The Congress of the NES today, everybody so far away, so we were talking about this. I don't know. Yeah, it's come up here. When we were doing the conference would be in it, we were talking about Alexander the first. Being a liberal and yet he's a member of the holy alliance and its goal is to stop the spread of liquid liberalism as such. Remember Alexander the south thought about entering your question. Alexander the first is the grandson of. The guy in Russia. Russia, the Russian guy. Peter. Alexander the first is the grandson of Catherine the Great. Okay. Katherine the great did not like her son Paul. Okay, her son Paul was like her first husband Peter. Remember the guy was crazy. He's like a toy soldier of animals and stuff. And so she pretty much picked Alexander to be her heir. And so she took Alexander away from Paul. He was like three. And she raised him. Okay, so she raised Alexander to be her son. So in the sense that, you know, we think about Catherine de grey, being a liberal. Wanting to answer the morning to bring enlightenment reform to Russia. But then conditions in Russia kind of prevented that from happening her reaction to people who reacted to her ideas. Basically the same thing happens with Alexander. He has a lot of liberal ideas about what needs to happen with Russia. He's initially, if you guys remember reading the French Revolution chapter, initially Alexander is allied with Napoleon. So initially while Great Britain and Austrian pressure are against Napoleon and the grand empire, Alexander is actually allied with Napoleon. He is a supporter of these ideas of liberalism than Napoleon was spreading. When Napoleon decides to threaten Russia, of course, then Alexander joins the coalition against Napoleon helps fight it. But he held on to these ideas that liberal reforms are possible. Until the Congress of the enemy and part of the conversation in his goal is to restore conservative legitimacy, which Alexander's believes, right? What territory does Alexander the first woman at the conference of Ian? What territories are you want? And they get it. Control over. Poet, right? So they get control over Paul when he makes himself the king of Poland. The emperor of Russia. But then when he comes home, a lot of the people in the military who were influenced by Napoleon and a lot of the nobles who were influenced by liberalism start demanding change that he sees as radical. So part of understanding this sort of continuum of ideas in Russia, these isms, is understanding why and how somebody who is a liberal will fight against essentially liberalism, because he's going to define those liberal demands as radical, right? So understanding that becomes important. So if we think about the isms, let's start. I'm going to kind of do it in kind of a continuum this way, right? I probably should start over there with conservatism being on the right. So let's put conservatism over here. We'll work that way. All right. Conservatism is the Elvis philosophy why. Because it's about monarchy. It's about tradition, right? So the key words, right? When you think about conservatism, right? Monarchy, what are some other terms? Looking back. Looking backwards, like tradition, what else? Religion? Religion is going to be an interesting one as it gets used. So traditional religion, what else? What is the root of society if you are conservative? What should society be based on? Privileges or your class, right? So class, I think tongue emphasizes privilege, right? And that's the same thing, essentially, right? So there's not a deep, which is not always one for the D in there. All right. So conservatism is essentially trying to do what? What is the goal of conservatism in 1850? Return things to a pre. Pretty French Revolution is that, right? And so there's another term, which I'm not sure it came up on the video you guys watched, that I think is really important, especially to people like metternich and even people like Alexander the first and people like castle raw and Great Britain. And that is the term legitimacy. When you're recording the lectures, then you spell things drunk. All right, so legitimacy is a keyboard and conservatives use this a lot. Like who was the legitimate ruler? Who are the legitimate ruling families? Who are the legitimate people to be in charge? What is the root word for legitimate? It's what? What word would we use today? Something that is legitimate. But what's the root of that word actually? Not a slang word, but a reward. Legal. Oh shoot. Okay. All right, so it's important to think about legitimacy and the word legal, right? So if you are a conservative, you believe that the law should protect. All of these things we listed up here. Think about legitimacy, putting legitimacy together with these ideas, right? So you believe the law should protect religion, the law should protect privilege, the law should protect class, the law should protect tradition, the law should protect monarchy. So that idea of legitimacy and what is legitimate, okay? Now, if we move in this direction, all right? And we're going to come back today. He's actually going to kind of get them all kind of the ones we're going to talk about kind of spaced out here as a continuum going to the left, right? The next one is liberalism. And liberalism is a philosophy that calls for what, 19th century liberalism. What is the basis of 19th century liberalism? Yes, but what's the basis of where does it come from? Where does liberal philosophy come from? Do you enlightenment, okay? So liberalism is based in the enlightenment. And so from the enlightenment, this is based on rationalism. Equality. It's based on the idea. What kind of equality? Equality is always kind of like the people. It kind of has to be qualified. Economic