Just became a member, really like your content and desperately wanted to hear the discussion on religion. I haven't read Lasch, but I have been following Zizek for a while and his "turn inward" (I like this more than right turn) has me very puzzled. By this I mean his more recent discussion of theology, eurocentrism and Christianity. Where it seems to me he is retreating to some western supremacy rooted specifically on Christianity values as some essentialism for atheism. My assessment is that it is some sort of defeatism in which he retreats in to western liberalism and Christian values as he sees a world changing not necessarily for the better. But I have struggled to grasp it and hopefully your conversation will bring some insight for me on this. Will listen to it later, and look forward to it.
Excellent work. You need to edit. People just can't / won't tune in for more than 28 mins. at a time. So this should be a part one and part two. I also feel Mr. Emery would have more concise answers if he were given these questions in advance. I'm not saying they aren't well thought out answers, just that they could be shorter and more precise. I'm happy serious people still think about these issues of a more just society for EVERYONE instead of going down the identity rabbit hole so popular today.
Intrigued by the idea of primary and secondary narcissism. I feel I should take notes as I watch your videos, just so that I can Comment when they end, rather than just saying 'Great video.' 😁 🤠💜
The comment that there isn't a politics that emphasizes self-discipline within the larger context of a socialist society is incorrect though. That political system is called anarchism, which is premised on abolishing institutions in favor of informal, mutual, non-coercive contracts. Anarchism has no conception of a formal legal system--Only of collective justice in robust communities alongside the prominence of individual good will between members of said communities. Large scale decisions are made democratically while individual will is maintained on a smaller scale (as long as that will doesn't cause widespread discontent). Obviously, to make such a system work, people need to be disciplined enough to be good-natured. I would also argue that any type of horizontal power sharing agreement put forward by anarchism must include nonviolence as its absolute bedrock. Power is the wielding of violence (either physical or systemic) towards coercive ends, so therefore nonviolence must be the cultural foundation of any anarchist schema of social organization (with the exception of reifying justice for those who have erred from community standards, and also for communal defense against potentially detrimental external forces).
Sure; in theory, but give me an example of actually existing anarchism? In the US anarchism has garnered quite a terrible reputation due to the disaster that was the Chaz/Chop autonomous zone. You say that anarchism works “if people are disciplined.” But thats the problem. Most people are not. There great differences between people. At that point, why direct democracy? Why not have a party that is democratic from the inside, but naturally exclusive and centralized. This is what Leninists argue, and it is also already the model of how most mainstream political parties work in Canada and the UK. Its say to say well what if the party is run by shitty people, and fair enough. However, an anarchist project can also be run by idiots. At least with a well organized party, with democratically accountable leadership, the party can kick out bad elements and be selective about who can join up the ranks. As most people are often not disciplined, educated, pragmatic, or principled. Not all parties are good parties, but I will take the chance of a party over no party. The fact that anarchism needs to have “good natured and disciplined” people for it to work indicates that its extremely unlikely to work, due to its hyper direct democratic nature. At least with a party, one can be more selective with including and excluding members who are deemed to be “good natured” or disciplined. Obviously the important thing would be to avoid dogmatism and nepotism. Principled pragmatism is key.
@@1DimeRadio Rojava has been holding steady since the Syrian Civil War. Catalonia was an anarchist society during the first part of the Spanish Civil War (until it was betrayed by Leninists seeking power, which they ended up losing). The Zapatista movement has been occupying the jungles of Chiapas and Oaxaca for 30 years. The Exarcheia neighborhood of Athens has been functioning as an anarchist enclave in the city since at least the 1941, as the center of resistance to the Nazis. Basically any food cooperative functions with an anarchist governing structure. There are examples literally everywhere, communists just seem to ignore them for whatever reason. You say that people lack the ability to be good natured and disciplined, in which case a communist government that supposedly operates in the interests of the working class will never work. The maintenance of any kind of state inherently involves violence, and any type of hierarchy (including the hierarchy of a communist government) ultimately involves legitimizing authority by subjugating dissenters. I have yet to hear any communist provide a convincing argument as to why taking power away from the proletariat and putting it into the hands of a vanguard (which only symbolically represents the proletariat) is preferable to a system in which the proletariat associates and organizes freely amongst themselves with no coercive structure. Anarchism is not easy, and it demands participation. It does not promise convenience. It does not promise that you'll always get your way. What it does promise is that your voice will be heard directly by the community, and that you won't be coerced by artificial bureaucracies that are out of touch with working and marginalized people. It promises a better future that is created by the proletariat rather than imposed by a few select people. Robust communities and mutual aid are the only ways that any society can function, and none of that involves having a government with a monopoly over violence.
Maybe that politics is a mix between permaculture/regenerative agriculture/ communities of practice outside academic aiming to be better/ democracy@work/skill building/ uncertainty chaos meta modern polycriss communities leveraging somatic and trauma type care and existential philosophy and community around this
![Shareปลาวาฬ ส่งท้าย SS1 พาเปียโน ขึ้น Ferrari ก่อนไปขาย แลก Nissan l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KAknGkTNIvg/mqdefault.jpg)
Get access to Part 2 (the backroom) and other exclusive episodes on Patreon: www.patreon.com/OneDime
Just became a member, really like your content and desperately wanted to hear the discussion on religion. I haven't read Lasch, but I have been following Zizek for a while and his "turn inward" (I like this more than right turn) has me very puzzled.
