February 9.
Let me give you the site for the transcript. I'll get
them printed up at some point, I just -- it's kind of hard to
waste paper just on one thing is the only problem. Maybe with a
couple of things I'll pass out at another point. Note: there's
know www here. This is on-line Ohlone, dot cc for community
college. CA for California. And US for United States. Notice
lower case with that little -- lower case Poly Sci, one of two.
And then capital L. I don't know why I did that. Lectures. HTML.
So that will allow you -- even if you don't have a computer at
home -- to go to the library and look it up at some point if you
want to. I mean, for review purposes, to better get some of the
definitions. I think it's going to be very very useful and
helpful. there we go. I'm catching myself. So that's good. Q
What's it say after lectures? A Dot HTML. Like mother. Which is
the language that will appear HTML is the language used. The -
if you use an IBM, I mean a PC -- windows generally don't allow
for four after the dot, so it's HTM, but that has nothing to do
with when you're typing it in on the net scape or international
explorer. I do my work on net scape and I just realized that one
of pages I'm doing for the elementary school that I'm putting up
right now, it changes dramatically on Internet on the -
explorer. on the micro soft network. So it's interesting how the changes there -- it doesn't destroy it,
but changes the pictures and the blinking that I had the
moveable -- gifts, as they are. Okay.
We were going through the interfaces on Thursday? Is that
what we were doing? And how far did we get with them? Where did
we leave off? What was the last thing? I think we were talking
about things that we did during the day that -- we talked about
your parents and what their feelings were too, so what you did
and your parents' feeling, but we did get to the chart left,
right, and center? Yes? No? Okay. I guess that's what we'll do.
Before I do anything with it, let me make it perfectly clear
that the chart is simply a schematic, meek -- it's a diagram to
help you understand. It is not absolute truth. The nice part
about being a social scientist is if it's 51 percent true, it
makes it true. So keep that in mind when you say, "Well, I
don't fit there." Well, yeah. You don't probably, that's not
the issue. You might -- you have -- just don't want to admit
it. That's another story, but not all groups have people in it
that fit the concepts either. We'll talk about groups that
don't fit the chart and some have individuals that join groups
that don't fit the chart because they're what we're going to
call true believers and distinguish between them and a true
faith. So keep that in mind as I go through this because I
think it aids us in understanding it. Philosophically it helps
us understand terminology and it
helps us place concepts to know what various groups are and
what they support.
There are other charts. The libertarian party it's own chart
that works for them in a sense and I'll show them a little
later. And then there is the concept that the chart really isn't
a straight line, but a circle. The people who talk about it
coming together and almost touching in a circle form usually are
looking at it from a practical reality rather than
philosophically and that doesn't help you understand. Which is
my intent. It is very true that at times people on both extremes
can hop back and forth, but that's not because of philosophy.
It's usually because of actions, activities, more so than not
because they're true believers and not people that have a true
philosophy and I'll explain that hopefully as -- knock my table
over. Gee, you're getting carried away there. She just pounded
into my table. A broken nail -- I bet you thought I was kidding
there. Anybody have a bandage? You never know what people carry
in their fanny packs. Okay.
Left right and center. After doing the assignment and
everything, although I think you understood the chart, you may
not always understand the positions of various groups but to
review with you the concept of the chart again, the center
wants things to pretty much stay the way they are. The center
does not necessarily want change. If it does support any
change, it's minor change. Minor. Either way.
So the center wants to support the status quo, the way things
are. The left and the right want change. The further the left
you go, the faster the change, the greater the change. The
further right you go, the greater the change, the faster the
change.
One of the problems I found with students understanding
this chart, especially discussing it on the internet course the
other night, is that for some reason there is the feeling that
change can only go in one direction. Change can go in both
directions. It's not that the left only wants change and the
right wants to stay the same. No, the center wants to stay the
same. The right also wants change. Some of you understood -what
is the difference between the change and the left and the right
want? The right wants to go back to the way things were. And the
left, therefore, wants to go towards the future wants to go
ahead. Future. So something new. More hope? Open? No. Open means
like open a door and it doesn't have meaning. Open-minded.
They're more open-minded. Not necessarily. I think that's
debatable. Q A

Like, the right is more old-fashioned?

