year in France. It was one of the most earth-shaking events in history up to that point, and it’s one that continues to have an impact even today. Marx said about it a few years afterwards that it was the most slandered event in human history, but what happened later was that it was pushed out of the picture almost altogether—especially, of course, in this country. Marx wrote extensively about it at the time, and there’s a pamphlet called The Civil War in France, made up of speeches that Marx gave during the time of the Paris Commune to the General Council, the leadership body of the First International. The third and main address is, I believe, one of the most brilliant, most impassioned and most bitterly satirical writings about politics that’s ever been written. In it you see Karl Marx in the midst of an all-out life and death struggle. The pamphlet is not very long, and it’s definitely worth reading or rereading. The Paris Commune was the first, although short-lived, workers’ state, workers’ republic. During its short life, which lasted only 72 days before it was brutally murdered by the so-called democratic bourgeoisie of France, it had so many experiences and such rich experiences and lessons that 50 years later the Bolshevik Party—Lenin and all of the Bolshevik Party—carefully studied the Paris Commune. Not only did they study it, they based the Soviet form of government on the Paris Commune. And then, 50 years after that, in 1969, when a new constitution of China was written, they cited the Paris Commune as being the example of the form of government they wanted to have. That’s how influential this 72-day-long Commune was in history. And that’s not all; there are many other examples. Based on the experience of the Commune, Marx and Engels felt that they had to make what was their only correction to the Communist Manifesto. They said that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes.” Instead, they said, the old state would have to be broken up, would have to be shattered and replaced by a completely new form; that is, that the workers could not use the state that the capitalists used. Read the full article: https://liberationschool.org/vive-la-commune-the-paris-commune-150-years-later/
In 1984 Siberian singer and songwriter Yegor Letov founded Grazhdanskaya Oborona (Civil Defense), which went on to be the Soviet Unions most famous underground punk band, and made Letov one of its most famous musicians. Then in 1993 he co-founded the National Bolshevik Party, the now banned extremist political party that hoped to unite far right and far left forces. We discuss him, his music, and his journey from punk rock to punk politics. Hosted by Liam, Russian Sam, Halal Sam, and Abram. Songs featured in this episode Grazhdanskaya Oborona – Harakiri Grazhdanskaya Oborona – Song about Lenin Grazhdanskaya Oborona – About a fool Grazhdanskaya Oborona – Government Grazhdanskaya Oborona – Everything is like what people have Adolf Gitler – Mein Kampf Yanka – Overabundance of wit Kommunizm – I see nothing Grazhdanskaya Oborona – Everything's going according to plan Grazhdanskaya Oborona – My defense Grazhdanskaya Oborona – Motherland Yegor and the fucked up – Gospel Grazhdanskaya Oborona – The unbearable lightness of being Would you like to learn more? ☞ https://gladiofreeeurope.github.io/episodes/2021-05-12-yegor-letov-and-the-national-bolsheviks/ --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/gladiofreeeurope/support
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/russian-bolshevik-party-becomes-the-communist-partySupport the show on Patreon
More and more Americans are waking up to the truth behind the actions the Democratic Party and the far left are taking in this country. And it’s waking them up to the truth. We discuss in this week’s episode.
With the victory of Cromwell's army at the Battle of Naseby, the first English Civil War came to an end. The defeated King handed himself over to the Scots, hoping to play the New Model Army (likened to a combination of the Soviets, the Red Army and the Bolshevik Party) off against the propertied classes in parliament, who were increasingly worried about this armed, disciplined body of lower-class radicals. Just like after the Russian February Revolution and the fall of the Tsar, England entered into a state of dual power.
