 We'll get started with Jim. Jim has actually sent us questions, a couple of questions in advance. I know that we'll do this. So give us the first one, Jim. And I'll just read a portion of it because I'm a little bit verbose in my email. All right, first question is essentially how are modern leftists not identical to Marxists? This is something you've said repeatedly on your show in recent weeks. On the face of it, I think I get what you're after here. Among other things, you're afraid that ordinary people will consider this idea out of touch with the present. After all, their primary concern today seems to be identity politics and not traditional class struggle. In some of my charged rhetoric on Facebook, I've chided these leftist identitarians as being Marxist. It's a great effect. I'll get some of them claiming that I don't understand what Marxism is actually about thus exposing them as Marxists. I'll get some of them defending Marx, thus exposing themselves as Marxists. In any case, the thing they never say is I'm not a Marxist, let alone express any disgust for Marxism or try to distance themselves. So how are they really different from Marxists? Well, first I think it's important for us to be accurate in how we describe our enemies. It's easy to call everybody on the left Marxist. And look, everybody on the left is influenced by Marx. Marx is the most influential intellectual on the left. But you could also say everybody's a Kantian, right? And that would include most people on the right as well. And that would be, I think, not very useful in terms of the dialogue. Now, I think it's important to show the connection between today's intellectual and Kant and it's important to show the connection to Marx. But I don't think it's useful to paint them all as the same because I don't think they all are the same. You have those, and this is more popular right now in among the white fragility crowd, the white guilt crowd, the identity politics crowd. That crowd is different than Juan Chomsky. And Nam Chomsky is different than Stephen Pinker. And even Stephen Pinker is influenced by Marx because some of his attitude towards capitalism are influenced by Marx, it's a small influence. All of them are influenced by Marx, but the guys who are identitarian politics have a different emphasis than the guys who are traditional class theorists or believers in the dynamic of history and the class of classes and the inevitability of the result and the victory of the polytherian. I don't think, for example, that a lot of the identity politics people really believe in the inevitability of history and the deterministic nature of the future. And Man is completely 100% determined by his class. They believe he's determined by his race, but they still have this notion that the struggle is not inevitable and doesn't leave the inevitable consequences, which is what the true Marxists believe. And then they're not all exactly like Chomsky, even though a lot of them have been impacted by Chomsky. Chomsky has this, he's like an anarchist, right? Because he believes that the true way towards communism is to anarchy. And so he's- Did Marx also? I mean, didn't Marx- Marx is vague, right? Marx ultimately lives in the dictatorship of the polytherians. That's not exactly anarchy, but we all know that anarchy always leads the dictatorship. So it's all fuzzy. And I think that if they don't want to bring calamity to it, that's fine, but we do need to. So I view Marxist as the traditional Marxist. Now, the other thing is that I view most of the extreme leftists, most of the activist leftists, the, anyway from Antifa, to elements within the Black Lives Matter movement, to the person I will talk about on Monday, who just wrote a book about how looting is a good thing. And it's a sign of progress and movement, sign of the progress of the movement. These people are not Marxists. These people, now they influence by Marx, but they're out and out nihilists, 100% nihilists. There's no theory there. There's no utopia there. There's no thing that they're driving towards. These people are haters. And you know, the woman who advocates for white fragility, it's not, there's no theory there. There's no class, you know, some grand view of the world, the Hegelian conflict. She just hates herself and hates everybody around her. She's a hater. And her motivation is that hatred and that willingness to crush everything. Now granted, a lot of Marxists are haters. So I understand that there's a lot of overlap, but I think it serves us well to be able to differentiate and distinguish also. And I think, again, it gives them more intellectual credibility than they deserve to call them Marxists. Because I think they're lower than Marx. And you know what I think about Marx? And I think some of these people, I mean, some of these people are lower than Marx and the despicable, disgusting nihilists and while Marx was also despicable, I mean, it's hard with degrees of evil, but these people in a sense are worse than that and more immediately destructive. What's the guy's name at Harvard, the black thinker that I did a show about? What's that? Cornel West? Yeah, Cornel West. Now Cornel West, I think, is more of a traditional Marxist. He's not focused on identity politics. He's not, I don't think he's an nihilist in the same way. I think he's just a classical, what do you call it, Marxist and that's why he's silent right now. You know, you don't see a lot of Cornel West right now. He's not one of the prominent leaders in these marches and in this destructive movement because he doesn't really belong. He's in a sense, and I hate to say this, he's too sane. I mean, people right now leading this truly it's insanity. I mean, calling, I mean, you saw yesterday, DC in a demonstration in DC, literally calling to attack and to injure the police and to kill the police, right? I mean, you know where that's gonna lead. It's just, I don't think Cornel West would make that claim or silence anybody who doesn't agree with