Well, it's a biased statement that the people on the left
are open-minded and the right is closed-minded. I'm not sure
that that is what we would call a prejudicial statement based
on your own philosophy. I would object to the fact that they
are not open-minded but from this
perspective, just like the left is open-minded from its
even perspective. We have to be very careful with our
approaches, everybody, including myself. There's a
certain value system that we have to -- we have to get
out of us and understand this and the value system is not
just you, it's basically America. in the sense that Americans
tend to look to the future and into new things as good.
We have had a history of looking to change in the future.
And therefore, that change we see is good. And open
minded is a good word in our mind. However, we're putting a
value judgment on something rather than just saying the
left wants to go to new, the right wants to go old.
So the left wants change new. And of course being a
person on the left, I would obviously argue that all
right wingers are closed-minded. And I'll tell you, one
thinks things, they'd say the same thing about me. So
we have to, you know, take your values and realize that
we have to do our best to block it. So the left wants
to go forward, as you said, to the future.
And the right wants to go back, as you said, to the
past. The left supports progress which is a key word in
America. We've always pushed progress. Well, the right
wants regress. Return. And so we run into a problem. The
problem is that we have a bias in this country towards
progress which explains something about Americans. Most
have been somewhat left of center. Okay? Traditionally
Americans have supported change. Evolutionary change, slow
change, it happened basically liberal. It is true then in
recent years we see more and more merges moving towards the
right and some there have always been ultra conservatives. But
the realities is that most Americans really are today in the
center of the chart. And that center may have been wired at
certain points, but we can communicate and go back and forth
because we are people who basically see things pretty much the
same. With minor differences.
In other countries, their system doesn't work often because
there are such extremes. People are on the extreme left or
right and they're fighting and disagreeing all the time.
Americans have an ability to interact and compromise.
Historically perhaps because of groups because De Tokeville
said because of that we move back and forth a little, people
may get upset. Because they see it as a tremendous change, but
in reality they're minor changes. People from other countries
look and laugh at the difference between our parties, often
referring to them as Tweedle Dee Tweedle Dum, meaning what?
What would -- they were from Alice In Wonderland. They were
what? They were -- can you picture them from the cartoon? What
did they look like? They were like -- ugly. Short. and they
were funny looking. What was the difference in their looks?
They were identical twins. It was very -- no difference. I
think in their teeth one had a gap. They were identical twins.
And so
when we say Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum, republicans and
democrats are the same, maybe little gap in their teeth.
Yes.
Alice In Wonderland -- and now for the $64 thousand
question, who wrote Alice In Wonderland? Louis Carol. At least
no one said Walt Disney. Fifteen years ago a number of students
yelled out, the Mitchell Brothers. Mitchell Brothers, for those
that don't know -- Tom knows. The Mitchell Brothers were the
pornographic producers and movie theater owners in San
Francisco, actually throughout the Bay Area. A few years ago
one of the brothers blew away the other one, and I'm not sure
what the debate was about. But they did produce a pornographic
Alice In Wonderland. They did pornographic Pinnochio, the women
kept saying, "Lie, please lie." I know. That was bad. I'm
sorry. Okay. I'm thinking of how that part is translated. It's
more watching the symbol sometimes because they have to get
this out without spelling it rapidly and so, you know, trying
and explain it is not so easy. I have a I feel, sorry -- with
my wise-ass humor it's not easy. I don't know what they do -
it must be worse.
Um, well, any questions? Now there are a couple of other
things in that chart. You did in the first interface that in a
sense could be put on this. I had distrust/trust. Where would
you put distrust/trust on this? Distrust would be in the left
and trust would be on the riqht. I'd reverse
it the other way. Trust on the left, distrust on the right,
why? When you want to move forward and you never -- you don't
know what comes in the future, so you're more trusting of
everybody else. I think you have to be trusting, yeah. If you
want to have change now you have to trust. It's going to work.
People who want to go back don't feel the future is good. They
don't feel things are working. They want to go back to things
that did work and so there's a certain distrust. Remember, this
is a generalization, okay? Please, I don't say that applies to
you or everyone, but I think you can understand where that will
logically make sense. I think.
And on the same level, if you're on the left and you tend
to trust, then you tend to think that people are basically good
or will be good. They can be made good if they were born with a
blank slate because then you're going to something new.
