Why "Neither Left Nor Right" Just Means Right Wing | Bonapartism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 17 มี.ค. 2022
- Why "Neither Left Nor Right" Just Means Right Wing | Bonapartism - Second Thought
SUBSCRIBE HERE: bit.ly/2nFsvTS
New video every Friday!
Citations and Further Reading:
Basic info
www.britannica.com/topic/Bona...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonapar...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleo...
books.google.com/books?id=-VE...
www.google.com/books/edition/...
archive.org/details/napoleoni...
The controversial definition of democracy
books.google.com/books?id=GhA...
Madison quote
billofrightsinstitute.org/pri...
Macron
• REPLAY - Bicentenary o...
m. watch/?v=19493...
Le Pen
watch/?v=419...
www.francetvinfo.fr/politique...
The 18th Brumaire
www.marxists.org/archive/marx...
www.marxists.org/archive/marx...
isreview.org/issue/74/eightee....
Trump
www.europe-solidaire.org/spip....
Yang
jacobinmag.com/2021/10/andrew...
French language sources
www.toupie.org/Dictionnaire/B...
www.slate.fr/story/63113/democ...
www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/...
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonapar...
• Ni gauche ni droite : ...
• Les partis bonapartist...
• LE BONAPARTISME - Minu...
Follow and Support Second Thought!
Twitter: / _secondthought
Patreon: / secondthought
BuyMeACoffee: www.buymeacoffee.com/secondth...
CashApp: $JTChapman
Watch More Second Thought:
Latest Uploads: • Playlist
Spaaaaaace!: • Playlist
What If...: • Playlist
Popular Videos: • Popular Videos | Secon...
About Second Thought:
Second Thought is a channel devoted to education and analysis of current events from a Leftist perspective. Welcome!
Business Email: secondthoughtchannel@gmail.com
![[TH]FFWS SEA Spring 2024 Knockout Stage - Day 10](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4QaEryUGWQw/mqdefault.jpg)
"it's not left, it's not right, it's forward"
that was basically my first ever take back when i got into politics. suffice to say, i've grown up a lot after that
Yeah this was my based 10 year old take also. Then you see the real world, and it’s all so shit that it radicalizes you. I wouldn’t say I’m full socialist now, but definitely far left leaning
It's an Andrew Yang quote, but in no way is Yang right-wing.
I love Second Thought, but this seems kinda sus.
(I haven't finished the video yet, maybe there's context)
@@SonOfTheNorthe It depends how you define left v right-wing. As Marxists we define the right as anything that is pro-capitalist. Yang is definitely pro-capitalist. He just wants capitalism with a kinder face. A smarter capitalism that gives out a universal basic income (so that they can buy more stuff an
d continue the capitalist cycle).
That's how you get elected though. Good luck trying to get elected without messaging about unity. But I don't really care about campaign slogans. As far as I've seen, all of Yang's policies are left wing, but pragmatic. Leftists are all about demonizing him though. Which is probably understandable, pragmatism had been co-op'ed for a long time by moderates as an excuse to not do anything. But 200+ years of capitalist rot can't be undone in a single day, a single bill. Reactionary leftists hate hearing that though.
@@eeediology9232 That's exactly the problem with the "left-right" model of politics is that it's so inconsistently defined that it does a terrible job of describing the real world. It evidently didn't even do the French revolution any good.
As a French lefty, thank you for drawing attention to Macron's nefarious politics. Because he seems more moderate compared to someone like Boris Johnson, many English-language outlets have been singing his praises over the last few years and it's been infuriating. They've ignored the insulting remarks about poor people, the forcing through the Assemblée Nationale of unpopular legislation, the police violence towards protestors, the systematic dismantling of public services and his controversial choices of ministers (like Darmanin, the former member of the far-right Action Française and suspected rapist who Macron put in charge of the police force).
In fact, it is argued by many on the left in France that the Fifth Republic, our current Constitution since 1958, is very Bonapartist in nature, having been tailor-made for Charles de Gaulle. This argument is based notably on the hyperpersonalisation of power, the President being legally untouchable while in office (no impeachment mecanism exists, no matter how toothless) and the numerous tools at the President's disposal to force laws through the Assemblée Nationale, including the use of "ordonnances" and the even more controversial article 49.3 of the Constitution. Since 2002, when the presidential term was shortened from seven to five years, this has arguably gotten worse as the legislative elections are now aligned with the presidential one. The result is that the elected President almost always gets a majority and the Assemblée Nationale essentially has little power to counteract the Government. There is much discussion on the left about the need to end the Fifth Republic, and what a Sixth Republic could look like.
Finally, while it's true that many French people and politicians have a Bonaparte boner, it's not the case of everyone. He's not much loved in the French Caribbean islands, where his reintroduction of slavery was...not popular. Also, while many were keen to celebrate the bicentenary of his death back in 2021, many of us were more concerned with honouring the 150th Anniversary of the Paris Commune of 1871.
EDIT : somebody pointed out that there is indeed a mechanism by which the French Parliament can remove the President, so I was wrong on that point. I genuinely thought there wasn't so I'm sorry for getting that wrong.
The system has, so far, never been used and it seems somewhat difficult to set in motion.
I think the other points still stand, but I'm happy to have incorrect facts pointed out to me.
As a French person myself, great job, I wish I could pin this comment for everybody to see !
Franchement super, on ne pouvait pas mieux expliquer notre situation politique actuelle, je suis à 100% d'accord avec vous.
Merci.
Polish people tend to have a positive view of Bonaparte too since he was seen as a liberator that freed us from foreign occupiers and allowed us to exist as the Duchy of Warsaw (albeit a puppet state, but it was better than having no recognised state whatsoever).
Even the Polish national anthem name-drops Bonaparte with how he taught us to win battles.
Fortunately I know the entire story.
One of the saddest things I've seen in france since moving here is that out of the 5 top candidates for presidency 4 are right wingers and two are towing the line between fascism and nationalism
@@mohamadraeesi9484 , fascism of Mussolini was corporatist (alliance between a police regime and the wealthiest 1% ) ... who's more corporatist than Macron ?? and for nationalist ideas Macron praised Pétain and Napoleon during official celebrations. The racists candidates are just decoys to make Macron looks good in comparison...and you are sadly right to see that the french Left is too stupid to get united or efficient ... et ça fait trop chier ;'(
traitors everywhere it seems.
As a big fan of Hakim and The Deprogram who had never seen a single of your videos, I’m glad that this is the first I see. Over the past few months I’ve seen a few videos about bonapartism and it’s legacy (like the current French constitution) but they were all made by French TH-camrs, it’s cool that you also talk about this stuff.
I'm so impressed. I'm French and this is the first video that I ever see that nails the current political situation in France, and explains clearly what Bonapartism is and why it's bad news! (just like having Macron, Le Pen, or Trump in power). In fact, the V Republic is coined in France as a 'monarchist republic' since all the powers are dangerously concentrated in the President hands as the French people have been discovering since Macron is in power...
@@oswaldm mmmmhhh... that's not quite the French people sentiment with the current political and socioeconomic crisis - there's a good reason for all the massive protests and riots since Macron is in power. Truly that one has run its course since it was established at the end of WWII as a way to prevent another Vichy nazi-collaborating government... People anger is brewing. It will explode if Macron continues to exercise such an authoritarian regime over the country. Him and his government are only holding up thanks to his police brutality and severely punishing dissidents.
@@oswaldmit's more stable because France have just better living conditions than the previous republic. We just cannot compare them. The only comparaison you could make is the beginning of the 5 and the end of the 4. Even there we can argue that the stabilisation came more because of the end of the war in Algerie(I don't know the word in english).
@@tobias7143Algeria
@@tobias7143Algeria
Et ça va faire très très mal avec Marine qui arrive dans pas longtemps 😢 j’ai sincèrement très peur
I've noticed that Second Thought has integrated humor pretty well in his newest video while still being informative, not only does that make the left seem more approachable, but it makes the content better for longtime fans.
Good thing we're seeing the left engage in humor more often
This is propaganda, it's essentially the "your with us or against us" argument, political beliefs are often more complex than left vs right, and I'm kinda getting sick of this yang was a fascist, but not really bullshit
@@quatreraberbawinner2628 Dude as a former Andrew Yang supporter, who legit voted for him to be Democratic nominee, he’s pretty fascist. He didn’t start off that way for sure, and definitely not how he began. But I urge you to check out his New York mayor run and just see how he ran allllll the way to NeoLiberalism, saying terrible things such as pray for Israel from the disgusting Hamas terrorists (no acknowledgement of the Palestinian struggle against a totalitarian state) and he went on to applaud NYPD for cracking down on street vendors literally in the same week video came out of them destroying an old hispanic woman’s street cart and arresting her. He said a lot of other stupid shit, and i dont think any Yanger should support him after all he said.
@@half9o wtf r u trying to say? This was so hard to read or understand
@@Humanprx I knew about that shit, I have a lot of problems with yang post election, I think the political process changed him and he became disillusioned, I can't say for certain as I don't know him, I just think this video is pretty dishonest
I personally love the longer definition part, it's really useful for further research and invites viewers to debate/reason outside this community, as well as breaking down buzz word abuse.
Ironic thing is Napoleon Bonaparte died as a Muslim. His last decades he was Muslim in his island prison, influenced by his mamluk frinds and advisers.
Most people talk about USA Capitalism Vs Socialism/Communism. But there is Islam too.
Islamic jurisprudence of economy method is a free market capitalist by definition on a basic level ,but recognize the disadvantages and shirt coming of that and does too uncaptilst things to counter balance that (prohibite monopolies and interst/usury, gold centered but not based, centralize banks under the countrol of the government and limit the way bank power and use is used to the extent it migt be named differently and encourage gulds unions of organizations and institutions, prohibites lopping and any form of corruption, spreat law from government infrastructure base ect... ). However, still 90 degrees in the opposite not similar to modern US capitalism style of models.
