I'm an Anarchist, but what Lewis Waller is saying is that he is a social democrat. Or what he calls "liberal socialism". Which is kinda lame in my opinion.
I think the anarchist definition of freedom avoids those contradictions. Generally, after a lot of searching myself, I have found anarchist analysis to hold up very well. And I say this in a strictly philosophical sense, because I think that’s more relevant to what you discuss in your video (tho I believe in anarchism beyond that)
Fantastic video. Very sober assessment of your own belief structures and what conditions them. Been wondering exactly what your politics are for a while now! Whilst we’re on the subject, how might you respond to the standard marxist critiques of the “nordic model” (relies heavily on unequal trade relations / exploitation of the global south, fundementally preserves culturally and socially corrosive capitalist relations, only obfuscates the intrinsically intractable logic of capitalist processes still at play e.g. fall in rate of profit (see rising inequality), extraction of surplus value)? Anyways thanks for all the brilliant work you share with us
So if it's possible to sum up what you've been saying: you are an advocate of social democracy? But am open towards/inspired by different progressive/left-leaning ideas
I'd love to follow along with what you're reading! Not sure what you plan on using this channel for, but I'd definitely tune in for book reviews or rambling videos on the different subjects
I’ve been trying to explain to people for years: Conservative and Progressive are incredibly subjective terms, that seldom mean what people think they mean. Conservative compared to what? When is a long time ago? Do I want authority to take lesson from the past i.e. the age of enlightenment, the age of the church, the age of the classics? Etc…
I like to think of conservative and liberal more like different tools to solve problems. Some problems might call for a more liberal solution, some might call for a more conservative solution. If you force all problems to be solved in only one way everything gets wonky.
I'm not well read on Scandinavian systems. But I always reflexively wonder how much of the "success" they seem to have comes from being relatively rich in this system. Meaning, would such a model function well if most countries were in a position to follow it? Is the existence of poorer countries that can are exploited in the global market, in labor or natural resources, a necessary precondition for this model to function so well? And also how could something like this work for a country with no strong sources of wealth? (like oil in Norway, although I don't know if other Scandinavian countries have something similar)
I've been thinking about this a lot too, it seems like a good local solution but it seems like a lot of what the west views as nessesaity for basic life and comfort are things denied to a lot of other countries en masse, and still seem to work in the endless growth mode of capital, even if it's a more thoughtful version of it.
Norway is the only Nordic country that have a lot of oil and gas, the other have no more resources than your average country basically. Also, I would argued the model worked even better BEFORE trade got globalized during the late seventies. It was even better when we produced a lot more ourselves.
I think the great transformation we are on the cusp of will have less to do with information technology than climate collapse. (I.e. we ought to spend less time wondering about our future relationship with artificial intelligence and more time discovering the culinary possibilities of cockroach.)
I think a big reason the political conversation circles around the same tired arguments is because the people in power don't want change, and everyone else (broadly) falls into at least 1 of these 4 general buckets: 1. Already on top. Might see how/why change is needed, but refuses to let it happen out of fear they lose their special status. 2. Sees how/why things might need to change, but also sees how difficult that could be, and so feels like it's an easier/ safer bet that if they do what they can to uphold the current status quo, they can somehow worm their way to the top. 3. Sees how/why things need to change, and fully acknowledges it, but is unwilling/unable to do the real world organizing it takes to make the changes, instead disappating all their energy into the void of the internet (circumstances put me in this bucket, I currently live outside of my country of citizenship, and my inability to drive in America (my country of citizenship) severely limited what I was able to get involved in there. I am currently a teacher though, so I'd like to think I'm helping my students prepare for the future in some small ways. 4. People who are doing the work, but find themselves held back because they are so outnumbered between the other buckets.
good stuff - as a former TU rep in the NHS - no chance of any workers voice being heard - only retaliation and deaths that could have been avoided - such a shame 🤷♂️😢
I agree that currently emerging technologies are going to "cause" the perhaps the biggest social changes humanity has ever experienced. I also agree that more democratic participation is good. I think and hope that the internet will enable greater connectivity and democratic participation, perhaps even facilitating worker organization to an extent capable of challenging Liberal capitalism. Another good participatory social technology you haven't mentioned is Sortition, randomized representation. Two specific pieces of software that I find promising are Loomio and Decidim. Loomio is developed by a co-op for democratic organization into the hundreds of members whereas Decidim was originally developed for the municipality of Barcelona. The latter features "workflows" to take ideas from the initiative phase to a final vote, tools for participatory budgeting, Sortition etc. and it's extensible.