equality. They're talking about. So political or legal equality, right? No social classes? Liberals? Right? So this is what we would call legal equality. Equality under the law. So while here, law for conservatism should protect tradition and class, law here should protect legally equality or as Dylan said we can think about this sort of as political equality. And as I'm telling you mentioned, liberals typically argue that this is, this would be applied to men. Hi. All right. What else would we fit under liberalism? Okay, so liberalism traditionally is a lot like their system. Which also comes from the enlightenment, right? So there's another keyword for liberalism. I'm not asking for the time for two words. I'm just asking for like, what do we think? Like liberals, what's a key phrase in the French Revolution? What's the point? What's the catch phrase of the French Revolution three words? You got one of them. Come on, fridge, revolution to this is a fridge revolution philosophy, right? Liberty? So what's the key with the keyframes? Egalitarian, liberty, fraternity, right? Let's return. Oh, yeah. So out of this, a keyword is freedom or liberty, right? That's where liberalism comes from. Liberalism is the belief in liberty. Or freedom. So freedom or liberty is the key word, right? So here, another keyword that becomes really important, this probably was in the video you gotta watch. The key thing when you're thinking about liberals, the key added here is the individual. Okay, all right. So the individual is critical. So what's critical here? What's critical here is the class that you belong to and protect you in class, and what's critical here is the individual, and the freedom of the individual, right? So this is the key idea here, and they are largely justified in the French Revolution except for which part, which part of the French Revolution would liberals reject. Except the reign of chair, right? So liberals are going to reject the reign of terror, right? And then when we keep moving this way, we end up with a lot of philosophies that argue this doesn't go far enough, right? If we put this if we think about this as a political spectrum, the right over here, moving toward the left, over here, think about what you guys already know about political philosophies. Where do you get? What group of philosophies do you have when you move to the left? Radical. So what I like to think about and I'm not sure if Tom did this on his video. What I like to do is take these philosophies over here and classify them under radicalism. They all have that term from your notes from time to radicalism as a way of sort of looking at this. All right, so let's make a category over here and call in radicalism. All right? And what would radicalism call for? What would be its, where does it come from? What ideas would radicals hold in common? What does it mean to be called a radical? You guys know this? Sure. Okay, so it's extreme, right? So radicalism tends to be more extreme. So extreme is a term you said, what? Call for stuff. It's like out of the norm for this. Okay, so favorite was the norm. They're probably for stuff is out of the norm. So what are some things radicals call for that would be catch phrases of different radical philosophies they were going to break radical philosophies of radicalism. Plant become planned economies. What does that mean? That's where socialism, government. The government has some direct role in controlling the economy. Interestingly enough, conservatism would call for the same thing. What economic philosophy did conservatives most typically support? Market tools in terms of what I'm saying, right? So over here you're going to typically have support for some kind of mercantilism, some kind of government control of the economy and the benefit of the class and monarchy. They're going to call up for applying economy too. Yes. Isn't that a piece of socialism? Different kinds of socialist VS. Everything on this side involves some kind of planning of the economy. Yes. All right, what else is a cop for? Think about what we got here. What would radicalism be? What are some other ideas that radicalism radical philosophies likely have in common? Quality. Total equality. And so we're not just talking about political equality, which they also believe in. But to some degree or another, totally quality, which could be, what would we put under total equality? Social equality? That would mean equality of people regardless of. Race class ethnicity, whatever, what else do we put? Economic equality. There you go. We can also do what else will we do? I guess social equality would include gender equality. We could put that as a separate category, right? What else? What about the idea of freedom and the individual? What do radical philosophies? What does radicalism generally say about this idea of laws like that the community is more important, right? So it's like a collective. So the interest of the community, so notice what we have, right? Conservatives, the importance of class and the foundation of society, liberals, the important ports of the individual as a foundation for society, and most radical philosophies emphasized in one way or another that the community is the unit that should sort of control how society develops. That's what should motivate things. So what's good for class? What's good for the individual? What's good for the community? What else with radicalism? It kind of gets social political economic ER right there. No, no, yeah, sorry. All right, he's been in here for like two days. He want any Chloe. But I don't know why he's not dead yet. Okay, so what are we break off of? Here's where people usually get confused about where philosophies fit, right? So one of the philosophies