How did Trotsky view the relationship between the revolution and its party? Where countless other revolutions have failed, the workers of Russia succeeded in taking power in October 1917. The decisive factor was the Bolshevik Party. Leon Trotsky likened it to a “piston-box” which could channel the “steam” of mass revolutionary energy. Trotsky did not start out as a member of the Bolsheviks. But he came to see the role Lenin had played - preparing an organisation capable of leading the working class during revolutionary upheavals - as vital. But are the Bolsheviks a model for building a party today? What is the difference between a broad workers’ party and a revolutionary party? And is a revolutionary party all we need to make a successful revolution? This episode of Socialism looks at political consciousness and organisation: Trotsky and the revolutionary party. 80 years since Trotsky's assassination: Why couldn't his ideas be killed? Join the international online rally on Sunday 23 August, 2pm London time! Register now: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/trotsky-murdered-80-years-ago-why-couldnt-his-ideas-be-killed-registration-115866871933 Further reading The Class, the Party and the Leadership (Trotsky): https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Trotsky/cpl/index.html The role of a revolutionary party: http://marxism.org.uk/pack/party.html The Transitional Programme (Trotsky) with an introduction by Peter Taaffe: http://leftbooks.co.uk/epages/950002679.sf/en_GB/?ObjectID=2333802 The Communist Manifesto (Marx and Engels): https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/manifesto/ What Is to Be Done? (Lenin): http://leftbooks.co.uk/epages/950002679.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/950002679/Products/LENI0011 "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder (Lenin): https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ The Revolutionary Party and its Role in the Struggle for Socialism (Cannon): https://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1967/party.htm The First Five Years of the Communist International: Volume One (Trotsky): http://leftbooks.co.uk/epages/950002679.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/950002679/Products/TROT0091 The First Five Years of the Communist International: Volume Two (Trotsky): http://leftbooks.co.uk/epages/950002679.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/950002679/Products/TROT0092 The History of the Russian Revolution (Trotsky): https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1930/hrr/index.htm
What are the lessons for today from Lenin's revolutionary life? 22 April 2020 was the 150th anniversary of the birth of Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanvov, better known as Lenin, the revolutionary workers’ leader and Marxist political theorist. In 1917, Lenin’s Bolshevik Party led the working class of Russia to overthrow the landlords and capitalists and establish the world’s first democratic workers’ state. Lenin was rooted firmly in Marxism. He understood that only the working class could lead a successful revolution. He fought for a well-organised party and a workers’ press as the essential tools for achieving that. And, in contrast to the butcher Stalin, he stood for international revolution, and maintained that “democracy is indispensable to socialism.” No wonder his name is feared and slandered by capitalist politicians and their official histories. In particular, they have much to fear at a time when their entire rotten system is wracked by pandemic, economic crisis and social turmoil. To quote Lenin again: “Sometimes history needs a push.” So what were Lenin’s real ideas? What were his main contributions to the struggle for socialism? And what can workers and young people fighting capitalist misery learn from them today? This episode of Socialism looks at Lenin at 150: his revolutionary life and legacy. Further reading Lenin at 150 - A revolutionary life, and the relevance of his ideas to today's working-class struggles: https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/30677/22-04-2020/lenin-at-150-a-revolutionary-life-and-the-relevance-of-his-ideas-for-today Lenin's revolutionary legacy: https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/18007/21-01-2014/lenins-revolutionary-legacy Lenin's April Theses, 1917: https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/14702/14-06-2012/lenins-april-theses-1917 The State and Revolution (Lenin): https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/books_pamphlets/The_State_and_Revolution “Left-Wing” Communism - An Infantile Disorder (Lenin): https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ History of the Russian Revolution (Trotsky): http://leftbooks.co.uk/epages/950002679.sf/en_GB/?ObjectID=6511119 Lessons of October (Trotsky): http://www.socialistbooks.co.uk/product/lessons-of-october/ From Lenin to Stalin (Serge): http://leftbooks.co.uk/epages/950002679.sf/en_GB/?ObjectID=2017050 Lenin and the Revolutionary Party (Le Blanc): http://leftbooks.co.uk/epages/950002679.sf/en_GB/?ObjectID=32008259 Donate to help fund Socialism: https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/donate/ Join the Socialists: https://www.socialistparty.org.uk/join/
