Trump & the Problem with Politics | Philosophy Tube
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- The Presidential race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump has revealed something interesting about politics. The ideas of philosopher (and Nazi) Carl Schmitt, and the black activist Kwame Ture, can help us understand how the right-wing and left-wing criticise liberalism…
Subscribe! tinyurl.com/pr99a46
Patreon: / philosophytube
Paypal.me/PhilosophyTube
Audible: tinyurl.com/jn6tpup
FAQ: tinyurl.com/j8bo4gb
Facebook: tinyurl.com/jgjek5w
Twitter: @PhilosophyTube
Email: ollysphilosophychannel@gmail.com
Google+: google.com/+thephilosophytube
realphilosophytube.tumblr.com
Recommended Reading:
Transcript for this Episode: tinyurl.com/juuvyeu
Carl Schmitt, Political Theology (tinyurl.com/zuyc6ow) and The Concept of the Political (tinyurl.com/hzgs2mk)
Kwame Ture, Stokely Speaks (tinyurl.com/jkql8ys)
Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (tinyurl.com/jhn2jxb)
Falguni Sheth, Toward A Political Philosophy of Race (tinyurl.com/jkost9q)
Sherene Razack, Casting Out: The Eviction of Muslims from Western Law & Politics (tinyurl.com/zxf8x4e)
Music by Epidemic Sound (Epidemicsound.com)
If you or your organisation would like to financially support Philosophy Tube in distributing philosophical knowledge to those who might not otherwise have access to it in exchange for credits on the show, please get in touch!
Any copyrighted material should fall under fair use for educational purposes or commentary, but if you are a copyright holder and believe your material has been used unfairly please get in touch with us and we will be happy to discuss it. - บันเทิง
The use of the term of "Liberalism" in this video will propperly confuse a lot of Americans
This is the comment that fucks me up lmao
+Ricardo Guanipa oh so true, Australians too, because our "republic party" are called the liberals.
+Wilson W
I think the left/right distinction is pretty much the same in Europe (although most parties are shifted further to the left). But Americans tend to use "liberal" as a synonym for "left", whereas in Europe, liberalism is closer to what Americans call libertarianism - that is to say, it has an emphasis on freedom. That's my understanding, at least.
I'd say it works pretty well, still. Liberalism in the form of the Democratic Party in the US is super centrist. It's why a lot of actual left-wing politicians laugh when the US media machine screams that X democratic platform is "socialist," because in actuality it's mostly center-right.
I think that's true in terms of economics, but in the US, the left-wing authoritarians known as social justice warriors are usually described as liberals, whereas by the European definition, a lot of their actions (like no-platforming speakers they disagree with) would accurately be described as illiberal. Some Americans do point out that calling SJWs liberals is rather lazy, and prefer to keep the distinction between liberals and progressives.
the best part of this channel is that the comment section - apart from the odd trolls - is always civil and polite, even when commenters disagree. that's a rare thing on TH-cam these days
It's really nice indeed, and it also differs from other, more popular philosophy channels like Wisecrack in that the comments aren't filled with people who think they know a lot about philosophy but in reality they know jack shit.
*flashbacks to an argument I had with a Pinochet lover in the comment section of a video on Marx*
much agreed.
are you Chilean? man, don't subject to those people unless you have too. I'm Chilean and we have to hear them in tv from time to time.
Aye, aren’t we all civilised old chap *pats on the back*
@@AsdfgAsdfg-zz5cn trying to be civilised as much as one can does deserve a pat in the back though.
Coming here after his followers straight up stormed the US capitol. You were right on the money, Abby
Yes it's actually pretty sad that it was so predictable that the insurrection could happen but everyone ignored trump's supporters
@@kalynw2490 - "Everyone", Lots of people saw it coming and were very vocal about it. There is a term for the people who did not see it coming. We call those people Not-Sees. Sound it out if you have to.
Here after Trump went full mask-off fash.
And revealed his abhorrent homophobia
Edit
I’m adding transphobia as well now
@@samuelambrose4373 sexism, anti-Semitism, xenophobia...the list goes on. Also the pedophilia documents and alllllllllllllllllll of his comments.
Stan Leery me or him?
@@kaufmanat1 You're not exactly doing yourself any favors with the hyperbole and making light of things. He checks the boxes for fascist ideology pretty well, and a significant portion of his base are in fact themselves fascists. It also wouldn't be a "show" of any kind, unless you're implying that you can simply sit on the sidelines and watch, at which point... well, "First they came for the socialists".
Stan Leery he hasn't unleashed the military on the populations? Look up what's happening in Portland right now.
Dude this video is so terrifying
yyyuuup
However informative more people need to learn this
It's over a year later and it's still terrifying.
After the recent 2019 SOTU address I thought of this video lol
Trump ended up being pretty anti-imperialism.
LMAO there was a PragerUniversity video as an ad, how ironic.
"University"
Yeah the prager U ad.... The opposite of intellectualism. I wish there were a way to filter these ads. Nothing like sharing these vids with a fellow thoughtful human friend than cringing as a prager U ad comes up! LOL!!!
The later you watch this video in Trump's term the scarrier and more relevant it is.
Yeah, those Tweets really drive this video home.
Same
2020 Here. Can Confirm.
Chris McCoy
Even later 2020... oh no!!!
in before trump declares himself king
Something about hearing this is shot before the world lernt Trump won is kind of like seeing Carrie Fisher in TLJ knowing she'd died since the movie was shot.
I think he thought it was a foregone conclusion. Some people correctly predicted this whole garbage fire.
7:56 **snort** "fascism on the left", smoothbrain
JK is a smoothbrain confirmed
I have little respect for her. I feel like making Dumbledore gay was like saying "I'll throw you a bone, now shaddup." Also there's some transphobia controversy involving her that I haven't read up on.
You know, they called dumbledore the “headmaster” for a reason...