that is very interesting in this time period and hugely influential in Great Britain. Is utilitarianism. We'll talk about feminism where that guy is in here too. But utilitarianism is very interesting as a philosophy. And it's invented by a man named Jeremy bentham, and then popularized by another writer named John Stuart mill. And it is an example of a liberal philosophy. So now we've got these three categories. So you should be able to, when you read a document, right? When you have a source in the 19th century in Europe, you should be able to identify whether it fits under a conservative philosophy, a liberal philosophy or a radical philosophy based on these sort of key ideas, right? And then from there, what you want to be able to do is break it down into some of the specific philosophies that broke off of these ideas, right? So I'll put liberalism. Let's talk about, let's see, I'll do it. I'll do liberalism. Let's talk about utilitarianism. Which I'm moving in this direction, right? More to the left than to the right. I'm going to get more radical than it is conservative, so that's why I'm putting it here. But it is not a radical philosophy because it still emphasizes the good of the individual. Okay? So utilitarianism is a liberal philosophy because at the very root of it, the argument is about what is good for the individual, okay? All right, and then it works itself to the idea of how that benefits society. So it doesn't start with the idea of the community being the most important thing. It starts with the individual. So two people's names that you need to know alpha utilitarianism, Jeremy bentham. It was actually living and writing during the French Revolution. It was more like 1742 or something he lives into the early 1930 1920s, something like that. So he lived and watched and experienced the French Revolution. And his argument basically becomes that the French Revolution did not achieve its goals. Because it missed the point of liberal reform, okay? So just for the sake of complicating this thing a little bit. What was the ism? We know liberalism is associated with the French Revolution. But what's the other word we can use for what the French Revolution was trying to do, at least at the beginning and the end? What is a national? Nationalism we're going to talk about in fit really anywhere on here. So what was it? Was the R word that we have in this country? Republicanism, right? And republicanism was basically a system. It's basically the belief that what? The society works best, what is republicanism, not capital art, a little more republicanism, is what? Government works best when it's controlled by representative representatives of the people, right? That's what republicanism is. What does our think about any English? Think about American history. Republicanism here says what? That society works, democracies work, republics work when they are governed by a member of the key. What about the citizens? The citizens have to be represented? They have to be virtuous. Educated, doing what's good for the nation rather than self interest, what's just good for them? That is at the root of what the French Revolution is about except for its most radical phase in the reign of terror, right? The beginning of it and the end of it, that's kind of what it's about. Jeremy bentham and then John Stuart mill, who are the two philosophers that we associate here. These philosophers basically argue that that whole philosophy that we have created government, we had criticism where the good of all is what dictates the system doesn't achieve its goals, didn't achieve its goals in the French Revolution because it misses the point of the freedom of the individual, okay? So utilitarianism starts with the idea that the most important goal. And the most important goal of society of government is the happiness of the individual. Okay. Then everything should be judged. On whether it produces the greatest happiness for the individual. He basically starts and this is an argument not foreign to American politics. He starts with the argument. It's kind of like federalist paper number 51, and number ten, really. Both of them basically say, if you set up a political system, where everybody is operating for their own best interest. Then that will ultimately create a society in a government operates in the interest of everyone. And that in its root is pretty utilitarian, right? Now, Jeremy bentham almost focuses exclusively on the right of the individual, right? And so he is basically saying what government has to do. Is institute policies, institute ideas, institute laws that allow every individual to reach their most the most happiness they can. All right? So what is that going to get us away from? That's going to give us away from strictly laissez. Fair, which says the government does nothing, right? John Stuart mill writes a book his most several books. The most famous thing on utilitarianism is called on liberty. And then all liberty, he takes this idea of an individual philosophy, a philosophy that says everybody should seek their greatest happiness and whatever does that will produce the most stable society, right? He takes that in on liberty and he argues, if society is governed the same way individuals are governed, then governments should do the greatest good. For the greatest number. And that's probably not a perfect direct quote, but this is what John Stuart mill is getting to in utilitarianism. That government should take action to ensure that the greatest possible happiness is achieved by the greatest possible number of people in society. Now what does that lead to? That leads to the idea that governments have to take action. And I act on behalf of who. So what's this going to say? Government should