us. Cornel West is not quite there yet. He's an advocate at least in some sense for free speech. So we have to be able to differentiate the left. Otherwise, I think we lose because everybody's lumped in as the same thing. It's like when they say everyone's racist. Yeah, everybody's a capitalist as a racist or everybody on the right as a racist, everybody. It's just not useful to lump everybody together. And I know some objectivists do that. And you know, but I think it's better to be nuanced. I can't disagree with any of that answer. I mean, it's an excellent answer. And yet I struggle a little bit in part because maybe it's just the Madison bubble. I don't think so though. But when I ask people- Those things all influenced by Marx. They all will give you the class theory. They'll all give you that. But in reality, that's not what they're playing on. Now again, in Madison, maybe they are. Maybe they're more Marxist in Madison because you are in Madison, Wisconsin after all. Maybe they're more, I mean, they're probably more Marxist in Madison, Wisconsin than they are in Beijing. So, you know, it's quite possible that you are in a Marxist bubble. And look, it's all interconnected. It's not like it's just, I think it's worth differentiating between the shades of black. And I mean black in the sense of evil. Yeah, thank you. Good answer. Jennifer. Can you explain that idea of spontaneous order and capitalism? Yes, spontaneous order is an idea really presented by Hayek, but really has its origin in some extent with Adam Smith and later, you know, even with Bastiat, although Hayek gave it the name, spontaneous order. And the idea here is that institutions, organizations, markets are not planned. There's no organizing person, institution organization that allows them to come about. There's basically a certain set of laws and everything just evolves as created spontaneously by the marketplace, by the individual activities of individuals in the marketplace. They create the institutions, the organizations, the markets that then we observe. So there's no stock market. Nobody planned the stock market. A bunch of guys in New York got together at a coffee shop in the 19th century and got together and started trading securities, bonds I think originally, and then stocks of railroads primarily. And then slowly they morphed into an institution called the stock market. Nobody planned it. Nobody had a thought, oh, we should have a stock market and then implement it. Now, there is a certain truth to that and many things do come to be in that way, right? But I think the problem is that both Adam Smith and Hayek and many three market thinkers have, the problem is that it ignores the role of the planner. And the primary planner in markets is D'Entrepreneur. D'Entrepreneur is a planner. He does have a plan. He could have a one-year plan, a five-year plan, a 10-year plan. He has a plan and he has a vision and he puts everything together to create that vision. And while all of that is also within a structure of a market that maybe wasn't planned, the market cannot, none of this can happen without individuals having plans, without individuals having, without entrepreneurs, having a vision and organizing things and creating things. I don't know if you have a red eye pencil. Do you ever see, there's a little video on- And all the things that go into making the pencil. Yes, and the idea with the pencil is nobody knows how to make a pencil, right? Nobody, because if you take it back far enough, nobody, you know, the guy who works in the pencil factory, even the CEO of the pencil factory, doesn't know how to produce lead or doesn't know how to chop down the trees and turn the trees into these things. He can order that from somebody else. So all these elements come together. And the idea is, this is an example of spontaneous order. Pencils just, they just are creation of this market. And I remember once, Fee, I think, was really pushing the movie they made out of eye pencil. Eye pencil is something that the founder of Fee was a story that he created, it's a little booklet that he created to show how beautiful markets work. And it's true, it's amazing, right? Because it's true, no one person has the knowledge of how to make a pencil. But it's also not true that pencils just come out of nowhere. They're just spontaneous order. And when they showed this movie, they hadn't had a panel afterwards. And I said, I really actually hate this movie because it's missing the most important thing. It's missing the entrepreneur who has the idea of creating a pencil. And then hires all these people and contracts with all these people to make all the stuff that he doesn't know how to make. I mean, the fact is the entrepreneur, the CEO probably doesn't even know how to use the machines to turn the wood. He hires people to do that, but that's his role. His role is to organize, it's not to make. And that is so missing. And with a few exceptions, Mises and Israel Kurtzner, who is still alive at the age of 90 something years old, those are the two economists within the Austrian school that really emphasize the role of the entrepreneur. But most of the Austrians don't, things just happen. And you saw this a little bit with Matt Ridley, who's an economist. But like Matt Ridley, when I interviewed him, his idea was progress happens, stuff gets created. If it isn't Steve Jobs, it'll be somebody else. If it isn't this guy, it's that guy. Like a force of nature. Yeah, it's just, yeah. It's, but really is Newton inevitable? Is Aristotle inevitable? Is, I mean, I mean, it's just not, it's just not, I don't think Steve Jobs is inevitable. No, yeah, something like it would have happened. It's not like we would have no progress, but it would have been a different path in history. And that the role of the entrepreneur is what's really, really missing in spontaneous order. And I don't like the term spontaneous order because I think it diminishes the role of the human mind. It diminishes planning. And that's part