George Parkins well the transphobia got...it got worse, I think we can all say.
@@aks799 except there was nothing transphobic in what she said.
Watching this as a US American Transwoman after watching Ron DeSantis try to create his own Brownshirts and Trump threatening to stop gender affirming care, it's surreal to see how much has changed in the world.
I had a discussion with someone on the comments of a video (not one of yours) about how ironic it was to support military invasions in other countries because they saw it as a threat to America's sovereignty. What the hell do you think you are doing to them?
Anyway, the discussion diverted to this point: I was arguing that to at least help the people from these other countries who want to protect themselves, you need to open up the borders and accept them as your own because, after all, they're human and all humans deserve their rights to be respected. And to that his answer was: "I think I get it. Your a globalist and I'm a nationalist." And that's it. Simply because he tagged me into a group, the "Globalist" he just shutdown the whole argument by saying "Those are two different point of view" without even addressing the ethical issues. It happened to me several times afterwards. Instead of addressing the deep question, they simply resort to tag their interlocutor with a name and tag themselves with a name to avoid discussing their points further as if, suddenly, because you are part of a group, your argument is unquestionable and ethical.
Has this ever happened to anyone or am I alone on this one?
Let me ask you something.
Do you honestly think that humans are capable of re-examining themselves and of actual change?
I think they can but only if they want to. I dont think you will _ever_ be able to convince someone with arguments.
@@strangeclaims
I've been convinced by arguments. I was raised adamantly pro life, to such a degree that an exception for victims of rape seemed like merely an excuse to allow abortions in many more cases.
Then someone presented me with the number of women who died every year as a result of complications from illegal abortions before Roe v Wade. I had to concede the point, and that was the catalyst for a total reversal of my opinion on the subject.
Yes, I think people can change, and I think good facts and information, well argued, can change them.
@@strangeclaims I think u can explain arguments but in the end even if it looks like u are convincing them it's really them convincing themselves my goal in arguments isn't to change their mind it's to get them to think about hard questions and new perspectives so that days later in the shower their minds on certain issues can slowly change
@@mordenkainen88
I, too, have been swayed by caring people with good arguments and therefore agree.
However, I present to you the idea that maybe that only works for people who care about the facts to begin with.
@@strangeclaims Convincing others is a sort of job where presenting evidence is only one tool. You have to manage what they're willing to accept, their opinion of you, their general interest in the conversation, etc. For instance, for instance, convincing a chatty friend of something vaguely close to their current beliefs shouldn't be too difficult. Dropping a bunch of dry facts that, you promise, are scientifically proven to a knackered stranger on the other hand...
This has a complete different meaning right now, 4 years later... It's really worrying
anyone else enjoy that no-look book grab at 9:45?
Took 4 takes to get that one down :P
He such a pro
Olly is getting hotter and hotter these days I can't focus on what he's saying anymore.
BIG mood
He should start going clean-shaven again. Don't @ me.
@@osama4318 your wish has been granted.
@@priyapepsi hmm indeed. The insight of the future.
I’m 3 minutes in and I’m already terrified of myself. I need to re-evaluate how I talk about politics both on and offline. Thank you.
"All politics are identity politics" I want a video on that.
For a second I thought this video came out today, rather than 4 years ago.
People who don't know better: Free healthcare and education?! That doesn't work!
Guess I don't live in a country.
yeah, it doesnt work sweet cheeks. Really dig into it sometime. People in Canada die while waiting for surgeries. People in the UK denied care, or given pain pills instead.
@@jakesmithsonian388 and how many compared to those who can't even afford a doctor's visit in the us? Denying reality and pointing to something to yell that's bad too doesn't mean it isn't better than nothing. Every country has its own problems, that's obvious, but what baffles outsiders is that your country is so broken in so many regards with thousands of needless deaths from homelessness to preventable diseases, not even mentioning vaccines, that the only way someone can argue like you do is by denying reality and attempting to look down on others. It's sad and one of the reasons why you're in this situation still. You, by not trying to solve the problem but blame others and say you have it better somehow, are contributing to putting money in the pockets of those who are propegating such a system that is responsible for so many more deaths. It's a true tragedy and none of your snide remarks are going to change reality to reflect the delusion you believe you live in. Good day.
@@alexisasheep6554 everyone here in the US can afford a visit. A cash clinic will run you about $50. If some moron cant afford that, then thats their fault. Everyone should have at least 6 months expenses saved up. It soubds like youre denying reality, not me. good day
@@jakesmithsonian388 I know there's no use in debating with you since you so clearly have already made up your mind but how would someone who's for example homeless with no job be able to pay for that visit? All those poor veterans who've been fucked over and chucked to the side by your oh so beloved systems, possibly with physical disabilities or ptsd? You can't actually be as stupid as to say fuck those people. Where's that fucking patriotism of yours when you're willing to turn a blind eye and cast aside the very people you claim to have such pride for? People like you, without any compassion, empathy or ability to logically reason based on facts, is going to be the ruin of your nation. Stay on that sinking ship or clog up the fucking hole, otherwise so many more are going to die.
Jake Smithsonian the biggest cause of debt in America is health issues, at least our countries don’t have to deal with that
schmitts really said "oh crap! some enemy group is gonna come along and take us over." and then he went and became that enemy group
Nope! He just pointed out things that the left has hardwired as an ideology and how to make politics where as cuckservatives indoctrinated by Liberalism🤡 believe "in the marketplace of ideas". He went to meet the enemy instead of waiting like a sitting duck to be institutionally conquered and dehumanized.
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.''
Oh my loooord he's so intelligent and so attractive
How to get over the friend/enemy divide: destroy the concept of enemy. We have enough resources for everybody, plus worldwide communicaton. You could ostensibly meet any person on the planet. We no longer need to fight for resources therefore...why...fight?
thewingedcroc Probably because in many cases voluntary competition has led to better results than forced co-operation.
treynaylor3 you are objectively wrong
We do have enough resources for everybody, and we should be distributing those resources fairly to everyone, but people would rather maintain a system in which those resources are owned and controlled by those with wealth and power.