take action on behalf of the population, right? And y'all think about where that would translate in the industrial revolution. I was just going to translate into government policy. Wage the mind. Like the man. Right, the factory act. The idea that government should step in and produce regulations that produce the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, the greatest good for the greatest number. So it's basically an argument under liberal philosophy. It's not radicalism. It's not the government taking over the economy. But it's the idea that the government should do things that ensure most people benefit from whatever change is happening. So with this, you're still having that still capitalism. It's still capitalism. But it's just a little bit. There you go. But his argument is basically you can't have a stable society in which the happiness only belongs to a tiny group of people, right? That the government may have to step in and modify the system so that more people participate in that greater good. Does that make sense? They kind of what he's arguing, arguing there. And it does become the foundation for a lot of the changes that happen in England, okay? I'll let you look to make sure anything else. I usually leave something out. Oh, Jeremy Bethany was weird. That's the other part of the story. He was eccentric. I shouldn't probably be weird. That's not nice. Was it interesting? I think how the way that you take fat and ugly or something. I was like, okay, could be kind of mean. Jeremy bentham actually had his body mama pod when he died like this was in his whale. So he had his whole body muffled. He had his head cut off. So that it could be studied. So like at the funeral, they did this. I get the funeral. They cut his head off after a bit of money, but mummy fad, and they put it in a box. And just like stored in some place in England still like that. That's where we met them. Branch off weird. A break off while you're getting lots of weird there. And so basically, what these guys are trying to like bubbling out, there is a book that I'm talking about with another book which I wrote. So what these guys are basically laying the foundation for is a capitalist system that can operate without leading to uprisings and revolutions because that's the world they're living in. Where workers are trying to organize and they're demanding changes in the benefits all seem to be for the capitalists. Now, Dodge Stewart meal also argues that this is where some people are going to call him a radical. He later writes with his stepdaughter. He married a woman named Harriet Taylor, and she was like feminist. And John Stuart mill comes to the argument, and he was actually already there even before we married her. That greater good for the greater number, individual happiness, like whatever you're doing should create as much happiness for you as possible. He actually from the very beginning argued that should apply to women. Which to a lot of people I put him over here in this radical category, right? We also wrote a book, so I'm gonna put this over here a little bit more radical, right? He also wrote a book called on the subjugation of women. Let me check. Is it women or woman? Sure. Of the woman? That's what I've checked. The jams are if it's okay. Sorry, you're right in hand. Subjection. Both women. As a group. That can get confused. Like Mary wollstonecraft where I justification for the right of woman and then this one's a woman, but that's okay. If you get close to your heart, right? And in this book, would you write with a stepdaughter, okay? He basically argues that there's no way for human societies to achieve the greater good for the greatest number unless it includes women. Crazy adventure, right? There's someplace. Yeah. So it's really the same argument that Olympia de Gao had made. And it was when Olivia gal said, you can't have a country that's governed by liberal ideas if women aren't included since their Democrats population. And Mary wollstonecraft had made the same argument. You can't really have a liberal society that protects the individual of women aren't protected. He basically makes the same argument and argues that the greater good can not exist. Unless women are included. Okay? So again, if you're thinking about a continual argument being made for women rights, okay? Going back as far back as Google renaissance, maybe. This is a continuation of that argument that if you're talking about including equality and the individual, women have to be included in that. So he's going to be one of the first people to organize for the women's suffrage movement in England. So these are early suffragist leader in England. He also had support to organize some of the earliest workers organizations that kind of thing playing for women. All right? He doesn't try to make sure everything else. And so when we come to liberalism down here, right? By the time we reach this is the transition that I want you guys to think about and I'm not sure Tom's video do this. So what has happened? If we take these utilitarian ideas and think about how they are moving in the left direction, they're not entirely radical, but they're more left than traditional liberalism. What does liberalism become? All right? So this is 19th century liberalism, about a 20th century. What does liberalism become an argument for? So 19th century liberalism is a call for laissez-faire. Classical liberalism. What does 20th century liberalism become based on the ideas of utilitarianism in the work of Jeremy bentham. And John Stuart mill has more influence really than Jeremy bentham overall, but both of those names you might see are documents about them. So what does liberalism become by the 20th century? So support for government