Air Date 1/22/2019 Today we take a look at socialism in America from our often violent response to the concept in the wake of the Russian Revolution through the recent revival in interest, driven primarily by the younger generation today Be part of the show! Leave us a message at 202-999-3991 SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: Red Dawn Americans and the Bolshevik Revolution - @BackStory - Air Date 11-9-17 One hundred years ago, Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in a revolution that would change the world. Today we explore how that distant revolution had an immediate impact in the United States. Ch. 2: What the Russian Revolution Proved Possible - Empire Files - Air Date 12-18-17 To understand the context of this first socialist experiment, how it happened and what caused the many problems it faced, Abby Martin sits down with Brian Becker, a long-time socialist organizer. Ch. 3: America’s Unofficial Religion - The War On An Idea Part 1 - Empire Files - Air Date 11-27-17 Everyone in the United States knows that “socialist” or “communist” is considered a bad word. How did things get that way? Abby Martin explores the history of anti-communism in America and the heavy repression of an idea that became an unofficial religion Ch. 4: "Socialism" in the Air - On the Media - Air Date 7-27-18 The word "socialism" has been trending, appearing on op-ed pages, FOX News, ABC's The View and beyond. In this word watch, Bob speaks with another self-described socialist, Current Affairs editor-in-chief Nathan Robinson Ch. 5: Americans are ready for socialism - @ThisIsHellRadio - Air Date 3-13-18 Columnist Elizabeth Bruenig looks beyond the failures of liberalism, to the possibilities of socialism. Elizabeth wrote the op-ed “It’s time to give socialism a try” at the Washington Post. Ch. 6: Richard D. Wolff - What are Capitalism & Socialism? What differentiates them from each other? - acTVism Munich - Air Date 2-21-17 In this interview with Professor of Economics Emeritus (University of Massachusetts), Marxist economist and founder of Democracy at Work, Richard D. Wolff, we talk to him about Capitalism and Socialism. Ch. 7: Why Are People Talking About Socialism? with Paul Jay - @TheRealNews - Air Date 1-2-19 Explaining why socialisms time may have come - the failures of capitalism Ch. 8: Dr. Richard Wolff on Marxism 101: How Capitalism is Killing Itself - Empire Files - Air Date 11-28-17 Prof. Richard Wolff explains some tenets of how a modern socialists system could work Ch. 9: America’s Unofficial Religion The War On An Idea Part 2 - Empire Files - Air Date 11-27-17 Capitalism can no longer compare itself with the dysfunctional Soviet Union but can only be compared to itself and it's failures Bonus Clips: Fox & Friends Have TOTAL Meltdown Over Socialism - Majority Report (@MajorityFM) - Air Date 8-6-18 Odd Republican Lady Bashes Ocasio-Cortez On Fox After Meeting Her - Majority Report (@MajorityFM) - Air Date 7-24-18 FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 10: Final comments wrapping up conservative arguments against socialist programs MUSIC (Blue Dot Sessions): Opening Theme: Loving Acoustic Instrumental by John Douglas Orr Trois Gnossiennes - Blue Dot Sesisons Gondola Blue - Towboat Our Fingers Cold - K2 Tiny Putty - The Cabinetmaker Waltz and Fury - Macrame The Summit - K2 The Provisions - K4 Peacoat - Studio J Closing Music: Upbeat Laid Back Indie Rock by Alex Stinnent Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Thanks for listening! Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Support the show via Patreon Listen on iTunes | Stitcher | Spotify | Alexa Devices | +more Check out the BotL iOS/Android App in the App Stores! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Review the show on iTunes and Stitcher!
1528 The Spanish conquistador Alvar Nunez Cabeza de Vaca is shipwrecked on a low sandy island off the coast of Texas. Starving, dehydrated, and desperate, he is the first European to set foot on the soil of the future Lone Star state. 1917 Led by Bolshevik Party leader Vladimir Lenin, leftist revolutionaries launch a nearly bloodless coup d'État against Russia's ineffectual Provisional Government. 1962 The United Nations General Assembly adopts a resolution condemning South Africa's racist apartheid policies and calling on all its members to end economic and military relations with the country. 1985 The Palace of Justice siege was an attack on the Supreme Court of Colombia, in which members of the M-19 Marxist guerrilla group took over the Palace of Justice in Bogotá, Colombia, and held the Supreme Court hostage, intending to hold a trial against President Belisario Betancur.