There is tone of taxing the rich for the poor/in need improvement, different tax system methods and taxing wealth not income. Lowering tax for decent and less families. Also Muslims and women even non-muslims don't pay taxes (except if they are rich pay small tax and pay tax of 2.5% of weath to poor/in need improvement projects). No tax on food, energy, water and healthcare. Also social projects are introduced, including such as: free education for all levels, free healthcare for all ages and anybody within the border, also Zakt(the 2.5% for poor/in need). The tax for non-muslims is mostly symbolic for the most part it is not much especially considering females don't pay taxes and all that free stuff by right you get and you can get Zakat support too when needed. Females Muslim or non-Muslim get additional money more than enough for additional support to maximize comfort and security, if her providers are not enough or if she has no provider, especially if she is a single mother (which the divorced father or other family male relatives members would still be required to pay however if dead or missing or unable this would come to play).
I was watching this first thing in the morning and laughed out loud at that edit about us craving definitions. So quirky
same. i honestly love when people provide definitions for what they're talking about. clears up any possible misconceptions or even provides a conception in the first place if there wasn't one prior)
Love the phrase "breaking down buzzword abuse". If you haven't already checked it out, there's a great podcast called Citations Needed that basically focuses on doing exactly this.
@@ailediablo79 I’m liking all these ideas of a capitalist market with more restrictions on the mega rich, but we probably wouldn’t exempt anyone from paying taxes due to religion or gender. separation of church and state and all that 😅 besides, any gazillionaire could just say they’re Muslim and get a major tax reduction.
2.5% u kidding me? The lowest tax bracket in the states is 10%
Perhaps it’s the lower population and drastic difference in # of M/Billionaires or probably a whole number of social/cultural/economic influences so it’s kinda hard to translate what that would look like on a US scale
Not to critique your cultures economic systems, but maybe a little bit 😁
Definitions are hugely important when talking about politics, math and any other formal concept.
So yes, I'm tremendously excited if someone provides them.
Probably the best video of this channel so far. As a French guy it's arguably the first time I see a foreigner getting our political landscape right. Excellent!
Moronic leftist drivel
is there any hope for the left in Europe?
Maybe, working on it
@@porsche911sbs In France the situation is getting worst, but we also need to take into consideration that a leftist party did 22% in the last presidential election. By left I mean the anticapitalist, antineoliberalism left. This is the best result the left had in 40 years. Young people are getting more and more drawn to these ideas, and educate themselves way more politically. That does not mean the far right won't be in power in a few years, but at least a real opposition is forming.
@@porsche911sbshope not
“Left-wing symbols, but right-wing politics.”
America in a nutshell.
Another great video, JT.
oh yes the fascist simbols and eagles are the left symbols
@@keanuxu5435 he won't
@@SgtKaneGunlock Yes, true. It was worth a try.
It’s more like China and old Russia
@@astralflick Yeah, like How China calls themselves "The People's Republic of China."
Is it *really* for the people?
Short reminder to discuss wages with your coworkers
It's protected in the US and doing it gets you more of the work you done back
When bargaining together
The benefits and pay get better
Absolutely, and as always please be smart about it. A united work force has power but a single employee rocking the boat can and most likely will be retaliated against. Even if they can't fire you they can make your work life hell.
Side note: HR is never on your side. Their job is to protect the business from the employee not the other way around.
Thankful (and proud) to have worked a union job (IBEW) for 35 years. Raised a family with vacations as well as excellent medical, dental, vision, and now pension. ORGANIZE and UNIONIZE !! Don’t believe capitalist, corporate, employer lies….. there is plenty of wealth to go around….. they just want it all ! Check out International Workers of the World ….. Workers do better when they work together !
Its weird to me that in Usa unions are sometimes looked like its bad thing. In Finland we have unions in allmoust every job you can imagine.
@@zanzabeast7110 Now everyone sing along
Industry rule number four-thousand-and-eighty;
HR people are shady
3:23 monos=single
archo=I lead/rule, archon=leader/ruler
the -y suffix is an English version of Greek -ia which means state or situation.
So monarchia=the situation of having a single ruler.
Similarly, anarchy is from anarchia, which means "the situation of lacking a ruler"
Claiming to be neither left-wing nor right-wing doesn’t automatically make someone right-wing. It’s important to recognize that political beliefs and affiliations can be complex and nuanced. Some individuals may genuinely hold centrist or independent views that do not align strongly with either the left or the right.
While there are certainly historical examples (as you described) of authoritarian-right leaders using this rhetoric in bad faith, its a bit simplistic and tribalistic to think of this as a universal rule, especially for ordinary people outside of political inner circles.
In general, political leaders often use rhetoric and labels that align with their objectives, and the distinction between left and right can be fluid in practice.
So name one please, that's not right wing but claims to be neither left nor right. Thanks.
@@Antje-Pikantje It’s certainly more rare for left wing leaders to claim to be non-partisan partially because far left wing leaders typically come to power in times of revolution where it is more politically advantageous to be anti-moderate.
However, there is the example of Hugo Chávez who sometimes referred to his political ideology as “Chavismo” or the “Bolivarian Revolution.” He argued that his movement transcended traditional left-right distinctions and focused on the principles of social justice and anti-imperialism.
However, my main point is about the accusation that anyone (not just politicians) who refuse to be lumped into a politically right or left category are by default right wing.
From the perspective of someone sitting on the far left of the spectrum obviously a non-partisan would appear right wing because just by being in the center they’re farther to the right than you are. That being said, pooling everyone who’s not staunchly left wing into one big “right wing” adversary ignores the complexities of political persuasion and feeds into the tribalistic “us versus them” mentality.
Moreover, if you consider everyone not in your immediate political persuasion to be an adversary you put yourself at an unnecessary disadvantage. You can’t reliably win elections democratically if you can’t appeal to moderates.
Not here to convince anyone (I don’t expect to), just sharing my thoughts.
@@danielgibbs9846 I don't think claiming to be neither left nor right has something to do with being moderate, it's pretty much exclusively a figure of speech to disguise actual goals and ideology.
It's a valid point to argue here there is no universal rule, no inevitably certainty but it's definitely a phenomenon one can see almost exclusively there where people are in fact more right wing. And that's measured by standards of a political average, not relative to a very left wing person.
There are people who are neither left nor right, but have unique policy postions that not recognizable to either side.
@@CoreyANeal2000 Can you one such position?
as a frenchman, seeing trump in napoleon's clothing gave me cancer
The whole video gave me cancer
Andrew Yang was my first introduction to being passionate about politics. After that political cycle I kept learning and understand that I was actually just a leftist who didn't know what to look for in candidates
Yeah basically the same here for me when I was 17 and 18.
As a former member of the #YangGang I can tell you that Yang is not real.
"a leftist who didn't know what to look for in candidates" strikes me as a fine way to characterize the majority of the voting age population.
@@jeffengel2607 there’s literally no left wing party in the USA and this is the result. I was the same way
@@prestigev6131 If it is of any consolation, we had a 30% communist party in the 80s in our parliament and, still, we did not manage to stop the liberalization process. Meh
As far as Yang goes, I was under the impression that Universal Basic Income would provide the working class with a better BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) and therefore give them better bargaining power when it comes to wages, hours, working conditions, et cetera, because they'd be more capable of walking away from any deal below their standards. I leave out benefits from that list because Yang's platforms also include portable benefits and Medicare for all, which would help people not be tied by their health to one employer. Both of those policies would also improve people's BATNA. Am I missing something?
Also, the idea that Yang's platform was so beneficial for the wealthy oligarchs contradicts my observations of the news media collectively inhibiting his airtime far more than they did for other candidates during the 2020 campaigns. It seems like they'd want to keep him in the public eye if he was looking to solidify their jobs. I think that Yang probably genuinely does want to reconcile the left and right wings' values and has the people's needs at heart, rather than just using empty rhetoric to fortify existing power structures. For that exact reason, the existing power structures had an incentive to make sure he stayed as obscure as possible. Does that make sense?
As for the Universal Basic Income, I would strongly doubt it's being pushed by people who care about your rights, wages, health or working conditions. Here in Belgium it's only being pushed by right-wing political parties for the simple reason that this way they can basically delete universal healthcare, the wellfare state and people living on their unemployment funds and replace it with "Universal Basic Income" which not only will amount to much less money than all those policies, it also means everytime you go to the hospital you'll have to pay a shit-load of money whereas right now we barely spend a dime (unlike in the US). The reason why those parties are pushing for it is because they haven't managed to create more job opportunities in the last 10 years than shitty, underpaid half-time jobs which no one wants because not only do the working conditions suck ass, but also because those jobs barely pay anything at all. Obviously, people didn't want those jobs, so now they're making it so that we don't even have the choice whether or not to apply to those jobs because their "universal income" (1000€ a month) isn't enough to live decently here, which means a life of rent, no kids, no spouse, no vacation, no little spending here and there every now and then, no ownership of anything, 1000 bucks a month is just enough to spend the rest of your days eating pasta with water for the rest of your life. So you're gonna have to take those shitty ass jobs instead of having a stable and growth-oriented carreer. And if you develop any kind of disease then congratulations, you're likely dead because universal healthcare is not a thing anymore and you barely make enough money to pay for a visit to the doctor. But hey, at least you have 1000 bucks a month don't you ? Hurray for basic universal income indeed.
Point is.. If it sound too good to be true, that's probably because it is.
N.B. : I know some people live on the streets and for those people this would be great, don't get me wrong. But this is not a win-win scenario. This is a "let's make everyone even poorer and blame them for it" scenario. There won't be less homeless, there'll just be more poor people.
Bailing out banks during every crisis and spending 800 billion dollars on military a year isn’t too good to be true though? All this shit is a lie and if you still believe in our system despite how much has been released since the dawn of the internet, you’re drunk off the kool aid. We literally have infinite money because of the Federal Reserve. But that infinite money is only for the interests of the ones who control the game.
Yeah i don't get why this video is anti yang.
The right-wing version of a UBI is taken straight from the playbook of "free to play" mobile games. It's supposed to be just a taste of material prosperity to whet the appetite for more.