However, on the extreme right, the idea is well, you know,
probably you can't trust the people. And probably a good
percentage are evil and they're not going to change. It's human
nature, you know, look out for the other guy, or something of
that nature. You've got to feel that they're a little more to
the right of the chart. And just things people say politically
gives you an idea if they're looking forward to the past things
that worked, you know, they're going to be from the center
towards the right if they're coming up with new ideas, new
approaches, things
that have never been. Then, you know, they're probably
introducing concepts towards the left- And other kinds of
approaches.
I'm a historian- And if I could enter a time machine, what
period of history would I want to go too? Yeah, I'd love to see
the Greeks and the Romans and all those things, but if I had my
choice, the first place I would go would be the future. I would
like to go meet Captain Piccard. Okay, Captian Kirk. Mr. Spock.
That tells you that I lean towards,the left. It doesn't tell
you how far left. But it tells you I'm more interested in the
future than I am in going into the past and that, in a sense, I
think gives you an indication of how a person might vote, too,
politically and what the political position of the candidate
would be based upon questions of that nature.
Okay. The first word on the chart that I asked you to
place here was conservative. Where did you put it?
Center. In the center because my book said so? Why did you
put it in the center? Well, conservative usually means you
have a tendency to keep things the same. You may want to
change back or ahead because mainly the word is there.
Conservative has within it the word that comes from which is
conserve. It wants to conserve, maintain the system.
Today, because Americans have tended to be more liberal/
conservative, in reality many conservatives are ultra
conservative and it was Garvadoll, a writer, an author who
recently said that Americans are no longer liberal/
conservative where conservative and ultra -- and we'll
explain as we go along.
So conservatives want to basically conserve the system. We
have changed the words for conservatives. The true is often
referred to today as a moderate. So in our country, we tend to
look at conservatives as somewhat right of the center. Probably
where I put ultra conservative on the chart. I don't think that
is a valid commentary. Wants little change. The main
philosopher of conservatism is a man named Edmond Burke. Edmond
Burke. A British philosopher 1700s and 1800s who said forth the
underlying principles of rational, reasonable, considerate,
change. In contrast of the course too what was happening at the
time, France, the French revolution, he saw that as destructive
to people and society and therefore talked about what would be
more productive and that was making change. In relationship to
your own society and analyzing it and taking your time rather
than jumping into things head first. Questions on conservatism?
Q What did you say about him? A He was the main philosopher of
conservatism. Spelling out the real underlying concepts of it.
I don't know if I mentioned, maybe I did, I can in this class,
but that the chart comes from the French revolution as to the
way people were seated in the national assembly. On the right
were the
monarchist. More to the left are the Jirondists and the
Mountain and finally the extreme right we had the
supporters
of the -- what do you call it? The word slipped my mind.
The upper class wore nickers and so that is the -- the
pants, full pants were really so it was really -- three
quarter pants that you people I don't think kids wear
that very much today. Some of the women used to wear
pedal
pushers. Are they still around? They came back. Everything
goes back. It's amazing. We go through cycles. The nice
part about men's clothing is they don't go through
cycles,
The only thing that is changed is with the ties and the
width size of the lapels. Sort of boring, if you think
about it. Women have a better opportunity to at least
save
their things and wardrobes. And buy new things.
Democratic party. Where'd you put it? Towards the
left. A little to the left. I wouldn't put it far left,
certainly. I would say that there are people that are in
the liberal area today and a little further left than
liberal, like Jessie Jackson, like at Ted Kennedy and the
Kennedy during John F, the party was probably liberal.
The New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt. They came up with all
kinds of changes with American politics in society. As
did the new frontier of John F. Kennedy and the great
society of Lyndon Johnson. Yet the democrats today are
trying to hold onto change. They're fighting to maintain
what was done during the Roosevelt years and the Johnson
years of the
'60s. And so they've come more to the center. Already some
desires for change. Democratic party still advocates more
rights for women, if you will. Rights for gays. And of
course, the big policy that was new that was pushed by
Clinton, but went no where, got lost, was the program for a
National Health Care program. Medicaid, Medicare are for
senior citizens basically or into social security. But this
would be for anybody that does not have coverage and even
might include people with children, but they never spelled
out the details and somehow it got lost.
Where'd you put the republicans? How far right? Not too
far, maybe halfway between center and right. Well I would
think that the republican party was at that ultra conservative
position. I think it moved further towards the center today,
but it doesn't say you're wrong. But that could be and I would
perhaps debate it not to say that they're not there.