Air Date: 1/22/2019 Today we take a look at socialism in America from our often violent response to the concept in the wake of the Russian Revolution through the recent revival in interest driven primarily by the younger generation today Be part of the show! Leave a message at 202-999-3991 Episode Sponsors: Privacy.com/Best| Madison-Reed.com+ Promo Code: Left | WearPact.com+ Promo Code: BestoftheLeft Amazon USA| Amazon CA| Amazon UK| Clean Choice Energy Get AD FREE Shows & Bonus Content: Support our show on Patreon! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: Red Dawn Americans and the Bolshevik Revolution - @BackStory - Air Date 11-9-17 One hundred years ago, Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in a revolution that would change the world. Today we explore how that distant revolution had an immediate impact in the United States. Ch. 2: What the Russian Revolution Proved Possible - Empire Files - Air Date 12-18-17 To understand the context of this first socialist experiment, how it happened and what caused the many problems it faced, Abby Martin sits down with Brian Becker, a long-time socialist organizer. Ch. 3: America’s Unofficial Religion - The War On An Idea Part 1 - Empire Files - Air Date 11-27-17 Everyone in the United States knows that “socialist” or “communist” is considered a bad word. How did things get that way? Abby Martin explores the history of anti-communism in America and the heavy repression of an idea that became an unofficial religion Ch. 4: "Socialism" in the Air - On the Media - Air Date 7-27-18 The word "socialism" has been trending, appearing on op-ed pages, FOX News, ABC's The View and beyond. In this word watch, Bob speaks with another self-described socialist, Current Affairs editor-in-chief Nathan Robinson Ch. 5: Americans are ready for socialism - @ThisIsHellRadio - Air Date 3-13-18 Columnist Elizabeth Bruenig looks beyond the failures of liberalism, to the possibilities of socialism. Elizabeth wrote the op-ed “It’s time to give socialism a try” at the Washington Post. Ch. 6: Richard D. Wolff - What are Capitalism & Socialism? What differentiates them from each other? - acTVism Munich - Air Date 2-21-17 In this interview with Professor of Economics Emeritus (University of Massachusetts), Marxist economist and founder of Democracy at Work, Richard D. Wolff, we talk to him about Capitalism and Socialism. Ch. 7: Why Are People Talking About Socialism? with Paul Jay - @TheRealNews - Air Date 1-2-19 Explaining why socialisms time may have come - the failures of capitalism Ch. 8: Dr. Richard Wolff on Marxism 101: How Capitalism is Killing Itself - Empire Files - Air Date 11-28-17 Prof. Richard Wolff explains some tenets of how a modern socialists system could work Ch. 9: America’s Unofficial Religion The War On An Idea Part 2 - Empire Files - Air Date 11-27-17 Capitalism can no longer compare itself with the dysfunctional Soviet Union but can only be compared to itself and it's failures Bonus Clips: Fox & Friends Have TOTAL Meltdown Over Socialism - Majority Report (@MajorityFM) - Air Date 8-6-18 Odd Republican Lady Bashes Ocasio-Cortez On Fox After Meeting Her - Majority Report (@MajorityFM) - Air Date 7-24-18 FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 10: Final comments wrapping up conservative arguments against socialist programs MUSIC(Blue Dot Sessions): Opening Theme: Loving Acoustic Instrumental by John Douglas Orr Trois Gnossiennes - Blue Dot Sesisons Gondola Blue - Towboat Our Fingers Cold - K2 Tiny Putty - The Cabinetmaker Waltz and Fury - Macrame The Summit - K2 The Provisions - K4 Peacoat - Studio J Closing Music: Upbeat Laid Back Indie Rock by Alex Stinnent Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Thanks for listening! Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Support the show via Patreon Listen on iTunes | Stitcher| Spotify| Alexa Devices| +more Check out the BotL iOS/AndroidApp in the App Stores! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Review the show on iTunesand Stitcher!
Stalin's biography may be one of the most contested in modern times. As early as the 1930's his life story was being written by friends and foes alike. The competing versions of Stalin's past has made finding the truth particularly difficult. How important was Stalin in the early days of the Bolshevik Party? Was he a shadowy political nobody or one of the impetuous leaders of the revolution? Tune in and find out how clever pigs, Big Brother, and Michael Corleone all play a role in the story. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Please support Scary Mysteries! Check out our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/scarymysteries... - There's a lot of cool access, giveaways and even a custom episode! Buy awesome original shirts made by Scary Mysteries https://newdawnfilm.com/scary-mysteri... Subscribe for Weekly Videos here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiE8... _________________________________________________________ 5 MOST VIOLENT WORLD LEADERS EVER No doubt, evil is pervasive in the world. And sometimes history presents us with not just evil people, but ruthless, brutal individuals who are in a position of leadership and control. The people on this list are among the most controversial in the world’s history. These are the 5 most violent world leaders ever. 5. Vlad The Impaler Known for his penchant for blood, Dracula has been the subject of countless movies, books, stories and more. First mentioned in author Bram Stoker's novel in 1897, this fictional figure is actually based on a terrifying prince who also loved the sight of blood. Vlad III and later known as Vlad the Impaler was the Prince of Wallachia. Born in 1431 in Transylvania, he was the son of Vlad Dracul, then ruler of Wallachia. When he was 11, Vlad III was held as a political prisoner before eventually being released years later. 