A left-wing UBI seeks to redistribute the share of wealth that arises from network effects; it's not going to be a fixed number doled out, maybe a share of certain taxes, see Henry George for an example, or otherwise benchmarked to real economic activity.
I think Yang was repressed more because of his tax proposal. VAT means that taxes come from companies and not consumers (nominally) and it’s a lot harder to avoid for the wealthy.
Yang was the reverse. He had (economically) right-wing symbols, but left-wing politics. Neoliberal-sounding terms like "human-centered capitalism" was a way to cloak his support for Medicare for All and for UBI. He seemed friendly to markets but also had some real pro-economic democracy policies like a people's bank.
Camillo Cavour, the Prime Minister of Piedmont that lead the whole process of Italian unification, was a liberal nobleman, and as you can imagine pretty opposed to communism, but his justification for being so were very interesting:
He wrote he wasn't afraid of communists taking his wealth and privilege cause he didn't belive a communist government would ever work and last, but he was scared of it because he knew very well that most liberals would immediately support a reactionary dictatorship, in face of the risk of communist.
Time will prove he was right on that, obviously with Fascism, but even in his life time, when the Second French Republic was proclaimed and a couple of years later Napoleon the III staged his coup and became Emperor, he said that that was exactly what he feared:
The Liberals have sold freedom to the Reactionary out of fear of Socialism.
most based liberal? (also he looked like peter griffin, which is pretty based too)
@@gliiitchedpersonally, I think he was. While he was classist (he gave for granted that only the rich should have the right to vote) he wasn't a dogmatic and had reasons for his belief, wich all ultimately converged on his hatred for reactionaries. For example, his motivation for the suffrage limitation was that the limited Parliament elected that way was largely voted by intellectuals and Middle bourgeoisie, and was thus relatively progressive (for the time), but the vast majority of the Italian (and piedmontese) population where illiterate farmers, that had little connection to the Italian unification ideal (fun fact: Pinocchio's "go to school" moral is so strong because when the story was written the Italian government was trying to reduce illiteracy and forge Italian identity in the masses through mandatory grades and stuff, but many farmers families tried to have their kids go to school as little as possible because they needed their help with farm job, so the writer tried to convince the public of the necessity of pushing for education) and would have much rather listened to the extremely reactionary, anti modernist and anti Italian papacy, wich was the greatest enemy of Italian unification alongside Austria.
@@gliiitched That may be, but I do not like him because of his unificationist ideas. One of the fathers of so-called Italian homeland wanted war with Austria to "make the Italians," this is the same logic that half a century later would lead the Kingdom of Italy to World War I. The necessity, whatever the cost, to "make the Italians"... we are in 2022 and many of us are far from such an impractical and indecent "final solution."
Cavour on the cession of Venetia (Nov. 30, 1860): "Only from the newspapers do I learn that the British cabinet desires the cession by means of compensation and is working toward this end. So far no official step has been taken. And on my behalf I do not even desire it. I crave war with Austria for reasons of internal order; without this it will be more difficult for the North to merge with the South. I also believe that at the present time cession is not possible."
"I have done the math. It's not left, it's not right, it's forward." Rita Verdonk said something similar in the Netherlands almost two decades back. "Ik ben niet links, ik ben niet rechts, ik ben recht door zee." She's definitely right wing. But she got it from someone else.
ive seen that aswell, she’s 100% a right winger.
Rita Verdonk is a right wing populist Tokkie. Andrew Yang isn’t right wing though. He wanted medicare for all and a basic income of 1000 dollars for all Americans. And more of his policies were to the left of Bernie Sanders.
@@lordbunbury you should take a look at how his campaign in New York went
@@tbohn10 I know. Although it has been mostly a battle of the media. All the candidates were pro Israel. Somehow it stuck to Yang. Up until not so long ago we were all pro Israel and against Palestine and Islam. Now it’s the other way around. Although not a lot of people know anything about the conflict; they just pick a side that aligns with what their side’s position is.
@@lordbunbury Ironically, I bet a bunch of people could’ve used that healthcare and universal basic income during the start of the pandemic. Yang unintentionally predicted what the USA would need to weather future crisis’.
See this is why I hate everyone who's obsessed with politics. Everything has to be all either with or against us, we cannot have any nuance only pushing a polarised political agenda at all times. Often times I see it as both the "left" and "right" to be trying to evangelise the people in the middle, since most normal people lie somewhere in the centre. They don't care too much and just want to get on with their lives. So "the right" play on moral outrage, saying you need to do something or "the left" will corrupt your children's minds. While "the left" play on almost shame tactics and a smugness that history will somehow play in their favour.
In fact both are smug in the fact their ideology is more moral that the others and inaction against their opposite will lead to their victory. Really its all just tribalism, simplifying everything into a right verses wrong mentality which is inherently polarised and will never lead to a healthy society if nobody can get along and live in peace.
Also as a historian, I hate it when people cherry pick historical events for political statements without giving any of the actual historical context. Napoleon and the French revolution is a fairly large outlier in all of human history and is far more significant than you give credit for. The Republic was a mess, people supported napoleon not due to his policies, but becuase he was stable and competent in a time where many of the politicians were unstable and incompetent. Along with other events that predated napoleon like the reign of terror, people didn't care and just wanted to be able to sleep at night.
Even then I am vastly simplifying and brushing over many of the newances which will no doubt annoy any fellow historian who reads this
Cope
Your concept of nuance assumes capitalism macroeconomics while debating the nuances of platitudes about a couple policies neutered to not afftext the economy.
Awesome content and explanation. Keep up the good work!
Jesus, apparently hanging out with Yugopnik and Hakim has turned you from a very respectable fact-based youtuber that occasionally made a smirk-worthy funny, to a one that now makes me belly-laugh on a regular basis. The occasional light-heartness and humor is very much welcome in these times and I think it will get more people interested in the important things you are presenting. Keep up the good work!
You had me in the first half, ngl
m.th-cam.com/video/0IYAuP772EI/w-d-xo.html
While in general, you are spot on, there is the example of Bismark, who was Bonapartist in tone, but passed left-wing reforms like universal health care in the late 19th century, all the while embracing extreme nationalism. There are other nationalist big-man leaders, like Nehru, Nasser, or Ben Gurion, who also adopted strongly socialist or strongly pro-worker policies in the 20th century. That those figures don't exist in the modern US shouldn't create historical amnesia, there was a 20th century, it did happen.
@Rob B Bonapart achieved reforms that benefitted people at large
Bismarck "introduced" universal health care because German factory workers where already organising common pots to do so for themselves and he was afraid that such structures would undermine the monarchy, so he created a welfare system that bound them to the monarchy een more.
Basically he supported some left wing ideals in order to keep the status quo.
@@Kamfrenchie
He was especially supportive of the funeral industry. He got them millions of clients.
@Rob B Some politicians using semi Bonapartist rhetoric were pushed to the left by left-wing constituencies. Its nowhere near as good as a left-wing government, but sometimes you can hijack bonapartist parties from the left, and that allows the brainwashed to vote for you. For example, in the US, it might be possible to infiltrate the Republican party--- they are so divorced from policy, all you have to do is say "CRT! No Vax! Rigged!" and you're in, even if you are a socialist. The higher-ups won't approve, but you can just say "Elites! Build Wall!" and suddenly you win primaries. The primaries on the Republican side are democratic.
Nehru wasn't a socialist, he was just a dictator, who uses Gandhi ideology to not look like one.
I've recently found your channel and have been binging your content. I've loved them all, but I think that this is without a doubt one of the most interesting ones that I've seen. Trump and Yang as American Bonapartists is a take that I've never considered, but I makes so much sense I'm amazed that my friends from grad school and I (who all studied history and are leftists) never made the comparison.
This video ignores a crucial line of thought. For many Americans, when they say they’re not “left or right”, they’re not necessarily trying to assert that they aren’t on either side of the political spectrum. They’re trying to assert that neither party has done a good job of serving the people, so they support neither one. They’re trying to achieve unity against the political establishment, because ultimately both the democratic AND republican political establishment are almost equally conservative. The sentiment behind Yang’s campaign was to highlight the fact that the abject failures of our government are bipartisan in nature. Frankly, I don’t know how anyone can disagree with that. I’m not pro Yang, and I tend to agree with Bernie on a lot more things than Yang. But if you honestly think the Democratic Party will ever give real progressives a chance, you’re confused.
Thank you. We despise both parties because the establishment has proven to care more about themselves than their constituents.
democrats aren't fucking left wing
Yes, but the problem is the democrats are not left wing, not even by U.S. standards.
If you are in for 'real progressives' then why are you not describing yourself as left?
Are the democrates a left wing party? I thought both parties were right wing
Your analysis of Bonapartism is spot on, and consistent with Marx. Also great content as always. However, it should probably be noted that Napoleon I himself was pretty complex and also had progressive instincts; he continued to chip away at the power of the aristocracy, gave opportunities to commoners, and introduced things like public education. He was also hated by the royal families and aristocrats of Europe.
oh thats nice to hear
Excellent point, one must analyse leaders and their politics in relation to their time and the social structures they encountered.
Twice he abandoned armies of common people, in Egypt and in Russia.
I mean that means nothing. he was an opportunist and just didn't want to be overthrown lmao.
And was an absolute monarch who waged war on Europe
I've never gotten here so early. I def appreciate this channel, makes sharing the concepts I believe with my friends a lot earlier without losing my patience 👏🏿
Same
Ditto, dah-ling 😉
Same.
Ironic thing is Napoleon Bonaparte died as a Muslim. His last decades he was Muslim in his island prison, influenced by his mamluk frinds and advisers.
Most people talk about USA Capitalism Vs Socialism/Communism. But there is Islam too.
Islamic jurisprudence of economy method is a free market capitalist by definition on a basic level ,but recognize the disadvantages and shirt coming of that and does too uncaptilst things to counter balance that (prohibite monopolies and interst/usury, gold centered but not based, centralize banks under the countrol of the government and limit the way bank power and use is used to the extent it migt be named differently and encourage gulds unions of organizations and institutions, prohibites lopping and any form of corruption, spreat law from government infrastructure base ect... ). However, still 90 degrees in the opposite not similar to modern US capitalism style of models.