The Christian coalition. So, I wouldn't put it necessarily
here more. Here the republican party. The democratic party
here. But that's my putting it there, doesn't make it right.
Putting it here is just as accurate if your reasons are right.
That's why you asked for reason as to why you put something
where you did. And again, that shows you that we have that
sort of closeness that might justify the term Tweedle Dee
Tweedle Dum.

KKK? Extreme right? The KKK, I would put on the

extreme right in this country, yes. Why? Because the KKK hates
that ethnic -- they want to go with white power, other groups,
the ethnic groups they're totally against. They want a white
dominant. Why is that right? The fact is it's true, but why
does it make it right to the right of the chart? I was going to
say they wanted to return to the, like, the 1950s toward the
term when there was segregation. Well they want to return to
almost -- many of them want slavery. They want to go back to a
period of time when those minorities were put in their place
and control if not wanting to eliminate them. Even if it wasn't
real and what we had an all white America. Their desire is to
return to their all white America or at least white power,
will. So it's the return that makes them right. not sure it's
just 1950. I'm not sure they want to 1750. Maybe I'm giving
them too much credit.
Neo-Nazi or just Nazis? Where would you put
Same, on the right. Yeah. Same, on the right.if you And I'm to return Probably.them?
Why?
They're the same as the KKK. Yeah. They are very much today
in the new neo-Nazis in some way however they'd still be in
other right in the sense of wanting an all white power
America. Returning to white America getting rid of the
minorities, ethnic groups, and religious groups that are not
Protestant. What's the difference between a neo-Nazi and
the old Nazi? Well I was just going to say I thought the
old Nazi were iust oh, Hitler wanted to eliminate any,
well Slavs are a good example, but gypsy were evil, Jehovah's
Witness and one of the big -- Christians. Hitler didn't want
the twisted because he wanted to rush to the old Germanic Arian
gods, the gods of the true Teutonics, the true Germans: Thor,
Arnold Swartznager. And many priests and nuns wound up in
prison camps. They weren't exterminated as the Jews were or the
gypsies or some other groups because if you recall in the 1936
Olympics, some of the shows on -obviously, you don't recall.
Even I wasn't alive in 1936, close, but not quite an the ball.
Am, however, um, Jessie Owens upset the Nazi establishment
by winning four gold medals and stood out and it really upset
the Nazi establishment. At least that's the way it appears in
all of the newspapers and pictures. He was out to show Arian
supremacy and the superiority of the white. Blond, blue eyed.
The difference, I just stated. The neo-Nazi have adopted
Christianity. They have created churches and rejected the
attempt to return to the Teutonic. Even if they still use it as
a symbol. They've created therefore an alliance with the KKK
who used to hate them because they saw them as anti-American,
German, antiChristian. Burning of the cross, purifying of
America. Symbolic of the purifying of America. Both the Nazis
and the KKK believe in a superior race and leader. Who knows
what's best for the race over many other races who were evil
who should either be eliminated or enslaved. And from the
German's, we have the word slave which comes from the Slavs. Of
course we're not talking about Nazi Germany because the tribes
moving into that area in the 14th century. So there was
something in the tradition of Germany and the German racism
that exist, which by the way, was established for a short
period of time before the Muslims came into Spain and opened up
the door to racial acceptance in Spain. The first group to take
over was a group called the Bisagots and they set up a
philosophy and oppression in the 500 and 600 A.D. Period of
time. So there was definitely something in the nature that will
-- well, not nature in the sense of nature, but something in
the history of the Germanic people that Hitler was able to
build on. And you can see why the KKK say it as an Arian
philosophy.
The new neo-Nazi do something else that is frightening,
compared to the old Nazi maybe. Although they're both
frightening in some ways from my perspective. They do a lot of
their recruitment from the prisons, which the old ones may have
recruited from the bums on the street. The reason for the
prison recruitment which is very valid, is that the prisons are
divided dramatically by race. And to survive, you need to
belong to one of the racial gangs and the Arian Brotherhood is
one of the most powerful white gangs in the prisons and many of
them join the brotherhood and when they get out, they maintain
their alliance which is a Nazi kind of orqanization.
Groups on the right are often grouped together with a
couple of words. One word that is used to group of the groups to
group to groups is reactionary. Another term inaccurately used,
but certainly used, making this therefore usable is fascist. We
tend to refer to all of the groups on the the right as fascists.