By this I mean his more recent discussion of theology, eurocentrism and Christianity. Where it seems to me he is retreating to some western supremacy rooted specifically on Christianity values as some essentialism for atheism.
My assessment is that it is some sort of defeatism in which he retreats in to western liberalism and Christian values as he sees a world changing not necessarily for the better. But I have struggled to grasp it and hopefully your conversation will bring some insight for me on this. Will listen to it later, and look forward to it.
Excellent work. You need to edit. People just can't / won't tune in for more than 28 mins. at a time. So this should be a part one and part two. I also feel Mr. Emery would have more concise answers if he were given these questions in advance. I'm not saying they aren't well thought out answers, just that they could be shorter and more precise.
I'm happy serious people still think about these issues of a more just society for EVERYONE instead of going down the identity rabbit hole so popular today.
Intrigued by the idea of primary and secondary narcissism.
I feel I should take notes as I watch your videos, just so that I can Comment when they end, rather than just saying 'Great video.' 😁
🤠💜
Our culture of narcasism can fully be understood with out also understanding multi-polar traps. One selects for the other.
The superstate vs super ego contrast blew my mind.
The comment that there isn't a politics that emphasizes self-discipline within the larger context of a socialist society is incorrect though. That political system is called anarchism, which is premised on abolishing institutions in favor of informal, mutual, non-coercive contracts. Anarchism has no conception of a formal legal system--Only of collective justice in robust communities alongside the prominence of individual good will between members of said communities. Large scale decisions are made democratically while individual will is maintained on a smaller scale (as long as that will doesn't cause widespread discontent).
Obviously, to make such a system work, people need to be disciplined enough to be good-natured. I would also argue that any type of horizontal power sharing agreement put forward by anarchism must include nonviolence as its absolute bedrock. Power is the wielding of violence (either physical or systemic) towards coercive ends, so therefore nonviolence must be the cultural foundation of any anarchist schema of social organization (with the exception of reifying justice for those who have erred from community standards, and also for communal defense against potentially detrimental external forces).
Sure; in theory, but give me an example of actually existing anarchism? In the US anarchism has garnered quite a terrible reputation due to the disaster that was the Chaz/Chop autonomous zone.
You say that anarchism works “if people are disciplined.” But thats the problem. Most people are not. There great differences between people. At that point, why direct democracy? Why not have a party that is democratic from the inside, but naturally exclusive and centralized. This is what Leninists argue, and it is also already the model of how most mainstream political parties work in Canada and the UK. Its say to say well what if the party is run by shitty people, and fair enough. However, an anarchist project can also be run by idiots. At least with a well organized party, with democratically accountable leadership, the party can kick out bad elements and be selective about who can join up the ranks. As most people are often not disciplined, educated, pragmatic, or principled. Not all parties are good parties, but I will take the chance of a party over no party. The fact that anarchism needs to have “good natured and disciplined” people for it to work indicates that its extremely unlikely to work, due to its hyper direct democratic nature. At least with a party, one can be more selective with including and excluding members who are deemed to be “good natured” or disciplined. Obviously the important thing would be to avoid dogmatism and nepotism. Principled pragmatism is key.
@@1DimeRadio Rojava has been holding steady since the Syrian Civil War. Catalonia was an anarchist society during the first part of the Spanish Civil War (until it was betrayed by Leninists seeking power, which they ended up losing). The Zapatista movement has been occupying the jungles of Chiapas and Oaxaca for 30 years. The Exarcheia neighborhood of Athens has been functioning as an anarchist enclave in the city since at least the 1941, as the center of resistance to the Nazis. Basically any food cooperative functions with an anarchist governing structure. There are examples literally everywhere, communists just seem to ignore them for whatever reason.
You say that people lack the ability to be good natured and disciplined, in which case a communist government that supposedly operates in the interests of the working class will never work. The maintenance of any kind of state inherently involves violence, and any type of hierarchy (including the hierarchy of a communist government) ultimately involves legitimizing authority by subjugating dissenters. I have yet to hear any communist provide a convincing argument as to why taking power away from the proletariat and putting it into the hands of a vanguard (which only symbolically represents the proletariat) is preferable to a system in which the proletariat associates and organizes freely amongst themselves with no coercive structure.
Anarchism is not easy, and it demands participation. It does not promise convenience. It does not promise that you'll always get your way. What it does promise is that your voice will be heard directly by the community, and that you won't be coerced by artificial bureaucracies that are out of touch with working and marginalized people. It promises a better future that is created by the proletariat rather than imposed by a few select people. Robust communities and mutual aid are the only ways that any society can function, and none of that involves having a government with a monopoly over violence.
I... am crushing so hard
O.g. Anarchism actually does prioritize this self discipline and emphasis on means rather than ends. This politics exists, just not in the US.
Why no dive into Revolt of the Elites?
Maybe that politics is a mix between permaculture/regenerative agriculture/ communities of practice outside academic aiming to be better/ democracy@work/skill building/ uncertainty chaos meta modern polycriss communities leveraging somatic and trauma type care and existential philosophy and community around this