On the point of natural rights, I completely agree with you. If it were natural, we wouldn't need to make rules to ensure it. For example, before man learned how to fly, there were no rules against flying. You didn't need them because it was not natural for man to fly. However, there were rules against killing because killing came naturally.
Thank you, Lewis, this was very insightful! Two thoughts came instantly to mind (that's what I'm looking for in a good source). I was thinking of early(!) cybernetics, the basic science of control and correction processes developed by Norbert Wiener. Constant analysis and correction. Figuratively imaginable - for example - as reaching for a glass of water: the controlling eye, the kinaesthetic body perception and the grasping hand constantly balance each other out in order to be able to grasp the glass and guide it stably to the mouth without spilling anything. In many natural processes is an generally inwoven control process, - including an automatically very fast reacting correctur mechanism. This is a very basic concept, perhaps we should look much deeper into it (..with regard to human societies). The immediate response process makes the difference. A system without it is - on the long term - nonviable. Direct democracy could be an answer, some anarchist concepts (which also have social control/correction systems), but also "The Great Law of Peace" of the Haudenosaunees which is a masterpiece of a functioning control and correction system (...here even with the social 'instrument' of spirituality). Maybe it would be beneficial to develop new ones - implemented with focus on this mechanism from the begin... Heretically: What good are the most beautiful theories, if they are too complex for most people and are therefore not applied in everyday life! Simplicity: it must be easy to understand, formed into values and therefore to remember permanently. The second thought arose from a podcast with a German history professor who has lived and worked in Russia for many years. He spoke about the Cold War and the positive effects that the two competing social systems brought to each other. Both benefited immensely from the hostile confrontation, in that working off the other system encouraged top performance at many levels. Of course, it is questionable whether a meta-system based on enmity would be desirable. Often it is believed that this behaviour is the human way, the human condition. The anthropologist Magaret Mead already studied 'Stone Age' cultures ('Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Cultures', I think written in the 1940s) that were based on both, cooperation and hostile competition among the individuals. Interestingly, the inwardly 'hostile' culture (the 'Mundugumor') had so much more material achievements - but also great individual art, innovation. Very disturbing was the aspect of suffering in all members of this tribe, from the earliest moments of life. The Arapesh - the other tribe - lived in 'slovenliness', but attached the utmost importance to the well-being of each individual.They were socially highly developed, but somehow 'brought into line', not much individualisation, no art, no crafts.
Interesting video, thank you. Do you have any book recommendations for these important historical moments you mentioned in these videos? I’m really interested in learning more about how we got into the ‘current waters’ we’re in (e.g. the industrial/French/American revolutions, and any other events you think are important for this topic). Cheers!
I have a video coming up on the history of capitalism which will have a more extensive reading list attached but I'd recommend Eric Hobsbawm's 'Age of' trilogy as a great place to start
Hi Lewis, thank you for these insights of yours! I’m in a bit of a rush at the moment, so I’m kind of stringing my words along... would be very interested on having your perspective on the Scandinavian developments re: socialism, and how those countries have evolved in their thinking about community, justice, fairness, et al. Maybe start post-WWII and chart their course(s)... socialism as a concept seems to always harken back to Stalin and all the rest of that, with nary a peep about democratic socialism as it has evolved in advanced states... please excuse any rambling here, I am an educator in the US state of Nevada, if one of my students turned this in to me, I’d most certainly give them an A for effort 😅😂... Cheers 💖!
I did not grow up in Norway, but i live here and i understand that the capacity for collective action in a small country like Norway, goes back about 1000 years. I read an interview with a Norwegian legal historian, and it was fascinating to get an inkling into the slow seismic evolution of the social order in this country, plus significant intellectual inputs from other European countries throughout history. Most Norwegians are at least socially, if not relatively politically moderate/conservative, they just dont think of their taxation system as particularily revolutionary or radical. Scandinavians are a sober bunch who seem to be consistently enabled, by weight of history, to make reasonably good decisions at every turn, and likely geography and geopolitics matters significantly too. The social democratic politics in Norway after the war likely coincided with the "30 glorious years" in other nations after ww2, when a "new deal" seemed to not only make sense to most people, but actually functioned quite well. Austerity measures have encroached significantly on our collective goods in the course of the 25 years i have lived here, so i do not know what our trajectory looks like now. I would love to see a video on Scandinavian countries and their history, but what i am really trying to hint at, is that these populations have been getting something right for decades, if not centuries, and whether any of it really does come down specifically to socialist influence or not? I ll admit, im mostly ignorant, but i enjoyed writing this comment nonetheless, and hope it was helpful.