What does that mean? I'm not sure what you mean it means? I'm
going to talk a little bit about it because fascist, as I say,
groups everyone on the right. So if you want to know what it
means basically all those groups that support one race, superior
to others, want to go back in time like the right wing wants to
do, wants a leader, okay? And therefore wants an authoritarian
government to control evil. But any group on the right does
that. Now what it means, and I think what I was referring to in
my question to you, is that it is different in the way than what
it really means.
Fascism was the philosophy of what world leader?
Mussolini. From? From Italy. And what it means is the
Italian philosophy that ran the country of Italy. It's not
used that way anymore because Mussolini is dead and fascism
still exists, but doesn't rule Italy. It was often
identified as similar to Nazism which it is, why? Because
fascism has the same philosophy of that extreme right.
Which we identified and mentioned a couple of minutes ago.
However, there are some differences between the
Nazis and the fascists The nature difference is that while
both want inferior and weak people to be enslaved, the Nazis
went a step further. They advocated the Genocide of certain
evil inferior groups. Mussolini never advocated genocide. In
fact, he resisted sending Jews and others to the death camps
until he was captured by the allies. And then Hitler rescued
him, set him back up in northern Italy as the ruler, at this
point had no choice. He went and began the exportation of Jews
and gypsies and others to the death camps in Hungary and
Holland. So that's a major difference. I think all those, not
the only ones, was there was an economic difference in the
sense of the structure. Fascism was structured around the
factories and the leadership in the factories. Sort of the
working class leadership under the dictatorship of Mussolini.
Very interesting. So it had the support of the what we might
call unions. Nazism finally went out creating monopoly control
through some of the Nazi leaders. Did not really emphasize as
it expanded the working class, and I think was personally
reason for that Hitler knew that his ability to come to power
very much rested on the money interest.
Today's paper indicated that new studies are showing that
some of the major German banks lent the Nazis money to build
the death camps, the gas chambers and those kinds of cities
are coming out now that they're going into the research papers
the papers are being opened and they're finding the loans,
they're finding what kind of payment so
that the industries and the banking industry were very much
Hitler in the involvement of the society itself. And the
government started many industries there and turns it over to
other Nazis is Volkswagen. And the money and funding from it
came from the government itself.
I apologize to you that I can't answer a question very
simply. I know people would want one little definition, makes
it easy for memorization, but I'd rather you understood it
then tried to memorize that fascism is -- and give you five
words. Okay?
Communist workers party? Where did you put them? Yeah. The
extreme left in our country for sure. Although, you don't know
the worker's party, you know, the term communism. It doesn't
matter. There may be little difference between the numerous
communist parties thin country and maybe we may mention some
in class but it's not a major element in the course to talk
about the communist party then country, however, it is on the
extreme left. Why? Because they tend to have workers and
everybody else is equal and they don't worry about who's rich
and poor. Everybody's equal. Because of that, I put them in
the middle actually. Again, you're missing the one element.
Everything you said is valid except maybe the middle about the
communist talking about the people being equal and everybody
sharing, but why is that left? You've got to get that word in
there. If you don't get that word, it's going
to impact your exam grade. What is missing from the argument?
That everybody being equal and everybody sharing is something
that hadn't been and therefore it's something new.
Okay now you've got to keep in mind the chart when we
explain it on the exam, people. New/old. Change/no change.
moving forward/future. Communism sees it as a future. Not as it
exists now. If you put them in the middle, you will be arguing
that we all exist equally today. And that we all share equally,
but I'm not sure many of us would accept that. As a philosophy,
okay? So you've got to get your patterns of understanding in
line with why they fit where they do on the chart. Is everybody
-- ask so it shouldn't be that hard. Key words that you need to
throw in an exam or in your answers on the interfaces. It's
new. It's old. They want to go ahead to it. They want to go
back to it. At that point, you got your A. Everything else you
say, becomes irrelevant if you don't put in the other concepts.
Any questions on that?
So we're saying communism never existed? Yeah, I'm saying
it never existed. Then what the hell was the Soviet Union? An
attempt? Okay, was it an attempt? Yes, perhaps it was. The
first stage or the stage not necessarily first stage, but the
stage right before communism and what did we call that stage?
Socialism? Yeah, it was the union of the Soviet socialist
republics. You have just learned something
about Marxism philosophy. That socialism is the stage before
communism. And that you have, according to Marxs, have to go
through socialism first before you going to enter communism. So
Russia never got to communism, right? Because what is
communism? She said it's all people equal. It's all people
sharing. No main government.
