it didn't work out as karl marx expected. around. >> he was right in several theories of gigantic working class. he was seen as very very wrong. his protections were about capitalism. a horrible life. life expectancy increased. i think he never would have projected material progress rising to capitalism and he would have thought differently about it if he had. >> what would you think about capitolism? what's that? he said he might have been hung up on capitolism. you know mr. marx there's a thing called twitter. it's worth $30 billion. he says you people are insane. capitalism is still bad. anyway, that's enough of the 19th century capitalism. off to the 2th century for me. see ya later. >>> hello, i'm david eades with "bbc world news." our top story. three of france's sports stars are among two killed as helicopters crash in argentina. clashes between police and students in myanmar because of new education laws. ukraine president says prorussian rebels pulled back their weapons. japan remembers one of the deadliest air raids

i said it wasn't karl marx. it really wasn't abe lincoln. it was just poverty. >> yes. >> oppression motivated me to become an activist in the resistence to that, along the way in this need to get rid of oppression, i heard about marx i heard about lincoln, i heard about frederick douglas, and that gave me an opportunity to select which one of these voices, which one of these philosophies that i wanted engage with. i happened to move to the places where i moved, which really ticked off the ruling folks. >> yes. >> as early as the 1950s he used his wealth to support the movement. he helped fund the freedom riots and voter registration across the south. he bailed out countless several rights protesters. a commitment echoed by this new generation of young activists. >> we have not forgotten what you have done. in fact, we're building on the blueprint. history is our accomplice. we're creating new ways to do what you've done before. >> for me this is always always, always been about my personal experience with poverty, and what i saw it do to my

i said it wasn't karl marx. it really wasn't abe lincoln. it was just poverty. >> yes. >> oppression motivated me to become an activist in the resistence to that, along the way in this need to get rid of oppression, i heard about marx i heard about lincoln, i heard about frederick douglas, and that gave me an opportunity to select which one of these voices, which one of these philosophies that i wanted engage with. i happened to move to the places where i moved, which really ticked off the ruling folks. >> yes. >> as early as the 1950s he used his wealth to support the movement. he helped fund the freedom riots and voter registration across the south. he bailed out countless several rights protesters. a commitment echoed by this new generation of young activists. >> we have not forgotten what you have done. in fact, we're building on the blueprint. history is our accomplice. we're creating new ways to do what you've done before. >> for me this is always always, always been about my personal experience with poverty, and what i saw it do to my

because bolsheviks as they are living out the words of carl marx -- karl marx, we have to go after the labor unions. mitchell palmer starts this new division where they are going to root out signs of bolshevism and labor radicalism and organized labor. these are called the palmer raids. they physically go to union halls in 1919, the early 1920's and round up people on suspicion of labor radicalism and agitation and the end of the porting a number of them. the palmer raids. the palmer raids were led by this general intelligence division palmer created, led by this zealous young investigator j edgar hoover. his endless career is just getting started. so, when we look at the labor unrest of 1919, we have to remember -- where were the workers coming from? we know because we talked about this. the workers were african-americans at this time seeking to make real the promises woodrow wilson headset for word in bringing the united states into war. from the workers' perspective this meant more democracy in the workplace. in the context of 1919, the overriding fears have just become too much. to

because bolsheviks as they are living out the words of karl marx, workers of the world unite, we have to go after the labor unions. mitchell palmer starts this new division where they are going to root out signs of bolshevism and labor radicalism and organized labor. these are called the palmer raids. they physically go to union halls in 1919, the early 1920's and round up people on suspicion of labor radicalism and agitation and the end of the porting a number of them. the palmer raids. the palmer raids were led by this general intelligence division palmer created, led by this zealous young investigator j. edgar hoover. his endless career is just getting started. ok. so, when we look at the labor unrest of 1919, we have to remember -- where were the workers coming from? we know because we talked about this. the workers were african-americans at this time seeking to make real the promises woodrow wilson had set forward in bringing the united states into war. going to make the world safe for democracy. from the workers' perspective this meant more democracy in the workplace. in the con

certainly confident or not because of it, and we have an agency that, you know, it reminds me of karl marx repeats itself, six months ago they let someone get into the first floor -- >> what's that tell you? >> it's completely broken. the leadership is completely broken. >> you hear that? this is systemic? >> i would disagree in this way. i think this particular incident is very different in most ways. the one thing that, you know, strikes a chord. >> alcohol was involved. >> but the big thing that is the same is the supervisor told the officers to let these guys go. that is a systemic issue. >> he let them off. >> but in -- it was a going-away party for a longtime secret service officer. that's the kind of thing that -- and i'm not excusing it in any way, but that's the kind of thing that happens that's not necessarily indicative of a systemic problem. the fact they were driving back by the white house and happened for do it at a time where there's a suspicious package is the worst luck in the history of the world. to emily's point it's like the keystone cops. >> there is an ethos among s