@@Feline-philosopher yes! your comment was very insightful and makes me want to understand further how nation states found the ability to live together as community, and then remain that way for a significant length of time. Scandinavian countries hold a lot of promise for the future, I think, as does Ukraine, who's size is about that of the US State of Texas, in both population and area. But the US, as a whole, is just too multicultural. I don't mean to sound pessiimistic, or to suggest that is a bad thing. I just think the US, taken as a whole, is just too big, too varied for such a social experiment to take hold. Here in the States, we probably have about ~165M voters in a population of about ~330M. No way to make everyone happy, or even close to happy, lol. Thanks for responding, I'm glad you took the time to write your comment!
@@hiwayshoes I think the “US too big” argument is almost always a cop out. The issue with progress in the US seems to come back to the anti democratic provisions in the constitution that were put in place to protect the interests of slave states - the unequal representation in the senate and the electoral college, plus the onerous requirements for constitutional amendments. It means that a much greater proportion of the population must agree than is reasonable. In most countries, the interests of cities dominate rural areas, because people rights dominate the rights of land, and people live in cities. Eventually this will become intolerable for cities, and this arrangement will change.
I don't think that's what Locke meant. He simply meant people are born with free will. And to assume that they are is arguably the root of good civilization.
My liberty ends where another person's liberty begins. I think true individual liberty is impossible within a society - and we need to get so much better at understanding and accepting that. It can work within well thought-through limitations, but those limitations are inevitable if the goal is not to throw unfeathomable bad on any other party, be it human, animal, environmental, etc. As long as there's more than one human left on the planet, individual liberty will inevitably throw someone else under the bus, and that's not how a successful society is built. But it requires giving up your own liberty / freedoms, which is hard, especially when it actually needs to be given up and not 'just' never be acquired. To my mind it's the reason why the German liberal party (FDP) is mostly built and supported by people with money, aka power. And while it's positive for them, it's not at all positive for a society.
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm an Anarchist, but what Lewis Waller is saying is that he is a social democrat. Or what he calls "liberal socialism". Which is kinda lame in my opinion.
I think the anarchist definition of freedom avoids those contradictions. Generally, after a lot of searching myself, I have found anarchist analysis to hold up very well. And I say this in a strictly philosophical sense, because I think that’s more relevant to what you discuss in your video (tho I believe in anarchism beyond that)
What is this definition?
Fantastic video. Very sober assessment of your own belief structures and what conditions them. Been wondering exactly what your politics are for a while now! Whilst we’re on the subject, how might you respond to the standard marxist critiques of the “nordic model” (relies heavily on unequal trade relations / exploitation of the global south, fundementally preserves culturally and socially corrosive capitalist relations, only obfuscates the intrinsically intractable logic of capitalist processes still at play e.g. fall in rate of profit (see rising inequality), extraction of surplus value)? Anyways thanks for all the brilliant work you share with us
Quite big questions - I've got a Marx video coming up which I'll do a second channel commentary on - will touch on some of this then! Thanks
@@lewlewwaller Admittedly yes it is a rather daunting topic worthy of a video (or two) of its own, so this is great to hear. Looking forward to it!
@@lewlewwaller Hi Lewis. Can i ask you some questions ?
I'm glad there are people like you--and, I hope, like me--in this world.
So if it's possible to sum up what you've been saying: you are an advocate of social democracy? But am open towards/inspired by different progressive/left-leaning ideas
I'd love to follow along with what you're reading! Not sure what you plan on using this channel for, but I'd definitely tune in for book reviews or rambling videos on the different subjects
I’ve been trying to explain to people for years: Conservative and Progressive are incredibly subjective terms, that seldom mean what people think they mean. Conservative compared to what? When is a long time ago? Do I want authority to take lesson from the past i.e. the age of enlightenment, the age of the church, the age of the classics? Etc…
I like to think of conservative and liberal more like different tools to solve problems. Some problems might call for a more liberal solution, some might call for a more conservative solution. If you force all problems to be solved in only one way everything gets wonky.
I'm not well read on Scandinavian systems. But I always reflexively wonder how much of the "success" they seem to have comes from being relatively rich in this system. Meaning, would such a model function well if most countries were in a position to follow it? Is the existence of poorer countries that can are exploited in the global market, in labor or natural resources, a necessary precondition for this model to function so well? And also how could something like this work for a country with no strong sources of wealth? (like oil in Norway, although I don't know if other Scandinavian countries have something similar)
I've been thinking about this a lot too, it seems like a good local solution but it seems like a lot of what the west views as nessesaity for basic life and comfort are things denied to a lot of other countries en masse, and still seem to work in the endless growth mode of capital, even if it's a more thoughtful version of it.