In order to create the system you want, you will need to fight against those who wish to maintain the current system, thus making them your enemy. In order to get rid of that friend/enemy divide, you are making an enemy of those who wish to keep that friend/enemy divide.
This is Marxist thought: our enemies are not those from other societies, or nations, or cultures, but rather the upper classes who rule over us, which is the same in all modern societies. So long as there is a class hierarchy, it will naturally create enemies between people, because in order for one class to be on top of the hierarchy, they need to oppress and exploit the classes beneath them, and if your goal is to end class hierarchy, as is the goal of all socialists, you are making an enemy of those on top who wish to maintain the class system in order to maintain their positions of power.
Tell me, how can we have "voluntary competition" when resources are not shared equally?
when the choice is compete or starve, its not voluntary.
shasjas Yes because people have never competed with people who had more resources than them in any way shape or form. People have never won or even held their own despite their uphill battle either.
Starving IS a choice to some people. You act like you've never stuck to a principle even when you knew it would bite you. Learn to have a hill you're willing to die on. Even if I accept the idea that it isn't a choice you still have a choice in how and what you compete in.
At the end of the day someone has to work to make and acquire resources and it is a violation of the right to property to take them w/o the consent of whoever earned them. Forced acquisition IS necessary to share them equally.
I would've loved to obliterate my US government teacher when she gave the "how will we pay for it" argument against free healthcare.
Sadly I wasn't as well versed in this stuff back then.
I want to publicly thank you. You've been instrumental in my own philosophical awakening. You're a fantastic teacher, and you deserve recognition. And I can't wait to learn more from you.
I think this has been one of your most powerful videos. I appreciate you and your work.
I think this is one of your best videos to date!
I love the idea of Brexit: British people feared outsiders so much, they decided to turn all of Europe into outsiders.
That moonlight sonata tho
I think Carl Benjamin ought watch this video :)
BadMouseProductions Yeah maybe he'll even change his mind and evolve with new facts. :)
Oh, you're here. It is all left wing conspiracy.
***** Yes I'm afraid its all true, me and Olly are brothers after all ;)
BadMouseProductions WAIT WAIT WAIT!! Are you for real or are you just fuckin around??
'Cause that'd just be... two of my favourite YTers being brothers. Wich would be absolutely mad!
Dís Dimma no, I've just been likened to him in physicality haha
Hi thanks for helping me pass uni level politics class
I remember when you only had a couple vids on your channel and were trying to figure out your formats, awesome journey but makes me feel old!
Every once in a while you come up with a spectacular video, great content :)
5:30 and the LGBTQ+ community. The famous picture of book burning isn't of jewish books, it's the library of the Institut fur Sexual Wissenshraft.
who's here in 2019 reeling from the SOTU and drinking alone
oh boy how are you feeling now
Hello ..
Every single time you speak about current events you somehow manage to amazing the perpetual hell out of me! Your ideas are very well balanced, man. I love the fact that you always seem to find good AND bad in all perspectives when discussing a problem! Really enjoy your work!
Hey Olly. Excellent work on all your videos. I have watched quite a few of them. Very thorough and detailed analysis. Please keep up the good work and keep posting more videos about all the topics. I have just become a patron by pledging on Patreon. Cheers!
This video is too good, my eyes bleed.
but on the that violence quote, while i agree on the criticism of liberalism, i don't think we need refer to poverty to criticise liberalism. Just existence of a militarized police force or army is enough of violence that deserves counter action.
well... there is more to the justification of armed police force than just the distribution of power.
Maybe it's the other way around: Those who feel the urge to hate and oppress assume that their enemy is the same. And they use the projected evil as a justification for their own "defensive" aggressions only because of their own biases. Don't you think that the vast majority of fear- and hate-mongers really are the main (almost only) cause for fear?
You could be correct. There is no single correct answer.
Wow, this is brilliantly produced. Music added so much and your presentation was spot on.
The best Philosophy tube video ive seen, and that's a high bar to hit!
Watching this right on the cusp of his second election season, this is chilling.
Very interesting rewatching this after just having gone through this
Mind blown... I hope that things will be okay no matter what the outcome. You really gave us something to chew on this week
This is a damn good video ollie I've been using your videos and tying them into my class presentations I'm sure if your high school Philosophy Professor saw you and knew this he would be proud
Okay, with your beard I didn't realize how chiseled your jaw is. And those dimples!
Handsome, smart, and kind!
I'm not sure I buy this distinction in the way the left and right use the friend/enemy distinction. Or at least that it's nearly that simple. Like, I'd bet in the minds of people on the right being trans or muslim is a choice.
Or you could just ask them.
I got no problem with trans. Some might from a religious perspective. However, consider that they also think of sex outside of marriage as wrong. There are a few crazies (a certain West Burroughs Baptist church), but most just dislike the lifestyle, not the person. There's a big difference between not making a man a cake and throwing him off a roof. Keep in mind though, not all people on the Right are religious. A good number could care less or might even support trans.
As for Muslims... there are moderate Muslims who are great people, possibly a good number of them. However, they seem to be the exceptions. Without a good deal of generous interpretation, the Quarran is pretty brutal for any non-Muslim. Those on the Right don't advocate hating every Muslim you see, but would certainly support halting immigration for a group of people largely consisting of those who hate everything about you.
As for friend/enemy identity politics, it seems to me a very leftist way of thinking (ironic, given the source). It views government solely from the perspective of, "what can I get out of it?" The other side views government as something that should be restricted. Rather glad I watched this though. If this is truly the Left's perspective of how government works, it explains their reliance on identity politics quite well.