When you have no government, what is it called? Anarchy. In
socialism do you have government? Yes. You have absolute
government in many ways, don't you? So somehow we go from
absolute to government and this is where Marxs comes involve in
trying to explain how it's suppose to happen without giving
details. But to Marxs, the socialist government is going to
lead no government or anarchy. But communism is the way to get
to anarchy. There are anarchism and want to create it
immediately and there are socialists who were not Marxist who
will have the end. To Marxs, socialism is a means to the end,
and the end is communism. Any questions on that so far? By the
way, Marxism and communism are synonymous. It means they're the
same. Why are Marxism and communism synonymous? Marx was the
modern philosophy? Yeah, Marxs certainly was the author at
least maybe not the first, but certainly the individual who set
the philosophy the underlying philosophy of what we call
communism. He wrote in the 19th century. Most people never read
his works because they're unreadable. Except for the communist
Manifesto. The communist Manifesto to incite the
working class to repress against. The Manifesto was
written not only by Marx, which explains maybe why it's
better written, he put the hope of a man called Frederick
Anggels who was a factory owner and helped Marxs survive
by giving him some money for the rest of his life,
basically. Marxs was a scholar. Be was -an agitator, too.
-But most of the time he spent in the British museums.
which is a library researching to prove that his theory -
bad to come to being. It was valid. In many ways Marxs
was the first social scientist because he tried to make politics,
government, history, society, a science by finding the
facts of course different in scientists. He fit the facts
into a theory that he found. So some ways he was not much
different in Machiavellian.
Marxs argued following the principles of a German or oppression by
the Aggel. Engel that history changes through conflict.
it's not a gradual change, they're sudden changes. And
there is no missing links. We jump from one era to another and
that process is call a dialectic. Marx's dialectical changes
conflict in Aggel, the conflict was ideas. Marxs took
Aggels over material goods, economics, and so it's known
as dialectical material. According to Marx, as Aggel, as
the conflict expanded, society improved. History kept
getting better. Life improved and people's lives improved,
According to Marxs, we were in a good stage now, but not
the best because there was still exploitation.
The conflict was over the resources. According to
Marx, resources are scarce. Economics resources are
scarce. So you have haves, they have the haves and the
have nots. They don't have the resources that kept changing.
And as time unfolded, more people were haves.. And there
were less have nots. Finally, all of this conflict would
end in communism because in communism, everybody would be
a have. We would all have. And we would all share. In an
altruistic unselfish. We would be unselfish. And
therefore history would be because conflict would end and we
would be happily living happily ever after.
instead of pie in the sky when you die, as most
religions point out, Marx said you got pie in the sky
and pie on earth. Now, or in the immediate future. It
was going to happen. It had to happen. Sooner or
later, we would enter Utopia, Marx wanted to make it
sooner than later. Okay.
So according to Marx, you had, or Aggel, basically
you had a thesis or idea and once you had those haves
that generated an opposite idea called an antithesis or
have not. Or a counter culture. You had a culture and a
counter culture, and they will fight it out of the -- of
this fight would be a new thesis. It will come to go and
a new synthesis would create a new thesis once you have
have class you create a new have not class, a counter
culture, a new synthesis, which creates a new thesis
which creates a new
antithesis.

He said that most recent in history, the have class

were

the feudal lords. Who were the have not class? The
surfs.
And that emerged the battle and came the capitalists. The
businessmen. The entrepeneur or the bigger word that we
have trouble spelling, the bourgeoisie -- Um, and of
course
who were the have nots now that you have the capitalists?
The workers, and of course there was a big word used for
workers and that was proletariat. The proletariat would
sooner or later rebel against the capitalists. The idea
of
the communism, however, were to make the proletariat
understand that they were being committed that they were
being used and the capitalists was making profit from
their
labor. The so-called surplus value of labor that Marx. So
it was going to happen anyway. There was going to be a
rebellion actually happening first in the industrial
countries and the communist should push it along and once
the rebellion took place, a new system would emerge
socialists. Which in a sense was the dictatorship of the
dictatorship of the proletarian, from the bourgeoisie and
the conflict would emerge socialism of which is a
dictatorship or leadership, if you will, stronger of the
proletariat. All right. Let's take a break here to
define these economically because what we're doing with
terms. Not really government terms. Economic terms.