There is tone of taxing the rich for the poor/in need improvement, different tax system methods and taxing wealth not income. Lowering tax for decent and less families. Also Muslims and women even non-muslims don't pay taxes (except if they are rich pay small tax and pay tax of 2.5% of weath to poor/in need improvement projects). No tax on food, energy, water and healthcare. Also social projects are introduced, including such as: free education for all levels, free healthcare for all ages and anybody within the border, also Zakt(the 2.5% for poor/in need). The tax for non-muslims is mostly symbolic for the most part it is not much especially considering females don't pay taxes and all that free stuff by right you get and you can get Zakat support too when needed. Females Muslim or non-Muslim get additional money more than enough for additional support to maximize comfort and security, if her providers are not enough or if she has no provider, especially if she is a single mother (which the divorced father or other family male relatives members would still be required to pay however if dead or missing or unable this would come to play).
Also Napoleon the 3rd’s alimentary reforms and building up of agriculture fundamentally improved food security in France and Europe functionally ending famines, endemic in france. Something many other European nations did not achieve for over 50 years.
Fun fact : Napoleon was a left wing jacobin during the republic and even a friend of Robespierre’s brother… for his radical ideas and because he was part of the jacobin club, Napoleon was imprisoned by the thermidoriens after the fall of Robespierre for his support of Robespierre during the reign of terror but he was liberated only because he was already known as a good commander during the republic… he commanded the execution of the monarchists even after they had surrendered during the republic when he was in charge of raiding Toulon…
His relationship with the Robespierre family was more opportunistic than anything
@@TheGalaxyWings maybe but even during the revolutionary empire, Napoleon continued to write letters in support of Robespierre saying that he wasn’t the master of the reign of terror but just a scapegoat used by the thermidoriens (the real masters of the reign of terror)
@@TheGalaxyWings the thermidoriens were seen as moderates but they were actually also jacobins… the jacobins club was still removed because half of the jacobins were allied with Danton and the other half with Robespierre… but the 2 leaders of the jacobins were dead so the jacobin’s club was removed
I believe you have the most realistic grasp on this topic, can you recommend some good books on Napoleon I and the French Revolution? Thanks.
@@AllenFrederick Napoleon: A Life
The Deprogrammed podcast is HILARIOUS, it’s just what we need to get brain-rot neoliberals to consider “radical” concepts
Keep it coming, JT! ✊
yeaa
Lol tf is this
@@mikey_gc8 fnaf lore
Does it stream off apple?
Yes, Tacos, for everyone. Bongs, not bombs. Free the nipple. Abolish slut shaming or something.
Can’t wait for the screeching “enlightened Centrists” 😂
There are already multiple of them in the comments 🙄
@@therealronniej There, one of them.
@@randomthings1293 Let them come. Boost the engagement. The idiotic , feeble minded nitwits are too weak to realize that.
Rent free, am I right?
🤓
This take is literally “if you’re not with me, you are my enemy” in irl politics.
Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I'll do what I must.
Enemy versus opposition is a distinction that might help you be less scandalized by this take. It's obviously true that if you're not radical you tend to be in opposition to radical politics.
If leftism is characterized by deconstruction of hierarchies and the right wing by maintaining or strengthening them, then claiming to neither be in favor of strengthening or deconstructing hierarchies you're at the end of the day still playing a small part in maintaining them. Beyond the logic of it, 'opposition' is more of an accurate label than 'enemy'. Even if you're playing the rhetorical song and dance of distancing yourself from pro-democratic radical egalitarianism by being above it all there's obviously either something you don't like about that or you're are more invested in trying to appease hegemony to maintain your position than be an advocate rather than an adversary for the disenfranchised, but in fairness 'enemy' wouldn't even be necessarily correct in either case so long as your voice and body isn't weaponized against such causes. It's a lot easier to be weaponized in favor of the status quo than against it if you're already invested in it, though, so you may still encounter cynical leftists who preemptively preconclude that your natural opposition is equivalent to emnity even if that's not what this video was about- it's about political figures who utilize this rhetoric demagogically.
I really enjoy the analysis. You do a great job with that, and it is why I started watching in the first place. But I have noticed a stark increase in humor and you having fun with it recently, and I appreciate that too. Keep up the good work.
During Yangs presidential run he fought for our data rights and was very worried about the big corporations having all the power.
He felt we should have more privacy involving our data and own our own. He felt we should have the option to be paid for it instead of how they get access to everything for free. They make tons of money off our data and we get nothing in return. That didn't sound like he was all for kissing the ring of corporations to me.
He was also worried about technology and AI replacing our jobs at a faster rate and felt we would be between a rock and a hard place without a floor to stand on. That's the UBI. He talked about the midwest and how our jobs have been disappearing at an alarming rate. Trump blamed our job losses on illegal immigrants. There are much bigger differences between Trump and Yang than you claim here in your video.
Yah...this video is garbage.
Yang's UBI was too low and he wanted to erase basically every other form of welfare. It was a net loss for the poor.
@@zacheryeckard3051 it was a starting point, his plan was to make it able to be increased by voting. He also didn't want to abolish any welfare program. If you received more from existing assistance program his plan was to always allow you to keep them. He wanted to get the people on the edges of the system out of it. The people that made like 12 dollars too much and got cut off, had to survive for a month on not enough, only to apply back and be stuck in the same loop. He never once said 1000 a month is enough. It was always meant to be a floor to build on.
@@zacheryeckard3051 That is an argument that people have made. What amount would make it worth it to support UBI?
@@ianstambaugh6158 UBI can't replace all welfare structures, is the issue. It should serve as part of a broader welfare system. It's the flexible part, the one that can be shifted as the budget is needed.
“There is no middle ground” say the ideologically captured
"We must move forward, not backward. Upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom".
How is this quote the most pertinent analysis of modern Western politics?
as a french i'd love to see you do more videos about our politics to have the perspective of a non-european socialist, which would be especially interesting considering we have a presidential election happening in a few weeks, which will be very important because the three right-wing candidates are absolute monsters, zemmour is a straight-up fascist, macron wants to become france's reagan or thatcher and let the poor die, and the leftist candidate melenchon is the only one on that side of the spectrum capable of going in the second round, it'll be wild but i hope mélenchon wins, if anyone otherwise wins the country will have another rough & shitty 5 years
As much as you might dislike Macron, Pecresse, Zemmour, and le Pen are all so much worse in different ways it's not a fair comparison.
Ah yes, let the Euro-sceptic and conspiracy theorist run Europe's second largest and most competent military might. Won't go wrong whatsoever.
The thing with this upcoming election is that there's no actual good candidate tbh. Every single one of them, including Macron, has severe flaws.
Macro 's flaws is that he isn't that good at domestic policy, but excels are international policy. Some of other candidates are the opposite. Some are just bad at both (*cough* Zemour *cough*)
@@godminnette2 they are all bad but yes le pen or zemmour would be worse than macron and pecrasse too marginally. But it doesn’t really matter bc macron will probably beat them all in the second round. I too pray that melenchon can get to the second round.
@Jean Sanchez Why do you think you need to have a solid view as a whole to have a solid foreign policy and what do you mean by "solide view as a whole"?
Look guys, it's a french. get em!
As a french i would like to thank you for highliting the corruption of our politicians,our republic is also very centralized in the hands of one leader,we are a free country in name only,it seems that our ruling class is willling to turn us into the US (meaning no public policies to speak of,free market for all,and let the poor in misery)
Europe is USA sprinkled with some welfare.
@@Kevin-cy2dr Not really.
Ironic thing is Napoleon Bonaparte died as a Muslim. His last decades he was Muslim in his island prison, influenced by his mamluk frinds and advisers.
Most people talk about USA Capitalism Vs Socialism/Communism. But there is Islam too.
Islamic jurisprudence of economy method is a free market capitalist by definition on a basic level ,but recognize the disadvantages and shirt coming of that and does too uncaptilst things to counter balance that (prohibite monopolies and interst/usury, gold centered but not based, centralize banks under the countrol of the government and limit the way bank power and use is used to the extent it migt be named differently and encourage gulds unions of organizations and institutions, prohibites lopping and any form of corruption, spreat law from government infrastructure base ect... ). However, still 90 degrees in the opposite not similar to modern US capitalism style of models.
There is tone of taxing the rich for the poor/in need improvement, different tax system methods and taxing wealth not income. Lowering tax for decent and less families. Also Muslims and women even non-muslims don't pay taxes (except if they are rich pay small tax and pay tax of 2.5% of weath to poor/in need improvement projects). No tax on food, energy, water and healthcare. Also social projects are introduced, including such as: free education for all levels, free healthcare for all ages and anybody within the border, also Zakt(the 2.5% for poor/in need). The tax for non-muslims is mostly symbolic for the most part it is not much especially considering females don't pay taxes and all that free stuff by right you get and you can get Zakat support too when needed. Females Muslim or non-Muslim get additional money more than enough for additional support to maximize comfort and security, if her providers are not enough or if she has no provider, especially if she is a single mother (which the divorced father or other family male relatives members would still be required to pay however if dead or missing or unable this would come to play).
@@Kevin-cy2dr LOL not when you look at how much more they get paid over there. A surprising amount of places have it so anyone can work fresh in the door at McDonalds for $20/hr. That's a huge improvement compared to the US.
@@ailediablo79 Source on Napoleon dying as a Muslim?
Thank you, I was so confused about this at first. Politics isn’t extreme left and right where I live, there isn’t that big of a difference so being in the middle always just meant we see cool with most things, I’ve got a pretty left country-
How can you write an essay about Bonapartism, Macron and Le Pen without talking about the general de Gaulle, the founder of gaullo-bonapartism and of the Vth Republic ?
A Republic which was precisely designed to have a strong president plebiscited by the people ruling over the regime of political parties who had ruined France with its constant instability during the IIIrd and the IVth Republic and led to the rise of nazism, the occupation of France and the disastrous Algerian war, war that brought de Gaulle to power.