*Westboro Baptist Church
*Quran
That's a really good point. More importantly though: ohmygodpleasestartmakingvideosagaintheyweresogreatandnowthatthey'regoneit'slikethelighthasgoneoutofmylife.
They say that to justify their position but tbh they don't really care. They must have had it explained a thousand times by now but that hasn't changed their minds.
The distinction is in what's being demanded, as what's a matter of choice is subject to interpretation, including interpretation that isn't self-aware (e.g. an oppressor limiting someone's choices and then blaming them for their "choices"). As was said in the video, the interpretation doesn't need to make sense; it only requires belief.
From the political right, the division of friend/enemy lacks self-awareness that the expectation being placed is that "enemies" will make "choices" that conform to the desires of the dominant class, in order to become "friends," and also that such conformity (path to "friendship") is usually only possible through violence if possible at all. Non-conformity to assigned gender via wardrobe choices is policeable (policing = inherently violent) and many (cis and trans people alike) conform out of fear of being marked "enemy." Or, the political right lack self-awareness that the "choices" that "enemies" must make in order to become "friends" aren't possible in the first place because gender (what a person feels) isn't a choice.
Similarly, a Black or Brown person can "choose" to not wear something associated with their culture - locs, head wraps, lengthy facial hair, etc. - that would mark them as "enemy" or "other," and I use "choose" in quotes because of the pressure to assimilate as evidenced by what often happens to those who do dress in ways associated with their "enemy" culture (can anything that aligns with dominant social norms truly be considered a result of "choice" while there exists violent policing of non-conformity?). It's possible for a Black person to "dress white," "talk white," and "act white" (though the anti-Blackness that regards Black people as "enemy" often makes assimilation extremely difficult if at all possible), but a Black person cannot suddenly choose to not be Black because "friendship" is only offered to Black people on a conditional basis. Whiteness is the promise of unconditional friendship. The way we praise the "fashion statements" of whites who appropriate anything that a person of color ("enemy") would be policed for wearing serves as a reminder that "friendship," or permission to exist, is acquired not through one's choices, but by conformity ("choices") and factors beyond one's control.
Since the conditions required to move from "enemy" to "friend" are either only possible through policing or are impossible to meet (and because the "friendship" remains conditional even when conditions are met), the message that the dominant class is truly sending is that the only way their enemies can become friends is by living their lives as the dominant class envisions for them or to simply no longer exist.
The distinction presented in the video between how the left uses friend/enemy and how the right uses friend/enemy is well-argued in my opinion. To address your comment directly, the distinction isn't simply that the left is able to see that some things aren't a matter of "choice" and that the right assumes that everything is a matter of choice even when it's not (as was stated in the video, it doesn't need to make sense; it only needs to be believed in). The distinction is that for the political left, an "enemy" *can* become a friend if, through choice, they respect existence, while for the political right, there is no intention to be friends with their "enemies," who they'd rather see be erased from existence, and their fear of the "enemy" and blaming of the "enemy's" "choices" which fail to live up to impossible conditions they've set for "friendship" are a projection of their own choices to not respect existence. This is ultimately why the liberal/centrist insistence on neutrality and the narrative of "fascists on both the left and right" is so dangerous: It treats the "intolerant" left as being the same as the right without asking critical questions, such as *what exactly* is it that the left and right are respectively intolerant of (sees as their enemy)? "Respect existence or expect resistance." People who see themselves as being "center" don't even recognize the difference between the left and the right, and as a result are more likely to sympathize with the right when pressed hard enough (for example: like the video argued, Carl Schmitt).
"If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor." -Desmond Tutu
What a great video...you are an amazing orator and I found the discussion very thought provoking. Subscribed.
Great document! Keep up the good work.
Oh my God look at this smooth baby Ollie, he's so pretty, hahaha. Current Ollie is still quite dashing.
What about now ;)
Here after trump announced he might not step down if he loses the election. Thats the 14th sign of emergent fascism.
I love to see the changes in texts on your bookshelf. It seems like you place the texts there that you recommend in the description. Is that correct? I LOVE your reading suggestions!!!
Good job on having captions on this video
Could you dive into what is "left" and "right"? I feel like I have gut feelings about what these mean but if asked I couldn't define them in a way that would accurately describe any cohesive set of ideas.
I worry that "left" and "right" are also more identities rather than the principals that define them that corral us into that same "us vs them" mentality. Also I would love to see a series that just dives into identities, how they're used to up lift and how they're used to tear down.
Equality/Inequality
If you want to get a good idea of both the left and the right, best to find people on both sides of the issue. The Left has a tendency to ascribe values to the Right which simply don't exist. The Right tends to forget that, while they still might disagree with the execution, a good number of those on the Left genuinely want to help people. Best to get info on each side from the source instead of those that despise them.
I believe the term originated from the French revolution.
Revolutionaries sat on the left side of the king - those who sought to conserve things sat on the right.
Never let extremists define left and right for you. This is how you become indoctrinated with bad ideas. Whatever you think of Philosophy Tube, he is communist. He is as far left as left goes.
Find a different channel to explain that to you.
@@skycastrum5803 Pitiful that you have to completely ignore the fact that many Rightists typically ascribe values to the left that don't exist, as if this is a trait unique to the Left just to subtly promote Rightist ideals as fact like you have in many other comments.
Wait til Schmidt hears about frenemies
Loved, liked and subscribed!
While this critique isn't mind blowing as per se, the way you take the viewers by the hands and go on a trip over both the left and the right is great!
Nicely done. I'll be mentioning this video specifically in the video I'm currently working on. Yes, it really does come down to a question of whether one feels that differences should be valued, tolerated, or done away with, and whether one feels that the oppressed should have a fair shot at a better life or be kept from having that fair shot so that those who have a better life don't have to compete with those who could have had a better life in a less oppressive society. However, if we realize that life is not a zero-sum game, the solution is clear, because diversity enriches the world and oppressing people in order to prevent them from competing for resources also ends up reducing the amount of value they can add to the world and prevents them from producing the valuable resources they could otherwise produce. In other words, those who are worried about sharing a fraction of the wealth society has allowed them so that others can prosper should consider how much more wealthy they could be in a more wealthy world where even the poor have what they need to enrich the world, rather than to merely struggle to survive.