4. Genghis Khan Born as Temujin in 1162, he would later be known as the ferocious Genghis Khan – leader of one of the most successful armies and empires that ever existed. Khan was born to violent times. His father kidnapped his mother and forced her into marriage. Before turning 10, his dad was killed and poisoned by his own clan and Khan, along with his mother and siblings, were left abandoned by the clan so they didn't have to feed them. Soon after this he killed his older half-brother to become the head of their household. 3. Attila the Hun Branding himself as the Scourge of God, Attila the Hun was born in Hungary around 406. He became a feared name during the 5th century when he led the Hunnic Empire to devastate the lands of the Black Sea and several key areas of the late Roman Empire. When he and his brother first succeeded the rule of the Hunnic Empire, they offered a peace treaty with the Romans, initially asking for 700 pounds of gold coins paid per year. 2. Joseph Stalin Born and raised in poverty, Joseph Stalin rose to prominence to become one of the most brutal tyrants the world has ever known. As he grew older, he found himself partial towards the idea of communism, being heavily influenced by Karl Marx's "Communist Manifesto." Over time, he joined the Bolshevik Party, headed by Vladimir Lenin. When the Bolsheviks gained control of Soviet Russia, Stalin served in various key positions within the government, making friends and steadily rising to prominence. 1. Adolf Hitler Born on April 20, 1889 in a small Austrian town, Hitler initially had three siblings who all died during infancy. While growing up, he continuously had violent arguments with his father, Alois, who was a domineering and strong-willed figure in his life. Hitler's dream was to be an artist but his dad disapproved and sent him to another school instead . But soon after his father died, he dropped out and After leaving school, he headed to Vienna to find his own way. Those were the 5 MOST VIOLENT WORLD LEADERS EVER Brutality knows no bounds. And just as these rulers have proven, it can be the most horrifying when leaders make no distinction between one human life and another.
The Russian Revolution that began with the fall of Tsar Nicholas II in February of 1917 and continued into a second revolution the following October, is unquestionably one of the most significant events in modern history. The October Revolution brought Vladimir Lenin and the Bolshevik Party from relative obscurity to the leaders of the first communist nation, later called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), and the economic and ideological system espoused by Soviet leaders transformed Russia from an underdeveloped nation on the periphery of Europe into a global super power in just a few decades. In this episode we speak with Russian history expert (and Ben's former dissertation advisor) Lewis Siegelbaum to discuss the series of events that led to the Russian Revolution and the establishment of the Soviet Union, and why he tells his students that ignoring the Soviet Union in 20th century is like “clapping with one hand.” Dr. Lewis Siegelbaum is the Jack & Margaret Sweet Professor of History at Michigan State University, and one of the most prolific historians on the history of the Soviet era. He has published and edited twelve books, the most recent of which are Cars for Comrades: The Life of the Soviet Automobile (Cornell University Press, 2008) and Broad is My Native Land: Repertoires and Regimes of Migration in Russia's Twentieth Century (Cornell University Press, 2014), which he co-wrote with Leslie Page Moch. For more on The Road to Now and this episode, visit our website: www.TheRoadToNow.com
One hundred years ago, Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in a revolution that would change the world. They would establish the world’s first Marxist state, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a few years later. As the 20th century wore on, the USSR became the United States’s chief military and ideological foe. On this episode of BackStory, Brian, Joanne, and Nathan explore how that distant revolution had an immediate impact in the United States. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://megaphone.fm/adchoices
Ep 175-As Gen. Rommel sends his panzers to surprise the British 8th Army near the Frontier Wire, Gen. Cunningham's forces finally reach Tobruk to help Gen. Scobie and his men escape. Ep 176-Lenin is on the cusp of power, but fails to take the final step. Lenin is then forced to hide from Kerensky of the Provisional Government, but Stalin steps up to lead their faction of the Bolshevik Party. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In March 1917 a provisional government established itself in Russia in the aftermath of the downfall of the Tsar. By October 1917 it had been swept away and Lenin's Bolshevik Party replaced it. The crises of 1917 and the challenge of sharing power with the Petrograd Soviet overwhelmed the government before they could establish a democratic elected regime. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/explaininghistory.