France isn't just (often) ruled by bonapartists, it is a gaullo-bonapartist state with a gaullo-bonapartist constitution.
So, you're lacking a very important piece of information to analyse french politics in the Vth Republic : gaullo-bonapartism, the ideology founded by the general de Gaulle to finally synthesise the french (many) monarchies, empires and republics into the ultimate french regime, a compilation of all its history, a stable regime which would definitely end the endless stream of civil war and political turmoil the french had endured over centuries.
In gaullo-bonapartism (or just gaullism) ideology, the idea comes from a particular lecture of french history. In short, back in the middle ages at the court of the french king you had different factions, with different lands, historical and cultural ties whatever, and the king was supposed to be above the factions and rule with as much central power as he could hold but always working neutrally with all factions for the greater good of the kingdom. Historically everytime the king was weak the factions were plotting against each others and pushing the country toward civil war. In gaullo-bonapartism, you have the same idea but with the political parties and the president who is supposed to be above the vile and conniving political parties but still work with them for the greater good of the Republic, just like the fair king saint-louis did for the Kingdom. But if the president is weak, the government can't work, political violence rises and in any case we can't prepare against the next German invasion.
In bonapartism, constitutional AND feudal monarchies always create factionalism and the factions are always waiting for a weak king to start a civil war. So the monarchy needs a strong emperor to rule over the factions for glory and power of France.
In gaullo-bonapartism, parlementary AND oligarchic republics always create factionalism and the factions are always waiting for a weak president to start political instability which sometimes leads to civil war, sometimes to foreign occupation, to the rise of political violence in any case. So, the Republic needs a strong president to rule over the factions for the glory and power of France.
That's a FINE analysis ! 👌
I love that you still say to dislike if we don’t like it even though we don’t see them anymore. It’s cool to see the evolution of the platform with the consistency of your sign off
It's not without reason; he can still see the dislike count on his end even if we can't. Which makes TH-cam's thing about "protecting small creators" bullshit since they can still get brigaded.
“ If you remain neutral during an injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor “- Desmond Tutu
What if two sides do injustice to each other?
@@zyanego3170 then you try to circumvent the injustice
@@myronidasvestarossa and how the fuck do you do that in this day and age
Injustice isnt something that happens sometimes, but always and by everyone it is always simply the extend of the injustice that we talk about.
Justice in itself is not worth striving for. And as such that statement is an ignorant one led by an ideology.
...
Are you saying, quote Orwell: "He who is not with me is against me."
Once upon a time I was in sales. There was a popular idea in the trainings I went to. A successful salesperson “believes” in the product. Not pretends to believe, wants to believe, or even has factual cause to believe. No. Just simply believes.
I often wondered why that was such a key part of sales. Then looking at religion, political ideologies, and conspiracy theories I was able to finally wrap my head around it.
The reason it takes blind belief to sell an idea you have no evidence for is it promotes cognitive dissonance. It requires it, and conditions the mind to operate in a state of dissonance while being supported by a popular narrative that reinforces the original belief.
Yang believes the narrative he’s selling. He has no reason to question his dissonance as his beliefs smack into walls of factual resistance. He isn’t a top hat wearing villain with an evil plot. He’s a technocrat believer who at his core feels he has the secret answers.
I like that you've cranked up the humor in this video, it's really funny and well done. Good video all around, too.
Thank you for making this video, JT! As a Latin American leftist (Argentinian, to be more specific) the concept of Bonapartism, which I'd never heard of before, was the final piece of the puzzle for me to correctly grasp Peronism; I feel like this is a very important topic for any Argentinian who wants to understand their history. Thanks again!
Man, your currency got depreciated while you were writing this. 😂 Peronismo has converted Argentina a shit hole like Venezuela
Te tomo buscar un video yankee para darte cuenta que la ideologia que literalmente tiene el nombre del tipo es personalista, brillante
Pd: viva Peron
leftism really working out for Argentina
@@Clausewitz-jl8cl no hace falta ser maleducado pibe
Aguante Milei.
As a french I can assume that when in history class we learn about Bonaparte, nobody tell us that conquer Europe is a bad things. A lot of people are very proud of this part of our history even if that's at some point equals to Nazism. On the left we don't like him but on the right they are proud of what he did .
That's all for me I hope that my English is understandable
C'est bien tu as bien appris la propagande anglo-saxonne qui consiste à te faire gentiment oublié qui défendait la monarchie et qui répondait le code civil, les droits de l'homme et les idéaux nationnalistes (c'est-à-dire qui prônent la création d'états-nation, je ne parle pas du nationalisme moderne).L'Empire était toujours la 1ère république et était dans la continuité de la révolution. Le régime était autoritaire, mais sans commune mesure avec l'intégralité des monarchies européennes. Il ne faut pas se tromper de camp, les réactionnaires de l'époque c'était les monarques européens. Ensuite il ne faut pas oublier non plus que la majorité des guerres menées par l'Empire étaient défensives. Enfin les deux empire ne sont pas comparables, puisque le second empire s'inscrivait lui dans une logique réactionnaire pour son époque. Bref cette vidéo est plus idéologique qu'informative et n'a aucune rigueur historique.
@@romainfr2981Donc... Trump est cool, c'est ça ?
Ah oui répandre les idéaux republicains face au monarchie européenne qui nous ont déclaré la guerre 5 fois en 15 ans 😂. Bien sur mais c'est du n'importe quoi ce que tu dis.
@@juliendurand1178j'avoue gros BG Napoléon surtout la partie où il envahit l'Europe et cause des millions de morts. Le frérot a tué la démocratie BTW il l'a pas sauvé. Je veux bien pas être calé en histoire mais il a quand même été élu pendant une république, puis il a décidé qu'il serait l'empereur tout seul sans aucune démocratie et partage du pouvoir.
J'imagine que ça choquait aussi a l'époque vu la réaction de Victor Hugo ?
Bref non Napoléon n'est pas quelq'un dont on doit être fière
@@juliendurand1178 Et la Russie a envahit la France... en Russie ?
I'll always tough that "bonapartism" was from the nephew Napoleon III Bonaparte who was president of the republic and emperor of France in the second half of the XIX century.
I always look forward to these on my Fridays.
Last year was a great litmus test for the left/right divide, here in France. While the Right was remembering the death of Napoléon I, the first was commemorating the Paris Commune, the first ever attempted communist revolution (against Napoléon III, appropriately enough).
Thank God that failed right
@@JackTheAverage look at France today dog ...
@@yomamawanmadikku9094 on par with "look at venuzuala today"
@@JackTheAverage Yeah. So much death in so little time. People talk about the countless deaths caused by the free market economy over the past 500 or so years, but the scale of death caused by socialism is incredible. 100 million dead in only 50 years and it still is counting up
The Paris comune was against the third republic, do you not know your own history?
Besides the left also conmemorated Napoleon, only a few brutes who abandoned their 2017 promises in exchange of ganging up with the former PS officials (Melenchon) were against. But Montebourg Kuzmanovich etc were all conmemorating Napoleon. As well as what remainst of the MDC (founded by Max Gallo)
The rhetoric of of Yang is correctly stated as being slightly on the right of American politics. HOWEVER, his actual policies are insanely reformist and progressive, which are the definitions of left that most people use, not just socialism. When arguing someone dialectically and using different definition, you’re not going to change any minds.
They're really not. You might've forgotten but I really wanted to be excited about Yang but his "UBI will fix everything" magic bullet approach made it impossible. Healthcare reform? Nah, how about UBI instead? Unionization? Nah, here's a check. Removing money from politics? Uh, look, money! What was that about politics again?
The video didn't do him any disservice. He handed out just enough breadcrumbs to make people like you happy enough and not look at the things he takes away from you with his other hand.
Yes, Yang was attempting a political end-around in order to make a very progressive redistribution scheme palatable to the type of low-income Americans who typically only support tax cuts. These are Americans who have completely lost faith in the government to do anything for them.
@@vdinh143 he was advocating for policies (via his website) to completely restructure our metric for GDP to literally “maximize human welfare”
@@vdinh143 he also had healthcare reform policies and addressed taking on corporate lobbyists (like any democrat)
@@vdinh143 also he wanted to essentially rid or drastically reduce corruption by giving every American a $100 flat campaign budget to allocate to a political campaign
My understanding was that Yang wanted to use market dynamics (decentralized self regulation) for problems - not "give it to the Market" as in "let money decide it"
Basically the premise that if decentralization of decisions and power is the goal market dynamics will be approach to do so. We just tend to conflate "the Market" with "market dynamics" and "free markets" (which usually skew unless regulated) with "balanced markets"
In the Netherlands "I'm neither left nor right, I'm straightforward" is usually associated with a former politician called Rita Verdonk. For a while she was kinda the Margaret Thatcher of our country, but she never got to be prime minister. She pretty much got out-competed by other far right politicians.
If you wanna make a video about him, the best, recent, democratic-republican, "neither left nor right" french leader with a messiah complex who ruled by plebiscite is Charles De Gaulle. To me he's a good example of bonapartism within the framework of liberal democracies.
"With a messiah complex" is a huge mischaracterization, at best...
@@Milothatch17 The guy thought he was France, as in the entire country, so yeah, his ego stretched beyond his nation's borders.
@@Diego-zz1df Circumstances gave him that role. And despite being very discrete in his private life, he recognized that France only responds to strong men.
Lefties are so weak that you see strong prominent leaders as baddies, lmao
Charles De Gaulle is a hero who saved the west from paganism.
My late grandparents had the same sentiment “ I’m neither nor I’m just politically independent.” Seconds later they would go off on Obama conspiracies, what aboutisms, and how voting for Trump means sticking up for the little guy.
I really hate this "enlightened neutrality" which always turns out to be a lack of awareness that their political views are indeed political views.
"If your not with me, then your my enemy"
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes. I will do what I must."
That is what I thought, too. That is basically what this video is saying.