This became one of my favorite videos you've ever done, Olly. Even better than your "Mad Marx"-series, which introduced me to your channel. I just want to give you praise for talking about the Left's (maybe specifically the far left) own view of identity politics and making it understandable enough to any liberal or centrist in your audience. I'm definitely sharing this on Facebook.
Hmmmm...... Seems relevant these days....
Nice addition of Moonlight Sonata in the video. It really added to the atmosphere.
Your videos blow my mind. Congratulations man! Keep on with the good work!
Can you do a video on Idealism?
As in Berkeley? yeah, it is on my list of ones to revisit. One of my first ever videos was on Berkeley but as you'll quickly notice if you go to it, the production qualities back then were not great!
Not just Berkeley but Kantian Idealism as well.
Apollon Oh, and don't forget Louise Althusser's take on ideology while presenting this discourse. "Hailing" "Interpellation" and "ISAs" are an important part of any discussion on the topic.
This. PLEASE!
Scott O What's the context of your statement? Is you offended? Are you in agreement? Sorry, textual communication often fails to convey tone and context.
A rather apt recommendation for today
Great video. I have had similar discussions in my own social groups about topics like this. Most of my friends are quite open minded about stuff like this (most of us are not into politics per say). I've studied a lot on Imperial powers in my history classes at Uni and find myself going back researching again. I was wondering if you could get into the dichotomy of Eastern vs Western philosophy and how that might play a part in today's political climate.
I really appreciate the amount of attention that you have given the US presidential elections. I would like to see you do something similar for the next UK general election.
I've kind of come to this idea on my own lately, without really having a way to express it. In looking at poverty, especially the arguments for and against minimum wage, I've realized that people argue much more from identity than from reason. The common argument from the right is 'Those people don't deserve more money because they're not working hard enough for it.' The left says, 'Those people can't afford to feed their children, we have to help them.'
But everyone misses the obvious question: don't we all agree, somewhere deep down, that everyone deserves to be able to provide for their family, regardless of the condition they find themselves in? I think it's fair to say most people would agree with that, but neither side approaches this truth. The left is wrapped up in the idea that these poor people are just like us and it's bad that we're not providing for them. The right similarly labors under the idea that we (Americans) are people who earn success, we were not given it, and the opportunity to earn it is sufficient.
Identity can easily and permanently blind people to the simple, rational truths underlying an issue, and it's a damn shame that political identity is not sufficiently constrained by the facts on the ground.
Also, I'm of the opinion that anyone who says 'If you're not with us, you're against us' should be burnt to the goddamned ground where they stand.
Steve Pittman You're a bit off on the right's argument against minimum wage. They argue that a minimum wage makes new entrants into the labor force harder to hire because they are riskier hires than someone with experience. Not only that, it forces less people to hired, and some people in the work force will be fired. Some people's outputs don't justify $15 an hour, often because they are new, elderly, or disabled, and if you raise the minimum to that level, they will be the ones who are fired. Meanwhile the formerly excellent workers who were making $15/hr because of raises or bonuses will simply be standard.
Also, shouldn't you be burned to the ground by your logic? You made an "us against them" where you're against people who advocate an us against them mentality.
Steve Pittman You're a bit off on the right's argument against minimum wage. They argue that a minimum wage makes new entrants into the labor force harder to hire because they are riskier hires than someone with experience. Not only that, it forces less people to hired, and some people in the work force will be fired. Some people's outputs don't justify $15 an hour, often because they are new, elderly, or disabled, and if you raise the minimum to that level, they will be the ones who are fired. Meanwhile the formerly excellent workers who were making $15/hr because of raises or bonuses will simply be standard.
Also, shouldn't you be burned to the ground by your logic? You made an "us against them" where you're against people who advocate an us against them mentality.
treynaylor3 Sure, lots of other reasonable-sounding arguments are made as well. But if pressed, 'why do they deserve X' always seems to be the argument of last, if not first, resort.
Re:burned to the ground - Perhaps I phrased it poorly. I argue from the point of one who is neither with or against anyone, merely one who has seen the dark, closed-minded roads such a mindset tends to lead people down.
Steve Pittman That's because people on the right generally try to appeal to your sense of logic before appealing to your sensibilities. The left does the opposite.
This is 2020, JK Rowling is now openly transphobic, RIP
This is one of my favorite videos you have made along with the nuclear weapons one. Please keep doing videos like this!
Best video I have seen all week. It gave me a lot to think about.
Remember these days?
I'm confused as to why your Patreon funding went down so significantly over the last couple of months. You were above 1,400 before September started, IIRC.
Honestly, I think you should make another video specifically to ask for donations. I know it feels weird to do, but if you are honest about your needs, I'm sure this community will come together to support you, as it did once before a couple of months ago.
I am currently donating what I can, and I'd hate to see this channel disappear. It's one of my favourites. :)
One of my big donors dropped out. That's the thing about patreon - if you're close to the line of what you need then all it takes is a big donor to drop out - which they are obviously perfectly entitled to do, and sometimes it's something like a card getting declined somewhere or a technical error - and things can get tough. Thanks for all your support though :)
brilliant!
Olly you're getting really really good at this 😌
Thanks for another thought provoking video! I swear you have an extreme amount of patience & energy to read and deal with the comments which come with your videos -___-
One of the readings for my class recently was "The Evangelical-Capitalist Resonance Machine" by W E. Connolly which, while it talks about a different president/time period ish, I think it provides a good reference point for Trump's support base, & the way their support/feelings for him intensify even as more moral flaws (using things they'd care about: bragging about extra marital affairs (which often involved unwilling women!!!), etc, and weary etc) are revealed about him and people on the left and right express/perform their outrage and disgust.