Terms: Capitalism -- the system that was going to be
rebelled against. Who owns the means of production? Well
land labor and capital they are even and controlled in
capitalism by the capitalists. Or the bigger word
bourgeois. The entrepeneur. The businessmen controls or
owns the means of production, lands labor and capital and
goods and services are distributed through supply and
demand most of you have had economics. Supply and demand.
Translation? The capitalist is selfish. He's out for his
own profit. He's not going to sell something unless he
can make a profit. He's not going to make it unless he
can make a profit, and if he can make it, he will sell it
for whatever he gets. It doesn't matter. If people are
willing to buy it, fine. Contact lenses is a good
example. They cost about ten cents a piece to make and
people pay to $400 a pair of contact lenses. Why? because
you're willing to. It's as simple as that. People in the
Bay Area seem to be willing to pay higher gas prices than
the rest of the country. I couldn't believe it. I told
you already. Gas was 90 cents a gallon and it was still a
$1.29 here for regular. I couldn't -- so we'll pay it.
They'll sell it. It doesn't matter what the real cost is.
They may argue this of course. That's capitalism.
In socialism, the government controls or owns the
means of production. And goods and services are
distributed by the government. Government determines who
gets what, when, and bow. So the government determines
the goods and services
because the government controls the means of production.
Socialism -- exists as we indicated in the Soviet Union. It
exists in China and Cuba, although they're breaking down.
However -- Sweden broke down theirs. India has been, but it has
some very strong socialist institution which means the
government controls the private industries. But in the United
States we have socialism too. What's socialistic in this
country? Social? Postal service is more than it is now. Twenty
years ago there could be no competition for mail. There was no
federal express. They weren't allowed legally. Today at least
while there's government ownership of the postal service, they
have a lot for private express carriers, but that is different,
but it's still a socialistic right. What is socialistic? Would
you say all our regulatory departments like FDA? Well, I
wouldn't say they're socialistic in the government is
determining who distribution and service there it's
controlling, protecting you. It could be called socialist, but
I'm talking where it really does make control distribution such
as what you say, social security? Yeah. Your health education.
You're in a socialist institution. The school. Okay? Your
social security. Your unemployment insurance. Those are
controlled not just regulated by the government. So regulations
are one thing.. Actually control in ownership is socialism.
Tennessee Valley authority sells electricity. Owned by the
government. Am Track basically is a socialistic institution
because the private railroad companies had stopped carrying
passengers. BART is socialist in this area. Palo Alto owns its
electric companies and buys its electricity from -sells it cheaper to
the people in Palo Alto. But they sell it privately -- or P.G.&
E. Rather.
Also, therefore, socialism in this country. Not on the
extent of some countries where they own the railroads, they own
the rain, Israel. There is some competition now with Virgin
Airlines. They didn't allow competition. There was only one radio
station, the BBC and sometimes they had three all owned by the
government. Now there are private stations emerging, but those
were more socialistic and especially right after Word War II.
So socialism can exist in a democracy. It doesn't necessarily
mean it has to be a dictatorship if the people determine what
the government is.

In communism, the means of production are owned by no one
or by everyone in communism. In communism, the means of
production are owned by no one or by everyone in common. And
goods and services are distributed by altruism. Distributes
good and services. If you have three shirts and you have -need
two -- you give it away to somebody who needs it.
Now, how then do we get from total government to no
government? Well once you enter socialism according to
Marx, the dictatorship will begin to reward those people
better than they reward selfish people. So school teachers
would make more money than stockbrokers. Of course
stockbrokers wouldn't exist in a socialist country in
reality, but that's used as an example because school
teachers are doing something productive for other people,
stockbrokers are making money. Therefore, according to
this philosophy, more and more people would find to
realize that it benefits them selfishly to be unselfish.
And as you act on things and you condition yourselves to
something, the argument is, and I think that when you do
things you become that way. Okay? Your personality
changes.