The thing I find most annoying in politics is the insistence on supporting "our guy". No one is ever held to account because they're on "our side" and unity is more important than policy. Or alternatively they're on the "other side", and holding them accountable would harm "bipartisan cooperation". I don't give two shits what colour pin you wear. Or what letter comes after your name on C-SPAN. I care whether you're voting in the interests of the public who you are supposed to represent.
I strongly believe that the current form of political parties as largely static and overarching entities is primarily a way of ensuring elite control over the political process, by allowing wealthy donors to essentially handpick candidates that are "in the best interests of the party" - like what the Democrats did in 2016 with Hillary Clinton. Bernie was the more popular candidate, but he was a threat to elite power, so he was removed via the super-delegates.
I have no problem with caucuses of like-minded politicians, or politicians self-identifying with a particular political label that generally matches their policy positions. This can be helpful for voters trying to identify a candidate they likely agree with, without having to trawl through their entire voting history, and it can also be a way of driving wider compromise and potentially faster decision making, due to it being easier to listen to and compromise between 2 or 3 positions than 538.
The issue comes when a) the position of such a group becomes essentially fixed and new members are expected to conform without question, b) when maintaining a unique and opposing position becomes more important than ensuring that the position is a beneficial one, and c) when political parties reach a state of carefully manufactured equilibrium - a.k.a. deadlock - that ensures the maintenance of a status quo.
This is exactly the position the US is in right now. In the US, the Democrats have the public vote, the House, and the Presidency, but because the Senate is in deadlock with the deciding votes of Manchin and Sinema paid off in brib- I mean "political donations", and the Supreme Court is firmly conservative - despite ostensibly being an apolitical judicial body - it means that any decisions made by the Democrats are either blocked in the Senate, undercut by the Supreme Court, with only the most toothless bills making it through, to be retracted by the next Republican President, whose election is basically inevitable despite a decreasing share of the popular vote, due to gerrymandering, and the weighting of the Electoral College towards rural, conservative areas.
I just want a world where people consider WHAT their politicians vote for, rather than simply which team they're on. This isn't football, or a game of power for the sake of power. This affects our actual lives.
It's amazing to see and realize how many people are built not to think for themselves and just follow the crowd and don't ask questions. Thank you for your analysis, I now understand the politics here in Canada just a bit better
This video is such a gross oversimplification, I think. There are clearly people who are tired of the standard left right divide. They might want to support lgbt+ community (left), support more social program (left), more law and order (right), more protectionist for global trades against China (neutral), more secured border (right), incentivize entrepreneurship (right) etc.... or focus on some partisan neutral issue like automation.
It is reasonable for those people to say they are neither left or right, and they are far from bonapartism. When you have an oversimplify model like "neither left nor right = bonapartism", you will get very unreliable result from model (like falsely calling Andrew Young or Sam Harris as right wing). Just because {there are some political figures who claims they are neither left nor right and happened to be bonapartist and right wing} doesn't mean this is the only option.
Okay... nevermind... I think it got it. This youtuber is essentially a hardcore lefties who think anything right of a full socialism is "right wing" and bad.
@@bohanxu6125oh you started off so well, A for effort but F for the landing.
You can't be raised in a left-right divide and separate yourself from that kind of thinking, the video is to remind you that anyone who is "above left and right" is definitely lying and PROBABLY right, because the right are more likely to say it than the left.
But you hit the nail on the head, it is possible to favour right and left policies, but that's a Centerist, sadly America (and sadly Britain) doesn't have those. Anyone who says they are "above left and right" is claiming center and so may not be in line with particular policies you agree with, Centerists can be pro-law and order or pro-preemptive youth programs or both but the title doesn't tell you that.
I typically identified my politics as left, but it is this type of sentiment that has pushed me away from the left. If I feel alienated by the left, and if grew up heavily disliking the right then where does that land me?
Frankly, I see this argument as being very similar to the right always complaining about the liberal media, “they are out there, and they’re trying to pretend they are something they are not in order to trick us”
Or maybe, just maybe they are just trying to be as honest as possible in a landscape dominated by a false dichotomy of Left and Right. I mean, I describe myself as incredibly centrist, nonpartisan or moderate and I’d say from my bias perspective it’d be a huge reach to describe me as Right. I haven’t see any political take that has struck me as sincere in a very long time. I kinda pity people who can somehow stand to believe in any of this stuff
@@gumbilicious1 in short you are center left, longer form you are left but have a different opinion on the right than other people on the left, which is perfectly fine because this slider is only measuring one thing that captures a common group of opinions that are usually, but not always, shared by people who identify as Left.
@@bohanxu6125 These political compass examples aren’t exactly 100% left-wing or 100% right-wing. It varies on political history on each region/country and its current political climate. ‘Law and Order’ is a good example of this, currently in France LFI is quite anti-cops because of recurring unpunished police brutally. However it doesn’t mean they campaign to defund the police. LFI politicians often explain police brutally is due to systemic defunding of public infrastructure leading to a lack of training and low hiring requirements. As long as you’re fit and can follow gross orders, after a few months of training you could to get an opportunity to beat up protestors. Following the June riots, the historical French communist party has been campaigning for law and order, not to make the state more powerful, but to ensure the safety of the workers. It’s a Labour Party, it makes sense they don’t like when the country is a chaotic mess. ‘Law and order’ isn’t antonymic to the Left-Wing, it’s just that the loudest Left parties have abandoned this topic and left it to the Right.
The lean into overt humour works well, that hierarchy of needs joke had me rolling
So, as a Taiwanese that grew up in America, you're assessment about Andrew Yang is spot on. I'm ashamed that he's Taiwanese. Well, second generation American Born Taiwanese... Which is probably why his politics is the way it is...
When did Yang suggest deregulation and cutting the social safety net? I listened to many of Yang's speeches in 2020, and that was not a part of his campaign
You need a far-leftist ear to catch it.
Although Napoleon did make himself emperor it is important to note that the government's that came before him we fare from perfect. Robespierre launched a reign of terror against the French people, with his anti religious extremism and killed anyone who disagreed with the revolution, later on he created a cult of personality and alienated himself from other members of the revolution. When Robespierre was executed a new government took power called the directory who were an incompetent oligarchy who were racked with corruption, it is also important to note that France was being attacked by other countries who wanted to see the revolution fail. Napoleon had already proven to be a competent general and when he came to power he was able to push back against the other European monarchies, but even when he was governing normally he still upheld the ideas of the revolution, sure he did abolish women's suffrage and made slavery a thing again he allowed freedom of religion, abolished hereditary privilege and equality before the law for all men, he is also noted for his fair treatment of Jewish people in a time of widespread antisemitism, he created a new centralised banking system with tax reform and the introduction of a welfare system, and created a new centralised legal code that is still the basis of law in various modern countries. And in the places he conquered he further spread the ideas of the revolution and propelled forward the ideas of unity which would later lead to the German and Italian unification. So ultimately I do not think you should say Napoleon was a completely reactionary figure because of what he did and what happened after his reign
So just exploiting some people is good enough for you?
Because you're not the exploited one. 🙄
@@carrieullrich5059 he was not a perfect man but no one really is, though I feel you can't make a fair criticism napoleon without noting the good things he did do and France was still far more progressive than it's neighbors at the time, if napoleon came to power today and did these things it would be extremely regressive, but for his time these things were the most progressive and France's neighbors still saw France as too revolutionary to exist even when napoleon made himself a monarch
We're not talking about Robespierre lol.
@@Levittchen4G my point was just that the governments that came before napoleon were not that great and were constantly divided by factionalsim and were unable to govern effectively and napoleon was able to change all that
@@carrieullrich5059 Actually, you could see it as him achieving real progress in a harsh time. Exploiting some people is better than exploiting all people, especially when the rest of europe wants you removed
Dude i should have found your video three weeks ago. We needed that
Just a note, bonapartism isn't named after Napoléon Bonapart aka Napoléon I, but after his nephew Louis-Napoléon Bonapart aka Napoléon III.
Also, there is a lot of similarities between bonapartism and stalinism: all-powerful figurehead that is a monarch in everything but the name, authoritarian, violent repression of any dissent, masquerading as something else... The difference is what they pretend to be: enlightened republicans (not the US party) neither-left-nor-right for the bonapartists, revolutionary radical leftists/communists for the stalinists. Those types of far-right ideologies that pretend to be something else are, as a whole, called caesarism after Julius Caesar who overthrew the Roman Republic and named himself life-appointed dictator, even if this is his successor Augustus who proclaim the Empire, and change the title of dictator to imperator (emperor).
I first saw Andrew Yang on Joe Rogan and was seriously intrigued. Yang broke my individualist Ben Shabibo/Jordan Peterson fanboy brain juuuuusst enough that I'd start to take leftist ideas more seriously. After the New Hampshire primary when all the moderates started dropping out and throwing their weight behind Biden I was primed for radicalization. Then 2020 happened and now I'm a proud socialist.
It's always crazy to hear a former Shapiro fan switch over to leftist youtubers so quick.
@@AssBlasster Yang was genuinely concerned about material change and expanding democracy for the working class. It was all in service of capital, but at the time I was still valued capitalism, so that was the argument I needed to hear in order to start thinking about politics in material terms. Ben Shapiro also did an interview with Yang and seemed to like him, but was rightly convinced that the DNC would conspire against him. Ben Shapiro wants democrats to be more like Yang because he ultimately will fight to preserve capitalism while extending enough of an olive branch to workers to delay any kind of socialist revolution.
what a journey!!
Whoaaa
@@revolutionaryape7568 I was the opposite, went from full unemployed socialist to an employed supporter of capitalism.
Another banger. Great job, especially the distinction between "populists" and "bonapartists" is desparately needed.
You are also forgetting why Napoleon is and was loved, sure he didnt bring democracy but he insalled an meritocracy, where other power hired to top positions only the nobility, Napoleon was determined to have the best of the best, he was sure to bring proper justice, the monarchy always sided with the nobility and the republic was a mess or chopping heads because you werent revolutionary inoff
7:10 I think a bigger reason that politicians often falsely claim bipartisanship is because they know that rightism turns off lefties and leftism turns off righties. So they will claim their leftism or rightism is neither right nor left but simply the right path forward for the country, rather than acknowledging which ideology is at the root of the proposal they're making.