support for you said what minimum wage? Laws, worker protection. Support, for women's suffrage. In other words, by the time we get to the 20th century liberalism becomes the idea that government has to balance the interests of capitalism, right? And there's a word here I'm going to use the word to mitigate. Mitigate means to sort of try to deal with the problems that exist. So basically what liberalism is going to evolve into about the 20th century, what we tend to associate with liberalism in the United States is that the idea that government has to mitigate the dangers or the problems that the abuses associated with capitalism. Does that make sense to you guys? So it's going to start with laissez-faire, no government involvement, total individual freedom, all of that. That's the argument being made by the anti labor movement in the United States. Right to work laws and the individuals here to be completely free to make a deal with business however they want to. And labor leaders who are largely following more utilitarian argument argue that workers as a group can't achieve any part of the greater good unless they're unified. And so that ultimately liberals by the 20th century are adopting these more left side liberal arguments. Does that make sense? So how that changes. Okay. So what is radicalism? We're trying to cover my radical blue bucket. I should play radicals red. Clearly powerful should have been red, on it. So a radical blue, okay? So what do we get out of radicalism? What's the first radical philosophy that develops? After the French Revolution. Early 1800s, 1820s developed in France first. What kind of socialism? Utopian socialism, all right? So the first type of radical philosophy is Marie's my lip. Is you utopian socialism. So socialism has a group like socialism as a philosophy. You almost have to divide out into different types of socialism. And I tend to put them over here. We could probably call this category socialism, right? Our radical category, but on the later radical, because I'm about to talk a few other things in there that eventually become popular in the 19th century. So utopian socialism is mainly in France. Although there is an example of an in Great Britain. And what is utopian socialism like? What have you gotten from watching the video? If I'm reading your textbook, utopian socialism is the belief in what? What are the ideas that come up? Utopian socialism. Well, it's called utopian. It's the idea that you can create that it is possible. To create. A perfect society. Who's going to do it? Go. Government's going to do it. So the idea that through government action, you can create a perfect society. Almost all utopian socialism, how are you going to do this? How are you going to create a perfect society? What is government literally going to do? Build what? It's going to take society like we know it. And replace it with. Model communities, right? And France, the utopian socialists will even have like there's going to be 1620 people living in each town. And there are 1620 people will be divided into workshops of equal size. And each of the workshops will produce a certain amount of stuff every week. And then therefore they'll have a certain amount of production every month. And that way everybody in the tale has what they need to survive. Utopian socialism to me, I don't know if this is a fair way to think about it. But to me, utopian socialist when you read them because they're trying to give very specific answers to what they think the liberals have it done. They tend to be micromanaged. That's how I tend to think of it, right? Like government is going to manage everything down to like what size house you live in. Right? So it's going to be a micromanage system where somebody is dictating all this, which basically means utopian socialism is going to work or not work. It's not going to work. In fact, it only works where we see utopian socialism work. Is where it exists in small pockets of model communities like who? Who would be a utopian socialist? That we know. Not Puritans. What whose name came up over and over and over again, we did the presentations on the industrial revolution. Robert Owen, okay? So in Great Britain, we have Robert Owen. Who creates a utopian socialist community and new land arc where he built a textile Bill. Built on the concepts of utopian socialism, right? So he built schools for the children. He had entertainment theater, things that were good for the mind, for the adults. I had an 8 hour work day. He paid them what were fair wages. All of these things were supposed to create. They could question, I guess we're gonna pay them a fair wages. He paid them in company script, right? So there was money he paid them that they could use to buy stuff from the company store, which was set up so they wouldn't be gouged in prices and they'd have what they needed. And it was supposed to be this sort of model perfect society. He also tried it in the United States and class. We're doing reformer speed dating and one of the guys being Robert Owen, because he came over here and tried to do what he built a utopian community here called new harmony. So the idea that you could create these model little communities. And to some degree, it worked because it was small, right? You told me in socialism doesn't work anywhere when people try to expand it to a broader scale. Because it ignores what why is it radical and not liberal? It ignores individual freedom, right? It ignores that idea of individual freedom, which is why utilitarianism states over here. The individual over here has to be able to decide what is in their interest versus the state deciding what is in people's interest here, okay? Does that make sense? All right. So what's another philosophy? What