This is surely going to increase the grey in my beard. A very thought-provoking video, thank you.
If someone farts you are really going to say "That really makes you think"? Because that sure sounded like a loud fart. If i want philosophy i would watch Kane B.
No, the message at the end was quite clear, and something to spend some time thinking on.
Sargon of Akkad
he talks about institutionalised acception of poverty. You know where this leads to? This method of thinking is very destructive. Because people use this method to deconstruct social nrratives but they cannot create something with this method. It is easy to destroy things, narratives, systems, but atleast they are working and if you will eliminate them...what will be left? Open gates to ruin.
Even if it was only a method to destroying narratives without creating new ones (which I don't totally agree with), it still would be thought-provoking. Something doesn't need to be conclusive to be an idea/to not "be a loud fart".
Gabriel Katapano
it's leftist idea that clouds the minds of weak-minded people so its a fucking fart. It doesn't provoke thought, it tells you how to think. You seem to agree with the false narrative that you are thinking for yourself and not thinking within some boundaries of the accepted possibilities within your ideological system of beliefs. And you wouldn't want someone to destroy your illusion of free thought.
In other words, _get ready for WWIII._
T. H. Caro and other
Not necessarily. In the previous world wars people didn't have the fastest information sharing tool known to man at there disposal 24/7. The internet is one of the most, if not THE most powerful invention civilization has ever produced. Its influence should not be taken lightly.
Olly, this is a beautiful and insightful video...and it scares the shit out of me
thank you btw i love this channel its not really any craziness but a intellectual conversation
what are your thoughts on slovej zizek endorsement of Donald trump?
+gustavo pena Whoa... I just found this out via your comment! I gotta say, I didn't expect that. Personally, I just voted for Trump yesterday, but my brothers (who are big followers of Zizek) were supporting Gary Johnson last time I talked politics with them (which was about 2 months ago). I don't know if they're still voting for him now.
Though I myself don't follow Zizek that much, I know him well enough to know that his endorsement of Trump is a rather surprising move. What do you think of it, if you don't mind my asking?
***** I think he's sane
Hillary wants war
It ain't no surprise that he endorses Donald trump
Zizek is an accelerationist. Basically, let things get so bad that a revolution is inevitable. He's even against charity to the developing world. *shaking my head*
Christopher meh I actually agree with that
I would just like to point out that he did not "endorse" Trump -- he claimed that a Trump win could potentially cause a shift in the American left that will result in the adoption of a true political identity. The only radical political identity on the left has been and will always be class identity, but in order to adopt those sorts of politics we need to reject the champagne liberalism of the Clintonites. Zizek doesn't want a fascist in the White House, per se, but he does want the radical reaction to a Trump presidency that could potentially follow.
In other words, Zizek wants to *ACCELERATE* us into a *FASH BASHING FUTURE*. We need *DIVINE VIOLENCE*: www.lacan.com/zizrobes.htm
"The attribute of popular government in a revolution is at one and the same time virtue and terror. Terror without virtue is fatal; virtue without terror is impotent. The terror is nothing but justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is thus an emanation of virtue." -- Maximilien Robespierre
Iron Felix did nothing wrong.
First of all, great video! I really love this channel. I think the idea that politics is based in a "friend/enemy" dichotomy is really accurate. And I do believe that like it is explained in the video that distinction + invented enemies + "strike first" mentality can create a direction towards facism, and I believe that explains Trump's popularity in this election (I have no problem calling Trump a fascist. His bigotry speaks for itself). However I don't think it leads exclusively to fascism, it can also lead to left-wing forms of oppression, but that has to do with my own experience with politics.
I´m from Venezuela, I´ve been living in my country all my life. We're currently under a terrible financial colapse, rampant crime and an autocratic and corrupt goverment. And the socialist party refuses to let go of any form of control or accept any idea that might correct the terrible situation of our country because they consider any policy that doesn't fall in line with their vision too "right wing" or "fascist". Even if you consider yourself in the left of the political spectrum, it doesn't matter. Even former goverment supporters are categorize as "traitors" and "neoliberals". Journalist had been attacked, polititians had gone to jail for not agreeing with the current goverment. Even day to day life is difficult, my father is a doctor and my mother a lawyer and they literally don't have food in the fridge because of how expensive and hard to find it is.
And this terrible policies and specially the lack of acceptance for any criticism in the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV) are I believe a consequence of the believes that you describe here. The party came to power after a time of terrible unstability and wealth inequality, they created an enemy and planted the idea that they should take all the power and use violence because the "others" would do it. Now, this enemy wasn't exactly invented, the inequality was real and the opposition did make some terrible actions, like an attempted coup in 2002. But, by this point the distinction is so absurd that even civilians protesting against crima and hunger had been attacked by the goverment as "privileged capitalist".
My point is not to defend of justify right wing oppression, I believe that many actions of the Republican Party are despicable for example in their oppression of the poor, women, muslims, black people and latinos. But just like the right can justify oppression using that "friend/enemy" mentality. The enemy of the right might be invented and the enemies of the left only exaggerated but I think that to just call this form of oppression fascism and not "really socialist" (Like some left wing politicians do) avoids the responsability of left wing goverment in creating oppression.
I do believe that division + invented enemies + "strike first" mentality= opression. I just think that that oppression it's not exclusively right wing or fascist, it can also be left wing. And it´s not just enough to say "I´m different from the right, My enemy are not the poor or the opressed. My enemy are the oppresors", you have to carefully define "oppresor". If you don't, you can be just as irrational as a right wing extremist, attacking and punishing innocent people because they're the "oppresors". It happens in my country, It has also happened in other left wing goverments like Cuba for example.