The funny/sad thing is, I’m pretty sure that if Macron had the exact same policies but wasn’t aligned on the US, most media would label him as a dictator à la Putin or Orban (also prime examples of Bonapartism). Instead he’s treated as a young and hip liberal president, like a French Obama.
What makes the Bonapartists’ job easier, though, is that it’s very hard to agree on a solid, common definition of what constitutes the "left" and the "right", or even "progressive" and "conservative". The main leftwing candidate in the upcoming presidential election, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, is more or less a social-democrat but even he is reluctant to use words like "left" or "socialist" in his speeches (even if he considers himself leftwing), because he knows fully well that people also associate them with stuff like the Socialist Party and François Hollande, who have claimed to be on the left while implementing rightwing policies.
same thing with Erdogan who shelled Kurd cities and genocided them, and violently cracked down on opposition, he is much much worse, except nobody gave a single fuck because he is aligned with NATO
If Obama wasn't American he would be considered like Orban too, with his war in Libya
he call himself a liberal, but he is a low socialdemocrat.
Victor Orban is a "dictator"? Jesus modern millennial leftist fevirously throwing words without meaning, but will claim Lenin was no dictator, ignore, Stalin, and just have boner for Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, and totally ignore failed socialist states such as the U.S.S.R., Communist China, North Korea, if you want to live your socialist utopian fantasy go to China, North Korea and the many socialist failed states.
Though I agree with your statement that neither left nor right just means right, I have to say the historical analysis of Napoleon here is too limited. Napoleon's (the 1st) coup took place after the French revolution's left was essentially defeated by a right wing coup within the republic (the thermidorean reaction and then the directory). Napoleon the first then was a shift further to the center. It should also be remembered that the wars Napoleon engaged in were either against the most conservative oppressive monarchies the world has ever known (Austria, Russia, Prussia) and also England, the ur-Capatalist state at the time with a much worse record with regards to imperialism. Does this make Napoleon the 1st a leftist or someone to be admired? Probably not. But in context he was probably the best shot the French revolution had left to radically change the world for the better after all the Jacobins died or were exiled. Napoleon the third, on the other hand, has no redeeming qualities.
You are completely correct as we cannot judge any historical figure without the circumstances.
Actually Napoleon III. improved life in France.
Napoleon I sent thousands of troops to re-establish slavery in Haiti in order to protect the money of people like his wife, who's family owned slave plantations, and to fuel his dreams of conquests in the Americas. I have no sympathy for him.
@@elizabethsilk7160 I agree that we should have no sympathy for Napoleon, in fact we should probably have no sympathy for any historical figure since "the traditions of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living". It is also important to note that Napoleon himself regretted the Leclerc expedition, which was definitely his greatest fault. With that being said my main point is if you consider the historical context of the Napoleonic period, Napoleon to me seems like the best of the options. The English, Spanish, Austrian, Prussian, and Russian empires were all just as brutal in terms of imperialism, but they all lacked the revolutionary potential of the constitutions that Napoleon brought with him.
if you believe than Napoleon have no reddeiming qualities, than the thermidorians were right winger, than you call Austria and Prussia oppressive as it is Russia, and it was Napoleon whom started a war against Prussia first to conquer the HRE, Spain and Portugal, then you have zero credibility and you are a Napoleon apologistic.
When I clicked in I expected something else, but after watching I realized it was what I exactly expected. If you are in the extreme left, everyone in the middle is on your right, period.
Very interesting. But i still think it's possible to be neither left or right, at least on a personal level. Though keeping that compromise when having power might turn out difficult. Nobody should have a narrow view on things by choosing sides, every problem needs to be looked at individually.
Thank you for bringing this up. I consider myself neither left nor right because I have some agreements on both sides as well as major disagreements with both. I tend to be more left leaning but I'm not willing to choose either side because both go directly against my core values.
Thanks again for calling attention to how people are more complicated so trying to shove them into one of two boxes doesn't always work.
When you were talking about Napoleon I and how he cut back on the progress made by French revolution, I think you forgot to mention that the first French republic that preceded Napoleon's empire was also awful. During the reign of Maximilien Robespierre, people were literally send to the guillotine (had their heads cut of), if they disagreed with the revolution. Also you called Napoleon xenophobic, because he went to war with all of Europe, but the revolutionary government before him did the same thing.
What are you saying he still did all of these things
What do you mean?
True. And let’s not forget, Europe as a whole didn’t really like the idea of the French Republic. That’s why they went to war as soon as the first republic was established. Napoleon was necessary to keep the country afloat. Did he make mistakes? Absolutely, but he was what France needed.
Bourgeois propagandaa
Maximilien robespierre did nothing wrong
I love the sarcastic humor you've added at the beginning of the first few episodes. Perfect way to disarm me before dropping another truth bomb.
Plus I'll always thumbs-up vintage Simpsons clips.
This video is such a gross oversimplification, I think. There are clearly people who are tired of the standard left right divide. They might want to support lgbt+ community (left), support more social program (left), more law and order (right), more protectionist for global trades against China (neutral), more secured border (right), incentivize entrepreneurship (right) etc.... or focus on some partisan neutral issue like automation.
It is reasonable for those people to say they are neither left or right, and they are far from bonapartism. When you have an oversimplify model like "neither left nor right = bonapartism", you will get very unreliable result from model (like falsely calling Andrew Young or Sam Harris as right wing). Just because {there are some historical figures who claims they are neither left nor right and happened to be bonapartism} doesn't mean this is the only option.
Okay... nevermind... I think it got it. This youtuber is essentially a hardcore lefties who think anything right of a full socialism is "right wing" and bad.
It is very difficult to pinpoint which concept you understood the least. Whether is the concepts of democracy and monarchy, the concept of left and right, fascism or authoritarianism.
I'm addicted to your videos and cannot express how I agree with you - so much. Not about the facts you share. More what you've outlined in how to go about changing things for the better.
The far-rights are few in number, but the moderates and "neither left nor right" crowds are numerous. They may not support the far-right directly, but they're enablers. That's why they sometimes hampered the left-wing movement more than the far-right in a quasi-democratic framework. It's also worth mentioning the now-defunct Centre Party of the Netherlands, its slogan is translated to English as "Not right-wing, not left-wing," but their ideology is unambiguously far-right. The "neither left nor right" rhetoric is easy for politically illiterate people to digest, and the far-right knew how to exploit this, because average voters won't support outright far-right ideologies, but if they can be pulled easily because they're already on the centerline.
We need to develope a sane 'moderate' stance, to convince them to vote socialist.
In finland the center party is also the same, they tried to ptivatize the heathcare industry while claiming to support the working population and students
🙌
The far rights are many and they disguise as "neither left nor right".
@@Pistolita221 lmao, good luck with that.
sane, moderate and 'socialist'? these things are exclusive and opposite forces.
Can't even imagine any politics outside right/left? It's that lack of imagination that will kill us all.
Class is the only hermeneutic.
Its just propaganda dude.
Really love listening to the deprogramme! You lads are awesome
Deprogramming is still programming
Now if you had the two braicells nessecary to reallize, that Stalin and Mao where essentially just like Napoleon, we could actually make progress toward the left.
Hey Second Thought, great video as always! Can you do a video on how the US is a plutocracy?
@Juice - The Satanic Self-Proclaimed Chosen Tribe What about him?
To yangs credit, I’m pretty sure he also supports ranked choice voting, and more party options, which are objectively good things
Exactly.. Yang has so many policies that would eventually fix our system and give us a true democracy..ubi was just a foundation... America won't be a socialist country anything soon.. We have to start somewhere
I think there are two types of the whole "neither left nor right" thing:
a) Third Way type, where you create a political force (a party in parliamentary system) that is supposed to be alternative to real or perceived two biggest political camps (the left and the right), and most often that alternative happens to be centrist/liberal (or fascist, since fascism was the OG third way in the 30s). Of course, the third way can also be leftist if the two big guys are liberals and conservatives but then it doesn't fall into the "neither left nor right" category cause then you actually want to say "hey, I'm leftist, while they are just two different shades of rightism".
b) non-partisan type (I would place Napoleon I here), where you want to be a unifying political force outside of parliamentary disputes. This could be a monarch (you know all those monarchy advocates, who say "wow, this cool enlightened ruler stays above all the parliamentary squabbles and keeps our nation united" type shit), a military or a authoritarian ruler. And here being neither left or right is true in a way that you are not aligned with any political party or movement, which of course doesn't mean you don't have political beliefs or agenda (well I guess there's also "I don't care about ideology, I just want money and power, which is kinda apolitical, at least at its motivations), you can still be right wing or straight up reactionary. But I don't think that's always the case (unless you think every type of non-collective governance is rightist, but I think there's more to that) - look at Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who by no means was a socialist revolutionary but did fight off religious and foreign imperialist exploitation and embraced statism. I wouldn't say he was Bonapartist leader aiming at securing interest of capitalist class. That's why I think Marxist theory is a bit simplistic there - it's not always capitalist exploiting working class (tho it is common in our times), it's just someone abusing power. There should be equal distribution of power, where no company, state, person or class can get so much power they can use it against anyone else. That's why I'm for collective ownership of companies and greatly expanding democracy beyond the ballot box.
I was excited for the more definitions. It made my day
Most of them were wrong in some manner
I read the title and though it was directed at the average person who may feel like they neither belong on the right or left, and it came off as somewhat coercive. But I've watched quite a few Second Thought videos by now and don't recall them being blatantly manipulative so I clicked anyway, and I'm glad I did.
I never knew about this "Bonapartism", which was not mentioned in any of the many videos and classes I had that touched on politics and political ideology. Very eye-opening video, and the point about UBI being a form of giving up on real change in favour of what is more or less mass hush-money is a fresh perspective on what recently became a very popular idea.