is just, like I said, this is you, tugging in socialism. How does this evolve into the idea of socialism? More run of the meals exist today, socially. Europe is governed by socialism today. What is socialism as a philosophy? Who does all this to some degree or another? What does it say? What does socialism say about the plan to come? What is the philosophy of socialism? This utopian socialism would be micromanaged, model communities in which everybody's equal and everybody has what they need. General socialism evolved into a system that calls for government ownership of what? What property? Businesses, things that are necessary to sort of society functioning. So socialism calls for government, ownership. Of the, what's the word I want to use? Most necessary. Factories institutions. Infrastructure. So socialism as it developed in this period after the failure of utopian socialism. Some philosophers back off and say, okay, wait a minute. We can't model people's lives down to the community they live in. That's not the world. We can't micromanage it down to every town. We'll have 1620 people in the museum. It's not a thing. And then it's 1621, then what you do. You can't migrate managed down to that level. But how can we take this idea of creating a better society and actually make it work? And socialism will evolve into this philosophy that says, it can work if government takes over the things that under this system are controlled by who. Private entrepreneurs, people we will call capitalist, right? Definitely should have capitalism down here somewhere already. Socialism will argue and still argue today that this system of liberalism that puts everything in the hands of entrepreneurs will always lead to abuse because what motivates them. What motivates a capitals, profit and as long as that is the only motivator than the greater good, which these people are talking about can not be achieved, right? Socialists basically reject this. Why do socialists say this is not going to work? Because who do they say is ultimately going to control the government no matter what? The capitalist, right? So social is basically come to the argument that you can't trust the government even the utilitarian philosophy government to do what's in the best interest of the working class because capital is still run the place. So socialists argue government must own the things that are necessary. So what would this be? What would be things that are necessary in the early middle 19th century? What kind of things would be considered necessary? What kind of things should the government own and run in the name of all people? Which factories? Not necessarily. Who about that? Agriculture possibly. This becomes a debatable when this depends on where you are. So the government should ensure people have access to food. What else though? What industry should government take over? I mean, the populist talked about the government taking it over here. In the late 1800s. What industries were critical to everybody's economic well-being. Railroads, definitely. What else? It would be critical to everyone's well-being. What new source of energy is sort of the root of the second industrial revolution? Not cold. Second industrial second industrial revolution. Second industrial revolution. Petroleum. Electricity or what we will ultimately call utilities. What are utilities mean? People have access to what do you get through your utility company? Utilities are electricity and water, right? We get these two separate visuals. Okay. Right? So the idea that government should ensure that people have access to power, electricity of some sort, increasing about a late 19th century, and definitely access to clean water that clean water shouldn't be something. I mean, we pretty much take that for granted, right? The government's going to make sure we have that. So railroads, electricity, eventually it includes what? The idea that what else necessary to having us healthy life. Come on, you live in this country where our president is accused of being a socialist all the time because of what the healthcare hospitals are expecting. Who said that? He said that I was like, you're ready for president. Oh my God, that means you should stop helping me. He also said, apparently, I don't know if it was this week or whatever. I actually saw your style, I was just about. It was so ridiculous it's just beyond funny. So my question on whether he should be president because he has no elected office experience. He's never going to elected anything. And part of his response. One of his responses, members of Congress have 6700 years of experience between them and they can't do anything. But then you also said, and if you look at our history, none of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were elected to office. What? What? Well, first of all, all of them were signing it because they were elected to the Continental Congress. That's how they signed it. And all of those had been elected to their state legislatures, their colony legislature before that. And what then became presidents of the United States. And I was like, you can do things to stop talking. Oh, my God. The media are picking on me. I'm like, yes, you say something bad. Well, there you go. All right. All right, so yeah, so half of it is healthcare. So things that are considered critical to society will be socialism. And amber brought up the whole lot of you and I put a question mark beside farming and we could put like textile factories on here. That's where it became iffy. Like you're more radical socialists would have possibly the government taking over more things as necessities and you're less radical socialists would say, no, we just need to keep it to the basic things that all people