I hope not to sound too much like a right winger, I´m really not. Keep up the good content. And sorry for any mispelling, english is not my first language.
Such a fascinating look at alterity in constructing politics. This video made me think that I would be interested in your take on a book I have just read in my honours program: "The Least of All Possible Evils: Humanitarian Violence from Arendt to Gaza" by Eyal Weizman. (Never thought I would go around ranting and raving about a book on forensic architecture, but everything right now--from the Kwame Ture quote to vampire novels--reminds me how this book uncovers the monstrosity of the normal.)
Thank you for an insightful piece!
I’m a new subscriber and this is the first video I’ve seen him without facial hair and he is baby
The current look will shock you then lol
@@NeelLLumi-AnCatDubh lol really happy for her!
As a socialist what are your thoughts on an armed revolution to abolish capitalism?
There are many revolutionary groups in the world. Once one starts, either the general public trusts the legitimacy of the government in place, either they don't.
If they do, then revolutionaries don't have collaborators, and the rebellion is crushed.
If they don't, then revolutionaries have collaborators. Once there, either the government switfly crushes the rebellion, or they don't.
If they do, the rebellion is crushed.
If they don't, then every other revolutionary group and their mother starts to rebel, too, and it becomes a free for all.
The initial rebels are tired from taking the brunt of the initial government repression, and are dispatched swiftly by their rivals.
Which means that whoever starts the rebellion stands no chance of winning.
Making a losing rebellion in a democratic, capitalistic society is always worse than not rebelling.
So where do we go from there?
We wait for the fascists to rebel first.
Then we refuse to collaborate with the government.
We let the government and the fascists fight one-another.
Then we strike.
Has that ever worked?
Annaelle Jacques-Morel How to you explain the Cuba, China and the Soviet Union then?
Apollon I thought of them more as communist. The self described socialists don't have a good track record. I don't know about China but if you look at the quality of life for the majority of citizens I wouldn't call Cuba or the Soviet Union a success.
In China, The Maoists took over after the government was defeated and bloody from fighting the Japanese.
In Russia, the communists took over after the capitalists revolutionaries and the royalists loyalists and fucking WW1 destroyed all political effectiveness in the country.
In Cuba, they had help from the Soviet Union, + whatever fuck was going on when The States treated Cuba like their own personal whorehouse.
Thank you for the excellent video!
Watching this for the first time after trump refused to concede the election after losing in 2020.
Does anyone actually think that we should use the friend/enemy distinction? I mean, clearly Carl Schmitt did, but given how irrational and inconsistent you portrayed it here this feels more like just an insult to be lobbed at people you disagree with.
Everyone uses it tho.
More right-wingers than left-wingers but everyone does.
_"If you arent with me, you are against me"_
I've never met anyone who _doesnt_ consider any group of people as "the enemy".
@@strangeclaims If you have no enemies, than there's no possible way that you could be alive on this earth. Or, you're so secure in your 'neutrality' that you refuse to see the reality of someone attempting to shake your hand while hiding a knife behind their back.
I think one huge misconception in this whole debate is the way different countries, societies and even generations define what is left and what is right. One group's historical, economic or religious background will separate it from others regardless of their political inclinations. The left on an european country might advocate for the right of homosexual people to adopt and marry while the left on a latin american one will be too busy abolishing the current form of government to care about such issues. Nationalism as a word does not carry the same weight and meaning for the shamed Germany than it does to the USA that has existed for nearly a century as the main world power, nor to the small african country struggling to defend it's people's way of living and basic rights against both invading armies and cultures. It is worth pointing out that most if not all political, economic and even philosofical way of thinking that the western world bases itself on came from people in position of privilege, of power, wealth and security that the large majority of the world never shared, and despite this divide the intellectuals of this western world have always tried to understand the entirety of these enormous and very human, very complex issues through their very narrow lenses, disregarding the "lesser" outside voices. A country that has just escaped 70 years of opression will throw itself onto the idea of liberalism with an unsatiatable hunger, but a generation later the people may demand the return of a more conservative state when faced with the decadence and inherent problems that came with such a violent shift, maybe dividing the entire nation and even starting a civil war. An extreme right religious group may take over the freedom of their country and impose their faith as law in the middle east, while in Brazil the church may be the only protection of the poor and the abused, saving them from falling into a life of crime and abuse.
The way you spoke of the left and right are extremely biased and subjective to your country and way of thinking, but I don't point this out as an attack, but as a plea to remind you that you are speaking to a global audience, to people who come from very different contexts than you and that may find your arguments false, completely bonkers or even insulting if you don't either try and widen your scope or at least clarify that your points are only valid for specific times, places and cultures. I don't think you would be compromising much by taking this into consideration, but that instead your reasonings and your content (which I actually enjoy quite a bit and have been consuming for quite a while now) may become much more rich and reaching.
I agree that the arguments here are quite Eurocentric and so were a bit difficult for me to follow, especially when the term "liberal" started being used. It doesn't take away from how awesome this video was; I'm just pointing out that I agree with this particular commenter's perspective.
oh yes
i agree however he did put it into context. the 2016 election in the united states.
here the day after the 2020 presidential debate. youtube recommendations knows me too well
Perfect timing, just got my dinner and love to watch your videos while eating, it was actually you who gave me the idea, in an old video when you said you love to watch pewdiepie while eating your lunch.
hah, I still do that sometimes
Don't call trump Mr.; he doesn't deserve your respect.
This explains Trump's victory better than anything else I've heard.
Thank you for changing the outro. I like this one a lot better. Great script.
Ooh, that's interesting - can I ask which old one didn't you like, and why? That's the kind of thing I'm super interested in because it goes in every episode!
I was the one who said your talking about giving education away is self-aggrandizing. I think this one is more on point; on topic.