of, unfortunately, part of Hayek's legacy is diminishing reason. And the idea that we need limited government because people aren't smart enough, aren't good enough, aren't reasonable enough is a conservative and in some cases, libertarian idea, which is very destructive. Thank you. Sure. Oh, yeah, there he is. Hey, Yaron, hi everyone. Good. Maybe I'll just kind of piggyback off of Jim's question. When he started off by kind of asking about leftist. Is another way to approach his question to say, all right, let's kind of borrow Rand's concept of, or her phrase of check your premises. So maybe is another way to approach his question to say, okay, let's start by defining, what do you mean by leftist? Yep. Let's break that down. And in a way, it also suggests there's something called rightist, right? And what does that mean? Yes, and I think, you know, when Rand defined it, Rand defined leftism as collectivism, leftism and statism of all kinds, right? And she actually find the right, this point of individual rights and pro-capitalism. So she defined a spectrum with individual rights on one end and collectivism on the other end, and the right representing individual rights. And she would say, conservatives and Republicans have betrayed that they're not really rightists and fascism is really a phenomena of the left, right? And that would expand the left even broader than Marxism, right? They would expand it to our forms of collectivism and altruism and statism. I have given up on Ein's definition there because, you know, I don't think it's that important. There's certain terms that I think that are important to fight for, right? And there's certain terms that I don't think are important to fight for. I don't think left, right is important to fight for, particularly given that the traditional right, what everybody thinks is the right, has moved away from individual rights and capitalism. So now we have a left and a right for both collectivists and the differences that the left emphasizes class and race. The right seems to emphasize nation. You know, some people on the right emphasize race, but not as openly, right? Because it's, you know, the racism of the left is far more acceptable in our world than the racism of the right. And so they emphasize nation, that's how, and they emphasize religion. So you've got religion and nationalism on the right, you've got class and race on the left. But they're all collectivists of a variety, of a verse meaning. And I think you even have the nihilists of the right. It's a parallel of the nihilists of the left, although obviously the nihilists of the left are far more dominant, vocal, and right now, you know, more in our face and more influential if you want. So I think that, yes, you have to check what we mean by left. I mean by left, everybody who's a collectivist who is an advocate of class warfare or racial warfare of some degree or another who are for a mixed economy because of class issues or because of race issues. And the right, it's a mixed economy because of nation or because of some, something about religion, right? I think there are a lot of people, even in our political world right now, a lot of people within the intellectual framework, that in that world don't really have a good home. It's not clear where Stephen Pinker fits in. He's a collectivist in economics, but not really overclass, and he's not really a Marxist, and he's not really, where is he? Is he really a leftist? I don't think so. But is he a right? He's clearly not on the right. That's why I like this individual rights collectivism spectrum, and I'd say he's a little bit more closer to individual rights than he is towards the collectivism. He's not quite what we are, he's far from it, but he's closer than a lot of people who claim to be where we are, like some of the conservatives who are now much more on the national side. So I think the left-right spectrum is less useful, but it's inevitable to talk about it because everybody else talks about it, it's how they self-identify. But it is important to exactly define who you're talking about, what you're talking about. I think that, do you have a follow-up, Doris? Because I thought I'd catch you off. Okay. No, that's fine, thank you. Thanks. What we need today, what I call the new intellectual, would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning, any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims, or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of the stare, cynicism, and impotence, and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist broads. All right, before we go on, reminder, please like the show. We've got 163 live listeners right now. 30 likes, that should be at least 100. I think at least 100 of you actually like the show. Maybe they're like 60 of the Matthews out there who hate it. But at least the people who are liking it, I wanna see a thumbs up, there you go. Start liking it, I wanna see that go to 100. All it takes is a click of a thing, whether you're looking at this. And you know the likes matter. It's not an issue of my ego. It's an issue of the algorithm. The more you like something, the more the algorithm likes it. So you know, and if you don't like the show, give it a thumbs down. Let's see your actual views being reflected in the likes. But if you like it, don't just sit there, help get the show promoted. Of course, you should also share and you can support the show at youronbrookshow.com slash support on Patreon or subscribe star or locals and show your support for the work, for the value, hopefully you're receiving from this. And of course, don't forget, if you're not a subscriber, even if you just come here to troll, or even if you're here like Matthew to defend Marx, then you should subscribe because that way you'll know when to show up. You'll know what shows are on, when they're on. You'll get notified, right? So yes, like, share, subscribe, support. Like, share, subscribe, support. There you go. Easy. Do one or all of those, please.