depend on. Public transportation system, what else would have been under here? Socialists were saying education is something the government should take over because it's necessary for everybody survival. So I always tell students to put it in a more broad concept, even though Americans don't want to deal with it and we find it at every turn in every stage. We're essentially 19th century standards are already socialist. I mean, we have a we have an electric system that's run by the government. And we have railroad run by the government. We have education run by the government. And that whole idea that all of a sudden healthcare is a dramatic change in that really, I don't think is very true. But we don't necessarily use the same thing, right? In terms of what is liberal and socialist. So a lot of these things think about what happens over time. The things that are most accepted here by government providing education and government making sure we have clean water, eventually make their way into things that are just defined as liberal. Right? So and then some of these things, like capitalism entrepreneurship, only men are equal these things every time migrate and become conservative, right? So over time, what you always have happening it seems at least since the 18th 19th century is a shift as more radical ideas are introduced. Now, if we take socialism, plan economy totally quality, extreme training, everything based on the community. And we look at its most extreme form. Oh God, I got a little tiny turn a bit of a board left over here. I say, okay, all right. And we shifted way over here. Then we have the philosophy of Mars. Mars. Okay. So Marxism. I don't want to be real not bored either. I should have started conservatism further down. All right, so Marxism is also called what? Communism eventually is what it's called. March is socialism or scientific socialism. Because mark said, all of these people, everybody who's throwing around these philosophies. Are ultimately basic things only emotion and how they feel when some loyalty to the past. It's all in there somewhere. And we need to break that. Now, Karl Marx is heavily influenced by a German philosopher named Hegel. It's like George William something Bill hill. Hey. And Hegel had popularized this idea of historicism. Another ism. So that wasn't on top British trouble. It was not. Historicism, this is Hegel. This is the guy's name, the German popular as this idea. Hey, will had basically argued that the enlightenment and to some degree socialism didn't really work for reforming society because it ignored the history of the people involved. That's why it's called historicism. And he says, no people can be understood. He says no individual can be understood without understanding their background. And no society can be understood without understanding its history. And therefore, what may seem to be rational and enlightened may not work in a place unless it fits with that places history. In other words, you can't boil human action just down to this makes sense today. If you're under changing society, you have to understand the history of people. Which I think is a pretty good argument. But he did that, he basically proposes Hegel does that all history is told by the story of thesis antithesis and synthesis. It's not about writing essays though. Okay. But he says, every society has within it a thesis. What's the thesis? A main belief. Right? And that within that main belief are people excluded from it. People who don't benefit from it. And they form ultimately what becomes the antithesis or the antithesis of it. And ultimately, history tells us that thesis and antithesis are going to clash. And when they clash, they get mixed up together, and they form something new. Which is called a synthesis. And then that synthesis becomes the basis. And that this process is repeated over and over again throughout history. There's one idea. It has an opposing idea. They clash, mix and create a new idea. And once it's mixed, that becomes a dominant idea. And because it's a dominant idea, it will produce its opposite, and over time they will, clash, and produce synthesis, and that will become the new thesis. And he says that's how his drinking pork and he argues it's not always right, and when it does not always make sense, it's based on this history of the people involved, okay? So this is hugely influential on Karl Marx. I'm going to talk about marks a little bit more on Thursday. But hugely influential on him. And so Karl Marx will argue that all society all history can be broken down into the oppressed and the oppressors. He's getting specific on the stories. Yes. So he basically takes that and he says, if you look at that, Hegel's dialectic it's called a dialectic or two opposing forces. If you look at that dialectic in history, he says the dialectic has always been the oppressed and the oppressors. It doesn't matter where you go in history. Now he does kind of a John Locke thing. Remember John Locke and all the light velocities talk about like the state of nature. Remember that I'll do that like some theories. Karl Marx actually stars there. He actually starts and argues in a state of nature, society was communal. You got it primitive communism. People lived in communities. They worked together. They help each other. He said, and then it all broke down a society developed into complicated things that enslaved people. And he goes through different periods of history like he says in Roman times, society was divided into the patricians and the plebeians. Remember that in rural history? That was especially funny. This is actually good. This is where I will be Thursday. I like to kind of start Thursday's karma. This is kind of works. Don't erase it. Ever.