On 1 December 1934, Leonid Nikolaev, a disgruntled Bolshevik Party member, shot Sergei Kirov in the back of the head as the Leningrad Party boss approached his office in Smolny. The murder sent shockwaves throughout the Soviet leadership, which with Stalin as its helmsman, used it to concoct a wider conspiracy that fingered oppositionists as the true plotters. By 1937, Stalin had used the murder to initiate full blown political terror against his former political enemies, military leaders, intellectuals, former classes, and ordinary people. When the smoke cleared in the summer of 1938, 2.5 million people had been arrested and an estimated 700,000 had been shot, including many of the purgers themselves. Kirov’s murder is considered by most to be the crucial spark that ignited this conflagration of death. But who really killed Kirov? Was Nikolaev a lone gunman? Or did Stalin orchestrate Kirov’s murder to eliminate a potential rival and justify mass murder? Until recently, the “Stalin did it” theory served as the historical consensus despite skepticism from a few. No longer. In his 832 page tome The Kirov Murder and Soviet History (Yale University Press, 2010), Matthew Lenoe rakes a fine toothed comb over the available evidence about the murder to decisively settle the debate and examine its place in Stalinist and post-Stalinist Russia. Moreover, as part of Yale’s Annals of Communism series, the book contains 172 translated documents, most from Soviet archives. Did Stalin plot to kill Kirov? Lenoe convincingly shows that the most plausible answer to this persistent question is no. Stalin was guilty of many, many things, and certainly used the murder to his political advantage, but Kirov’s murder was the work of Nikolaev and Nikolaev alone. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On 1 December 1934, Leonid Nikolaev, a disgruntled Bolshevik Party member, shot Sergei Kirov in the back of the head as the Leningrad Party boss approached his office in Smolny. The murder sent shockwaves throughout the Soviet leadership, which with Stalin as its helmsman, used it to concoct a wider conspiracy that fingered oppositionists as the true plotters. By 1937, Stalin had used the murder to initiate full blown political terror against his former political enemies, military leaders, intellectuals, former classes, and ordinary people. When the smoke cleared in the summer of 1938, 2.5 million people had been arrested and an estimated 700,000 had been shot, including many of the purgers themselves. Kirov’s murder is considered by most to be the crucial spark that ignited this conflagration of death. But who really killed Kirov? Was Nikolaev a lone gunman? Or did Stalin orchestrate Kirov’s murder to eliminate a potential rival and justify mass murder? Until recently, the “Stalin did it” theory served as the historical consensus despite skepticism from a few. No longer. In his 832 page tome The Kirov Murder and Soviet History (Yale University Press, 2010), Matthew Lenoe rakes a fine toothed comb over the available evidence about the murder to decisively settle the debate and examine its place in Stalinist and post-Stalinist Russia. Moreover, as part of Yale’s Annals of Communism series, the book contains 172 translated documents, most from Soviet archives. Did Stalin plot to kill Kirov? Lenoe convincingly shows that the most plausible answer to this persistent question is no. Stalin was guilty of many, many things, and certainly used the murder to his political advantage, but Kirov’s murder was the work of Nikolaev and Nikolaev alone. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
On 1 December 1934, Leonid Nikolaev, a disgruntled Bolshevik Party member, shot Sergei Kirov in the back of the head as the Leningrad Party boss approached his office in Smolny. The murder sent shockwaves throughout the Soviet leadership, which with Stalin as its helmsman, used it to concoct a wider... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Soso, became the revolutionary Koba who followed his idol Lenin and the Bolshevik Party.