Norway is the only Nordic country that have a lot of oil and gas, the other have no more resources than your average country basically. Also, I would argued the model worked even better BEFORE trade got globalized during the late seventies. It was even better when we produced a lot more ourselves.
The founding fathers frequently talked about how much is required in order to preserve Liberty.
I think the great transformation we are on the cusp of will have less to do with information technology than climate collapse. (I.e. we ought to spend less time wondering about our future relationship with artificial intelligence and more time discovering the culinary possibilities of cockroach.)
crickets
Hahahahah
I think a big reason the political conversation circles around the same tired arguments is because the people in power don't want change, and everyone else (broadly) falls into at least 1 of these 4 general buckets:
1. Already on top. Might see how/why change is needed, but refuses to let it happen out of fear they lose their special status.
2. Sees how/why things might need to change, but also sees how difficult that could be, and so feels like it's an easier/ safer bet that if they do what they can to uphold the current status quo, they can somehow worm their way to the top.
3. Sees how/why things need to change, and fully acknowledges it, but is unwilling/unable to do the real world organizing it takes to make the changes, instead disappating all their energy into the void of the internet (circumstances put me in this bucket, I currently live outside of my country of citizenship, and my inability to drive in America (my country of citizenship) severely limited what I was able to get involved in there. I am currently a teacher though, so I'd like to think I'm helping my students prepare for the future in some small ways.
4. People who are doing the work, but find themselves held back because they are so outnumbered between the other buckets.
good stuff - as a former TU rep in the NHS - no chance of any workers voice being heard - only retaliation and deaths that could have been avoided - such a shame 🤷♂️😢
I agree that currently emerging technologies are going to "cause" the perhaps the biggest social changes humanity has ever experienced.
I also agree that more democratic participation is good.
I think and hope that the internet will enable greater connectivity and democratic participation, perhaps even facilitating worker organization to an extent capable of challenging Liberal capitalism.
Another good participatory social technology you haven't mentioned is Sortition, randomized representation.
Two specific pieces of software that I find promising are Loomio and Decidim. Loomio is developed by a co-op for democratic organization into the hundreds of members whereas Decidim was originally developed for the municipality of Barcelona. The latter features "workflows" to take ideas from the initiative phase to a final vote, tools for participatory budgeting, Sortition etc. and it's extensible.
On the point of natural rights, I completely agree with you. If it were natural, we wouldn't need to make rules to ensure it. For example, before man learned how to fly, there were no rules against flying. You didn't need them because it was not natural for man to fly. However, there were rules against killing because killing came naturally.
Thank you, Lewis, this was very insightful!
Two thoughts came instantly to mind (that's what I'm looking for in a good source).
I was thinking of early(!) cybernetics, the basic science of control and correction processes developed by Norbert Wiener. Constant analysis and correction.
Figuratively imaginable - for example - as reaching for a glass of water: the controlling eye, the kinaesthetic body perception and the grasping hand constantly balance each other out in order to be able to grasp the glass and guide it stably to the mouth without spilling anything. In many natural processes is an generally inwoven control process, - including an automatically very fast reacting correctur mechanism.
This is a very basic concept, perhaps we should look much deeper into it (..with regard to human societies). The immediate response process makes the difference.
A system without it is - on the long term - nonviable.
Direct democracy could be an answer, some anarchist concepts (which also have social control/correction systems), but also "The Great Law of Peace" of the Haudenosaunees which is a masterpiece of a functioning control and correction system (...here even with the social 'instrument' of spirituality). Maybe it would be beneficial to develop new ones - implemented with focus on this mechanism from the begin...
Heretically: What good are the most beautiful theories, if they are too complex for most people and are therefore not applied in everyday life!
Simplicity: it must be easy to understand, formed into values and therefore to remember permanently.
The second thought arose from a podcast with a German history professor who has lived and worked in Russia for many years. He spoke about the Cold War and the positive effects that the two competing social systems brought to each other. Both benefited immensely from the hostile confrontation, in that working off the other system encouraged top performance at many levels.
Of course, it is questionable whether a meta-system based on enmity would be desirable. Often it is believed that this behaviour is the human way, the human condition.
The anthropologist Magaret Mead already studied 'Stone Age' cultures ('Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Cultures', I think written in the 1940s) that were based on both, cooperation and hostile competition among the individuals.
Interestingly, the inwardly 'hostile' culture (the 'Mundugumor') had so much more material achievements - but also great individual art, innovation. Very disturbing was the aspect of suffering in all members of this tribe, from the earliest moments of life.