When I was in school, I could never talk in a
classroom. Now I don't shut up. Personality change. And
therefore the argument is that future generations will
inherit through nurture, the altruism and sooner or later
nobody will be selfish. Marxist biologist in the the
1930s even went further. They cut it out ten years
because it was killing. They argued an approach that you
inherit characteristics. That, for example, that if you
cut off a finger, your child would have a finger a
millimeter short and the argument went onto argue that if
you change people's consciousness to be altruistic, their
children would be born unselfish. Well that was pushing
it, but it was fitting Marxist and that in a sense was
what Marx was saying. That as soon as socialism finally
created an unselfish word, because if you -- it will be
very difficult to create an
unselfish country unless you could put up a wall and
nothing
came in because the other country's selfishness pass off
that according to Marx, the state or government would
wither away; it will disappear. He doesn't say how or
when we would enter communism.
Anarchy.
I think for the system was pretty obvious to me before
it fell apart in the Soviet Union at least from my
perspective. I like the outcome. I just don't think it
could be arrived in this way. I do not see people in
power acting unselfishly. Translation: What happened in
the Soviet Union, the managers, the proletariat dictators
decided that they were the most unselfish. Some animals
are more equal than others, and pigs are the most equal,
or something to that effect. Remember that from Animal
Farm? A very well beautiful description. 25 years before
it fell apart. The managerial class gave themselves
better cars, better homes, because they were the most
unselfish. And who else were the most unselfish? Anyone
who made society look good. The strangest unselfish
people were probably the athletes. Because somehow,
athletes were consider unselfish because they were making
communism look good. The famous weight lifter is probably
before most of your time, a guy name Alexia who was one
of the more famous weight lifters, broker numerous world
records. In the Russian system, every time you made it,
you made communism look good. You get a new TV, a new
car, a bigger apartment. So every time he
broke a record which was the minimum you need to do to
break the record, he could have probably broken dome by
five or ten kilograms, but he wouldn't get as many
rewards. So he kept breaking by one kilogram. Makes
sense. Unselfish. And so, what we have then was really a new
class developing a managerial class, translation in it
before communism fell and explains to me why it did.
Power tends to corrupt. Absolute power corrupts
absolutely. The people who were in power are not going to
generally function. Most have them unselfishly. Does that
mean that people are naturally selfish? I don't believe
that. I also could believe that people can be made
educate nurtured to be unselfish. I just don't think that
it's going to be done by selfish people. Those who were
the proletariat in power. But, can't prove that. So I am
not a Marxist. Despite the fact, they'll -- that the
outcome of an equal society and living together on this,
either sounds great to me. So I am, um, a Utopian, and I
am an anarchist, but you it get there, well that becomes
the practicality.
Questions on Marxism? Communism? Soviet Union? None?
So once again, communism is on the left because it wants
to move ahead to something that's never been. It wants a
society where people are equal. It wants a world society
where people share altruistically and live together
without government. Fascism in generic terms, is on the right because they
want to go back to controlling the people, to controlling them
through a strong government, and eliminate the really vicious
evil people. With one race that's superior and one who can
interpret the will and body of race embodied that race.
What was next on the chart? Was it the John Birch
society or --? All right, well.
Um, Christian coalition: We had society, it may take a
little more time. Do I have Green Peace on the chart? Yeah.
Where did you put Green Peace? I put more towards the left.
Put it on the left. Why? It -- it seems like the democratic
party's always been more concerned with -- I don't know. I
connected it with democratic. Actually, if you talk about the
environmental group, the first person we identify as a
politician with was the republican Teddy Roosevelt. It is
valid today that the democratic Al Gore seems to be allies
with the environmentalists, but just because the democratic
party is on the left why would you put environmentalists on
the left? Put them in the left because they want to protect
the rights of animals and people as well.
Well, if you want to continue and maintain because you're
trying to conserve, so logically you have to put them in the
center by the words you've used and the word conservative.
Conservation is in there, so why aren't they in the center? But
the word conservative is in there.
Conservation. So why is it on the left? I was going to say
they want to establish new laws and basically change society
to be more environmentally. Yes. Americans have not been
conscience. We have not concerned ourselves with the
environment. It has been basically there for us to use for
making money, for basically exploitation and so
traditionally then, any change to preserve the environment
which we can call conservation would legitimately
politically be on the left because it's new. Green Peace
might be a little more left of liberal.
The most radical of the conservationist groups of this
country is which one? Earth First. A guy got killed by a tree
that fell. They put the spikes in the tree. They've been
accused of blowing up power lines and they've been in the
press this last week, but ten years ago a couple of Earth
First people their car -- in Oakland, but they began to blame
it on the FBI. The people felt that they were carrying bombs
to blowup, what do you call it, electrical lines? okay.