. >> he is not karl marx but most liberal guy we ever had. >> you were referring earlier to totalitarianimes. you know. >> it would have to be if this nut's vision were to be implemented. >> nobody in their right mind 1100% taxes of people making over a billion dollars. >> would you agree with colmes that this is just a fringe play that the far left is a fringe group. >> i don't think the far left aÑz who are really dedicated to the idea of redistributionism. i think that you are right that the 100% of taxism over $100 billion. frankly about something you think maybe a lot of these folks are >> they usually don't go this far. they disguise it? >> he also in this column celebrates local solutions and people coming together and doing creative things. great. that's not compatible with a giant redistribution. >>> minimum income milton freidman and charles murray and martin luther king jr. whose claimed by the right. >> if you work for a living there is a minimum income. >> right. but if you sit around taking heir win and drinking gin you shouldn't be. >> conservatives wanted a minimum income

just as much as reading karl marx is not the way to understands the history of the soviet union reading adam smith or many of today's economists does not allow to us understand the history of capitalism as is unfolded. capitalism is by now looking back on 500 years of history, and it is that history that is at the center of this book. empire of cotton has the subtitle is of course a global history. as you know and as i mentioned earlier, most history that has been written in the past 150 years, has focused on national history, and the entire discipline of history is organized along national lines. we publish books on particular national history. we teach courses on particular national history such as french history, chinese history, american history and we join professional associations that are dedicated to the study of particular national history. this is as such not surprising as history as an academic discipline itself grew up hand in hand with the nation and history played an important role in the constitution of nation stayeds. empire of cotton breaks with these extra and is in a

just as much as reading karl marx is not the way to understand the history of the soviet union, reading adam smith's army of today's economists does not allow us to understand properly the history of capitalism as it actually unfolded. capitalism is by no looking back on fibers years of history and it is the history that at the epicenter of this book. "empire of cotton" as the subtitle says is of course also a global history. as you know and as i mentioned earlier most history that's been written in the past 150 years has focused on national history and to be the anti-discipline of history is organized along national lines but we publish books on particular national histories we teach courses on particular national history such as french, chinese, american history and we join professional associations that are dictated to the study of particular natural history. this is not surprising as history as an academic discipline itself grew up in hand with the nation-state and his you played the nation-state and his you played an important role in the very constitution of nation-states. "empire

karl marx or paul mccartney? marie curie or steven spielberg. mlk or j.k. rowling.n the running for society's pre'em negligent genius. all right, let me explain. this week msnbc is joining with new york city's project called seven days of genius where we explore what it means to be considered a genius. 16 people considered by some to be among history's greatest minds have been put in a head-to-head bracket competition that you can vote for at our website. now, msnbc and the 92nd street y also commissioned polling on the very idea of the label genius. for instance 15% of people think of themselves as a genius while 36% say they wouldn't want to be a genius. now, you might think that all sounds a little silly or certainly quite subject i've but that's kind of the point. when it comes to genius there's no uniform definition no single test or attribute that determines the best and brightest among us. it is socially and culturally constructed. it can be a reflection of our existing systems of privilege or it can be a symbol of the kind of society we aspire to have. so wh

some of those -- karl marx said that out of print -- at a certain point that changes in quantity become in quality. can you explain why you think that is less important than the visionary things you talked about? peter: there are certainly many things that have a cumulative effect of being incredibly valuable. my approach, a how-to advice book for people who are going to found companies. if you want to start a successful company, you want to do something where you have a monopoly. what you're doing something no one else in the world is doing it. and there is a significant difference in what you are doing and what everyone else is doing. software has been here christ by these fairly large breakthroughs, which is why people in software have made so much money. it is because the micro of software are monopoly-prone and lucrative. most of the inventors and scientists and technologists never made money. the wright brothers did not make money, tesla made no money in the 19th century. even the steam engine and the first industrial revolution, which represented tremendous progress with up to 10