The Arapesh - the other tribe - lived in 'slovenliness', but attached the utmost importance to the well-being of each individual.They were socially highly developed, but somehow 'brought into line', not much individualisation, no art, no crafts.
the question would be why can't we have all those nice things... not only mentioning that they are nice
Thank you for your work!
Interesting video, thank you. Do you have any book recommendations for these important historical moments you mentioned in these videos? I’m really interested in learning more about how we got into the ‘current waters’ we’re in (e.g. the industrial/French/American revolutions, and any other events you think are important for this topic).
Cheers!
I have a video coming up on the history of capitalism which will have a more extensive reading list attached but I'd recommend Eric Hobsbawm's 'Age of' trilogy as a great place to start
@@lewlewwaller Great, thank you muchly! Looking forward to the video.
Hi Lewis, thank you for these insights of yours! I’m in a bit of a rush at the moment, so I’m kind of stringing my words along... would be very interested on having your perspective on the Scandinavian developments re: socialism, and how those countries have evolved in their thinking about community, justice, fairness, et al. Maybe start post-WWII and chart their course(s)... socialism as a concept seems to always harken back to Stalin and all the rest of that, with nary a peep about democratic socialism as it has evolved in advanced states... please excuse any rambling here, I am an educator in the US state of Nevada, if one of my students turned this in to me, I’d most certainly give them an A for effort 😅😂... Cheers 💖!
I did not grow up in Norway, but i live here and i understand that the capacity for collective action in a small country like Norway, goes back about 1000 years. I read an interview with a Norwegian legal historian, and it was fascinating to get an inkling into the slow seismic evolution of the social order in this country, plus significant intellectual inputs from other European countries throughout history. Most Norwegians are at least socially, if not relatively politically moderate/conservative, they just dont think of their taxation system as particularily revolutionary or radical. Scandinavians are a sober bunch who seem to be consistently enabled, by weight of history, to make reasonably good decisions at every turn, and likely geography and geopolitics matters significantly too. The social democratic politics in Norway after the war likely coincided with the "30 glorious years" in other nations after ww2, when a "new deal" seemed to not only make sense to most people, but actually functioned quite well.
Austerity measures have encroached significantly on our collective goods in the course of the 25 years i have lived here, so i do not know what our trajectory looks like now.
I would love to see a video on Scandinavian countries and their history, but what i am really trying to hint at, is that these populations have been getting something right for decades, if not centuries, and whether any of it really does come down specifically to socialist influence or not?
I ll admit, im mostly ignorant, but i enjoyed writing this comment nonetheless, and hope it was helpful.
@@Feline-philosopher yes! your comment was very insightful and makes me want to understand further how nation states found the ability to live together as community, and then remain that way for a significant length of time. Scandinavian countries hold a lot of promise for the future, I think, as does Ukraine, who's size is about that of the US State of Texas, in both population and area. But the US, as a whole, is just too multicultural. I don't mean to sound pessiimistic, or to suggest that is a bad thing. I just think the US, taken as a whole, is just too big, too varied for such a social experiment to take hold. Here in the States, we probably have about ~165M voters in a population of about ~330M. No way to make everyone happy, or even close to happy, lol. Thanks for responding, I'm glad you took the time to write your comment!
@@hiwayshoes I think the “US too big” argument is almost always a cop out. The issue with progress in the US seems to come back to the anti democratic provisions in the constitution that were put in place to protect the interests of slave states - the unequal representation in the senate and the electoral college, plus the onerous requirements for constitutional amendments. It means that a much greater proportion of the population must agree than is reasonable. In most countries, the interests of cities dominate rural areas, because people rights dominate the rights of land, and people live in cities. Eventually this will become intolerable for cities, and this arrangement will change.
I don't think that's what Locke meant. He simply meant people are born with free will. And to assume that they are is arguably the root of good civilization.
Which bit? That is explicitly what Locke meant
My liberty ends where another person's liberty begins. I think true individual liberty is impossible within a society - and we need to get so much better at understanding and accepting that. It can work within well thought-through limitations, but those limitations are inevitable if the goal is not to throw unfeathomable bad on any other party, be it human, animal, environmental, etc. As long as there's more than one human left on the planet, individual liberty will inevitably throw someone else under the bus, and that's not how a successful society is built. But it requires giving up your own liberty / freedoms, which is hard, especially when it actually needs to be given up and not 'just' never be acquired. To my mind it's the reason why the German liberal party (FDP) is mostly built and supported by people with money, aka power. And while it's positive for them, it's not at all positive for a society.
Sisu