And by outro, I mean the entire summarization of ideas, 10:30 onwards. Using different words gives more time to digest the idea, which could seem repetitive if you already got the gist of it, but I didn't. Which is why the signposting with "In this video" is useful, giving appropriate viewers signal to end viewing.
Wow, brilliant video making me rethink a lot of things.
I don't think a fear of foreigners taking British resources is incompatible with having gained those resources through conquest, in fact, it makes sense. People are self-interested; they will go out and take resources in order to better their situation. Britain did it to other people, why shouldn't it expect and try to protect itself from those same actions on the part of others against them?
Lachlan Still Disregarding biases and double standards, it is hypocrisy. However, taking into account the double standard that some people have (I get whatever I want, other people also get whatever I want), you are right.
What is this double standard? Their standpoint is not "I get whatever I want, other people also get whatever I want." It is "whoever is strong enough to win it gets it." That would lead to them taking it by force in the past being justified, and them strengthening their defenses to protect it right now making sense. To be clear you don't have to agree with this viewpoint at all; I definitely have my disagreements with it, but I think it is consistent.
In that case, I misunderstood you. I suggested a double standard between 'us' and 'them'. Oh well.
It's not just about resources, it's about physical safety and security.
I think we are presupposing decency and ethics here. If you're gonna confess you don't give a shit about that, then fine.
the rich are rich and the poor are poor because all, rich and poor, with very few exceptions, follow the same philosophy: money and pleasure. there would be no general without an army; it's the mass that willingly behave like soldiers who make the generals. but that's a hard truth to digest, so better say that there are "good guys" and "bad guys", oppressors and oppressed.
That's not quite the case. Oppressors and oppressed are objective terms that exist and can be traced as far back as history has been recorded.
But beyond that, you do have a point in your army/general analogy. But we have to remember that if rich people are the generals, and poor are the army, that the military is an imperial-capitalistic mentality that has been derived from a rich (pardon the pun) history of oppressors oppressing the oppressed.
Great video!
Abby Thorne vs Classical Abby arc go
Hey there Olly! Love your content, been subbed for a while now. Just wanted to point out that you probably shouldn't have poisoned the well before giving evidence for it. As I'm sure you're aware, that doesn't imply he WASN'T a bad guy, but merely that it's an intellectually dishonest practice, as the mere fact of his deeds and beliefs should be enough, not that fact he was "a nazi."
Sorry, I just sorta thought that wasn't good of ya dude. You know better. You recently saw Sargon of Akkad's video on John Green and Crash Course Geography, I'm sure, so you know what kind of damage poisoning the well can cause. Thanks for reading!
+Giffica I don't watch Sargon, and I thought it was vey relevant up front to say Schmitt was a Nazi so people can be on their guard about how his work can be used. And TBH even if I thought it was "poisoning the well" I'm disinclined to care about damage to the reputation of a literal Nazi
Philosophy Tube Poisoning the well doesn't have to do with the reputation of those at stake, but rather a belief that "actions speak louder than words." You don't need to say "Hey this person is bad, he's a nazi, bad bad bad, nazis are bad! you should think he's bad." You should instead go "He believed in this thing. That thing we can all agree is bad. That's why this guy is bad. Not "because he's a nazi" but because of the things nazi's did, and in this case, the specific troubling beliefs he might hold. Him being a nazi is frankly, irrelevant. We don't need to know that to conclude he's not a great person. Hence, poisoning the well.
Also, i would listen to Sargon, as he's the bastion of the political "alt-right" philosophy. It's good to hear both sides. But I'm surprised you didn't hear about John Green removing Crash Course Geography, due entirely thanks to Sargon's video.
No one, not even the man himself, has ever legitimately labeled Sargon as a member of the alt-right. When people do try to claim things like that (who are usually on the far left and trying to knock him down a few pegs) he is usually just annoyed at it. He once specifically said he was _not_ part of the alt-right, so, you know, unless you're using some type of magical alternate definition of the word 'bastion', that is patently a false statement. He's literally said stuff about being mostly left-leaning, anyways it seems to me that he just doesn't particularly agree with the people he has described as" progressives" and such.
That being said, I'll admit that I'd consider this a case of poisoning the well. At least to an extent. You could make an argument for context, but it's complicated I guess.
Lens Element he sounds like a conservative from that comment.
I didn’t like your characterization of the right as a fixed identity that doesn’t change and fights other identities. If you argue that the right demands an agent to share their identity (straight white conservative Christian) you need to look at familiarity of philosophy that can be found among other groups that do not fit this right wing stereotype. Brown hispanics may vote right wing as they share a great deal of cultural belief due to their religion. Gays may happen to advocate for civil liberties but love free markets and thus vote right wing to preserve their own economic power, that they may have worked for and/or inherited. Just for the very same reason conservative white workers have a long history of voting for left wing parties across all western countries as they desire a more egalitarian approach to wealth distribution. This is where identity politics falls short. Being black or gay may define an absence of power to a degree and they might share the experience of dehumanization and discrimination but they themselves may hold other forms of power and values that aligns them with the right in order to preserve whatever power they hold. Different streams and sources lead into a river. Different forms of experience may lead all participants to agree on a common denominator and desired outcome ( ban muslims, protect neo liberal economic policy etc).
The most sensible comment I’ve seen in this thread so far. Thank you.
@Avisha M I'm not arguing for right-wing policies here. I'm just pointing out that political camps are nothing more than collective decision making and that the spectrum of people with right-wing ideas is a lot greater than Olly's depiction of it.
Hey Olly, I was wondering if you could do a new year reading list video? I'm on the other hemisphere and my exams will be finished soon, and I'd love to feast on some knowledge this summer!
I do have a reading list video lounging in a spare corner of my schedule, I may well make it a new year's one now you've said that!
Please make sure it's accessible. The last one wasn't l, the people who ask "where do I start" don't want you to hand them a copy of capital!
Crazy how real this video is, even after 4 years.