By the time the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Bolshevik Party had already amassed a considerable amount of expertise in moving masses of people around. Large population transfers (to put it mildly) were part and parcel of building socialism. Certain “elements” needed to be sent for re-education (the Kulaks), others to build new socialist cities (Magnitogorsk), and still others back to where–ethnically speaking–they “belonged” (Baltic Germans). Thus when the Germans attacked, the Bolsheviks were ready to move their “assets” out of the way. Sort of. In To the Tashkent Station. Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union at War (Cornell UP, 2009), Rebecca Manley does a fine job of telling the tale of how they evacuated millions of people as the Germans advanced in 1941 and 1942. Though the Party had plans (the Bolsheviks were great planners…), everything did not, as the Russians say, go po planu. As the enemy advance, threatened people did what threatened people always do–they ran off (or, as the Soviet authorities said, “self-evacuated.”). The Party was not really in a position to control this mass exodus as many members of the Party itself had hit the road. Of course some Soviet citizens stayed put, comforting themselves with the (false) hope that the Nazis were really only after the Jews and Communists. But most didn’t, particularly if they had sufficient blat (“pull”) to get a train ticket to a place like Tashkent. Under Communism, everyone is equal. In the real world, everyone isn’t, as many Soviet citizens found out. Some were allowed to leave, others weren’t. Some were given shelter, others weren’t. Some were fed, others weren’t. In this time of crisis, all of the dirty secrets of Communism were revealed. This is not to say, of course, that it wasn’t a heroic effort. It was, and a largely successful one. The Party managed to save much of its human and physical capital, and this fact contributed mightily to its eventual triumph in the war. Moreover, it saved millions of Jews from certain death, a fact that deserves to be acknowledged more often than it is. There are, then, many reasons to be thankful the Soviets bugged out as fast as they did. And there are also many reasons to be thankful Rebecca Manley has told us the story of how they did it. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
By the time the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Bolshevik Party had already amassed a considerable amount of expertise in moving masses of people around. Large population transfers (to put it mildly) were part and parcel of building socialism. Certain “elements” needed to be sent for re-education (the Kulaks), others to build new socialist cities (Magnitogorsk), and still others back to where–ethnically speaking–they “belonged” (Baltic Germans). Thus when the Germans attacked, the Bolsheviks were ready to move their “assets” out of the way. Sort of. In To the Tashkent Station. Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union at War (Cornell UP, 2009), Rebecca Manley does a fine job of telling the tale of how they evacuated millions of people as the Germans advanced in 1941 and 1942. Though the Party had plans (the Bolsheviks were great planners…), everything did not, as the Russians say, go po planu. As the enemy advance, threatened people did what threatened people always do–they ran off (or, as the Soviet authorities said, “self-evacuated.”). The Party was not really in a position to control this mass exodus as many members of the Party itself had hit the road. Of course some Soviet citizens stayed put, comforting themselves with the (false) hope that the Nazis were really only after the Jews and Communists. But most didn’t, particularly if they had sufficient blat (“pull”) to get a train ticket to a place like Tashkent. Under Communism, everyone is equal. In the real world, everyone isn’t, as many Soviet citizens found out. Some were allowed to leave, others weren’t. Some were given shelter, others weren’t. Some were fed, others weren’t. In this time of crisis, all of the dirty secrets of Communism were revealed. This is not to say, of course, that it wasn’t a heroic effort. It was, and a largely successful one. The Party managed to save much of its human and physical capital, and this fact contributed mightily to its eventual triumph in the war. Moreover, it saved millions of Jews from certain death, a fact that deserves to be acknowledged more often than it is. There are, then, many reasons to be thankful the Soviets bugged out as fast as they did. And there are also many reasons to be thankful Rebecca Manley has told us the story of how they did it. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
By the time the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Bolshevik Party had already amassed a considerable amount of expertise in moving masses of people around. Large population transfers (to put it mildly) were part and parcel of building socialism. Certain “elements” needed to be sent for re-education (the Kulaks), others to build new socialist cities (Magnitogorsk), and still others back to where–ethnically speaking–they “belonged” (Baltic Germans). Thus when the Germans attacked, the Bolsheviks were ready to move their “assets” out of the way. Sort of. In To the Tashkent Station. Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union at War (Cornell UP, 2009), Rebecca Manley does a fine job of telling the tale of how they evacuated millions of people as the Germans advanced in 1941 and 1942. Though the Party had plans (the Bolsheviks were great planners…), everything did not, as the Russians say, go po planu. As the enemy advance, threatened people did what threatened people always do–they ran off (or, as the Soviet authorities said, “self-evacuated.”). The Party was not really in a position to control this mass exodus as many members of the Party itself had hit the road. Of course some Soviet citizens stayed put, comforting themselves with the (false) hope that the Nazis were really only after the Jews and Communists. But most didn’t, particularly if they had sufficient blat (“pull”) to get a train ticket to a place like Tashkent. Under Communism, everyone is equal. In the real world, everyone isn’t, as many Soviet citizens found out. Some were allowed to leave, others weren’t. Some were given shelter, others weren’t. Some were fed, others weren’t. In this time of crisis, all of the dirty secrets of Communism were revealed. This is not to say, of course, that it wasn’t a heroic effort. It was, and a largely successful one. The Party managed to save much of its human and physical capital, and this fact contributed mightily to its eventual triumph in the war. Moreover, it saved millions of Jews from certain death, a fact that deserves to be acknowledged more often than it is. There are, then, many reasons to be thankful the Soviets bugged out as fast as they did. And there are also many reasons to be thankful Rebecca Manley has told us the story of how they did it. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
By the time the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Bolshevik Party had already amassed a considerable amount of expertise in moving masses of people around. Large population transfers (to put it mildly) were part and parcel of building socialism. Certain “elements” needed to be sent for re-education (the Kulaks), others to build new socialist cities (Magnitogorsk), and still others back to where–ethnically speaking–they “belonged” (Baltic Germans). Thus when the Germans attacked, the Bolsheviks were ready to move their “assets” out of the way. Sort of. In To the Tashkent Station. Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union at War (Cornell UP, 2009), Rebecca Manley does a fine job of telling the tale of how they evacuated millions of people as the Germans advanced in 1941 and 1942. Though the Party had plans (the Bolsheviks were great planners…), everything did not, as the Russians say, go po planu. As the enemy advance, threatened people did what threatened people always do–they ran off (or, as the Soviet authorities said, “self-evacuated.”). The Party was not really in a position to control this mass exodus as many members of the Party itself had hit the road. Of course some Soviet citizens stayed put, comforting themselves with the (false) hope that the Nazis were really only after the Jews and Communists. But most didn’t, particularly if they had sufficient blat (“pull”) to get a train ticket to a place like Tashkent. Under Communism, everyone is equal. In the real world, everyone isn’t, as many Soviet citizens found out. Some were allowed to leave, others weren’t. Some were given shelter, others weren’t. Some were fed, others weren’t. In this time of crisis, all of the dirty secrets of Communism were revealed. This is not to say, of course, that it wasn’t a heroic effort. It was, and a largely successful one. The Party managed to save much of its human and physical capital, and this fact contributed mightily to its eventual triumph in the war. Moreover, it saved millions of Jews from certain death, a fact that deserves to be acknowledged more often than it is. There are, then, many reasons to be thankful the Soviets bugged out as fast as they did. And there are also many reasons to be thankful Rebecca Manley has told us the story of how they did it. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
By the time the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Bolshevik Party had already amassed a considerable amount of expertise in moving masses of people around. Large population transfers (to put it mildly) were part and parcel of building socialism. Certain “elements” needed to be sent for re-education (the Kulaks), others to build new socialist cities (Magnitogorsk), and still others back to where–ethnically speaking–they “belonged” (Baltic Germans). Thus when the Germans attacked, the Bolsheviks were ready to move their “assets” out of the way. Sort of. In To the Tashkent Station. Evacuation and Survival in the Soviet Union at War (Cornell UP, 2009), Rebecca Manley does a fine job of telling the tale of how they evacuated millions of people as the Germans advanced in 1941 and 1942. Though the Party had plans (the Bolsheviks were great planners…), everything did not, as the Russians say, go po planu. As the enemy advance, threatened people did what threatened people always do–they ran off (or, as the Soviet authorities said, “self-evacuated.”). The Party was not really in a position to control this mass exodus as many members of the Party itself had hit the road. Of course some Soviet citizens stayed put, comforting themselves with the (false) hope that the Nazis were really only after the Jews and Communists. But most didn’t, particularly if they had sufficient blat (“pull”) to get a train ticket to a place like Tashkent. Under Communism, everyone is equal. In the real world, everyone isn’t, as many Soviet citizens found out. Some were allowed to leave, others weren’t. Some were given shelter, others weren’t. Some were fed, others weren’t. In this time of crisis, all of the dirty secrets of Communism were revealed. This is not to say, of course, that it wasn’t a heroic effort. It was, and a largely successful one. The Party managed to save much of its human and physical capital, and this fact contributed mightily to its eventual triumph in the war. Moreover, it saved millions of Jews from certain death, a fact that deserves to be acknowledged more often than it is. There are, then, many reasons to be thankful the Soviets bugged out as fast as they did. And there are also many reasons to be thankful Rebecca Manley has told us the story of how they did it. Please become a fan of “New Books in History” on Facebook if you haven’t already. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
By the time the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the Bolshevik Party had already amassed a considerable amount of expertise in moving masses of people around. Large population transfers (to put it mildly) were part and parcel of building socialism. Certain “elements” needed to be sent... Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