UBI being opioid for the masses is hardly a fresh perspective, being the standard line for Big Government advocates touting minimum wage, welfare state, and federal job guarantee
whole rationale of Sanders wing rejecting Yang, besides his name, is that welfare moms would get less than 1K while everyone else get 1K
instead of real direct stimulus (pandemic cheques were only ~3% of pandemic relief), we got "relief programs" that keep the bankers and corporations at the government food trough
and nobody were screwed over more than the Sanders welfare moms, funny enough
It's quite surprising french politics, especially those after the revolution, are not more teach... It's litteraly where the meaning of left wing and right wing was created. And the first people revolution that set the tone for what people mean by revolution nowaday, especially socialist. It's always interesting to learn. Now, I'd say french one are at least talked about, there is politics from the rest of the world that would be very informative aswell, learning from politics around the world is the best way to understand the politics at home.
@@ledernierutopiste I went to school in Canada and we're taught about the French revolution but most of what we learned is the same information you'd find in a 40 minute Netflix documentary. It's very shallow.
@@ledernierutopiste endless colonial conflict in Africa and intractable social protest disruptions at home? yet another neoliberal example of what not to do I'd argue
The Deprogram has quickly become my favorite podcast. Y'all have fantastic chemistry and your discussions are always funny and nuanced at the same time. I know that has nothing to do with the video, really, I just thought I'd say something.
I wish I could watch the Deprogram, but I just can't watch podcasts because of my ADHD. Recommended it to someone I know, though.
“The deprogram”
Ironic coming from a bunch of brainwashed npcs
The Deprogram is a staple of my work playlist. Apathetic Midwestern USPS rural carrier approved
I hear all the sarcasm in the definitions action. But boy did I enjoy that.
It’s a matter of perspective. In the same way people say that Bernie is the only leftist candidate in America. That all other democrats are really right wing. That shows me your Overton window. If you are so left to see moderates as deeply right wing. You have to recognize your biases and your extremist beliefs.
No dummy, the Overton window in America is severely right, in fact if you don't really see democrats is right wings than you're simply politically illiterate
Uno reverse
The US government lives by The Golden Rule: Those who have the gold make the rules.
They actually embraced the free market. Those who do the best and isn’t illegal should be listened to. Should’ve restricted bankers because they’d just print money instead.
"I could make the minimum wage higher, invest massively in education, healthcare and infrastructure, reduce significantly our military "might" and stop all foreign agressions, economically and militarily, oooooooooooooooooor I could take this 500k $ and get myself a nice chalet in the north...."
I wonder if you can criticize the people with the gold.....
Given the surge of Jimmy Dore type right populist grifting that's emerged in recent years, I'm glad that you made this video. Caleb Maupin and his ilk come to mind when I think of modern day agitators and / or precursors to modern neo fascism.
"Just because somebody uses revolutionary symbols, that does not make them a friend of the people."
Immediately Jimmy Dore popped up in my mind with that line. Glad it's not just me.
What about Russell Brand? These two guys always give me a similar feeling. It is true that they can sometimes take an anti-imperialist position similar to that of left-wingers, but their starting point is simply anti-establishment.
Jimmy Dore's popularity has been a disaster for the left, he's cancer for the left
@@yeeyee5117 the problem is we distrust you. reactionaries tend to try to break our movements.
@@americancommunist6076 That means that if your group ever comes to power that ingrained distrust will inevitably lead to the oppression of those groups you distrust creating yet another oppressive totalitarian state.
Your example of Napoleon has one big problem: Is someone a libertarian if his ideology is libertarian or if his actions are libertarian?
On one side Napoleon was without doubt and anuthoritarian leader, which wanted to be more than the kings of france. Because of it he declared himself emperor. Also he wanted France to be the most powerful nation - and war was for him a legit way to realize his dream.
But on the other side, he liberated many people by abolishing absolutism and implementing a constitution - the Code Napoleon. Also he disolved theocraties and freed nations from their overlords like Poland (Dutchy of Warsaw) and many cantons in the Helvetic Republic (Switzerland).
Because of that Napoleon is seen as the father of the new europe. Also he fought wars over controling the continent, he layed, with the implementation of constitutions and freeing nations, the ground for the coming revolutions. Also because of france expanaionism, many people allied themself against Napoleon and saw themself as a nation. Like for example the german and italian speaking countries.
I think there are a lot of reasons to talk about Napoleon. Pretty fascinating stretch of history.
There have been cases were the neither left nor right idea has been a way for left wing policies to get done in places very hostile to the mere idea of the left wing (in a lot of places in south America if you mention left to a lot of people they instantly get triggered and start making about Venezuela), but that's been pretty rare compared to the right wing use of the tactic
We should have a left wing politician do that here. We need to think about strategy to get our message out even if it involves a bit of deception
@@crimsonghost4107 It's not deception. The real world *is* far more complicated than this broken left-right model of politics suggests to be of any real use other than constantly painting false dichotomies and having people apply it to places that don't belong, like people labeling nuclear energy as "right wing" or "left wing", which is fucking absurd.
The problem is some people take that realization and just add more confusion rather than genuinely fixing problems this outdated model from the French revolution had. It doesn't mean it wasn't broken to begin with.
@@crimsonghost4107 The left will rather say Yang is FaScIsT than see that he had a political strategy to get people in the center and right on board with m4all, basic income and more social programs.
@@LakanBanwa
In a broad sense, it's not really outdated at all. We have two classes in society with broadly two different economic outlooks. The Ruling classes politics and the people's politics. Many people unknowingly support the ruling class's politics but that doesn't make the model outdated, it actually supports it because we know if you support the status quo ruling class's ideology you're called right-wing, if you don't you're called left-wing.
@@calebr7199 Not everyone operates on or even knows that definition of "left" or "right", that's the whole problem is that it's not a universally consistent definition and highly depends e.g. what country you're talking about.
Btw why call your definition "left" or "right" when I could have just as easily been more specific and talked about what the ruling class' specific ideology is there vs. the people's politics, like if the ruling class in one country are autocrats/supporters, or supporters of the current ruling theocracy/the theocrats, vs. the democrats or the secularists respectively. Less confusion this way, especially if you have to redefine the terms "left" and "right" in the way you defined it anyways for every given context, it's far better to just address the context directly instead of operating on word salad/buzzword logic.
This would explain things. The whole golden middle fallacy of centrism/neither-left-nor-right where people just smugly say that both sides are misguided and think they understood it all. But it explains another thing very well. Which is linked to both the reason why you had to explain definitions and where this golden middle fallacy comes from. It explains why people are kept ignorant about the political terminology, especially what left-wing and right-wing mean. I see a lot of people bashing the left-wing to appear moderate despite their ideas being essentially left-wing.
Maybe I am wrong there but it makes sense.
Nice try, but centrism is ideally about the slow and progressive implementation of what would otherwise be extremist ideas to leave room for backtracking if things didn't go right.
Use your head next time, extremist.
@@JsJdv you described moderate right or left, congrats
to implement smth, you first need to have some goal in mind - be it right-wing or left-wing
@@Ironsuaba Centrism is about being open to BOTH left and right wing ideas as long as they're potentially beneficial.
I suggest you learn the basics of political science before trying to argue, lol.
@@JsJdv so, basically, centrism is having none of your own ideas on how you'd like the country to work and instead just supporting whatever sounds good? Great. Sounds like a good strategy... to keep things the same. Which is conservatism, which is right-wing.
Pretty much everyone in the comments seems to have completely forgotten that centrism is a right wing ideology. To resist changes from the left and to slowly implement changes from the right
it's funny because some time ago i watched a rightist expleaning why "Neither Left Nor Right" just means left wing
I usually hate anything French especially the revolution but your really selling me on this Napoleon guy
This is an amazing perspective. Thank you!
Reminds me of how the nazis called themselves national "socialists". Pretty much the same thing, altho instead it was right wing extremists pretending to me on the left.
Excellent video as usual. Keep up the good work.
Nazis are centrists
@@bleu2680 How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
@@bleu2680 good point, although I see them as left of center, but that is arbitrary. The woke media describes them as "far right", but that cannot withstand scrutiny.
Except they were socialist, originally socialism wasn't exclusively left wing, it was simply a new form of economic model, one that you could slap any form of political thought to that wasn't in love with the capitalist model.
It's when the Marxists captured socialism in the early 20th century that it became associated with left wing ideology.
But by then many right wing ideological movements had already incorporated socialism into their proscribed world-views.
This is why the Nazis having socialist in their name is so incongruous now, because it's not left wing, but it's still very much socialist, the primary difference being that Marxist Socialism seeks to socialise the working class, but National Socialism seeks to socialise the Aryan race.
It's the economic model they're in general agreement with, but not their world-views, which are incompatible.
What we, and future generations, need to remember is that just because a word has certain connotations now doesn't mean it has always had them, so that in different time periods familiar words can have radically different meanings & uses that aren't applicable today, and likewise our current usages aren't applicable to historical periods before their transformation into what we understand today.
@@the_Kutonarch seething cope
I don't understand how Yang's 2020 policies of Universal basic income, Value added tax, and Medicare for all should be considered "100 % Right wing policies".
Maybe it's because I'm from the United States, but my understanding is that European countries are considered more "to the left" than the United States.
Those countries typically have higher taxes on corporations and State run Healthcare systems. Which I believe are considered left wing policies, correct?
So how does this make Yang "right wing"?
Because he's not strictly anti-capitalist?
By that logic, Bernie Sanders and AOC would be considered right-wing as well because the green new deal and federal jobs guarantee policies they advocated for were not anti-capitalist in how they were written or presented.
Yang's "Not left, not right, but forward" slogan was used to make him stand out in a field of 30+ democratic candidates. Not because he's some closet Bonapartist. It was political marketing. It's the same reason he had to brand UBI as a "freedom Divided". Because anything with "Freedom" in it automatically sounds better to us simple-minded Americans.
Likewise, distancing yourself from both the right and the left in America is also very appealing to a large number of voters here because many of us know that neither party cares about the working class.
Prime educative content!