I will say, he introduced my centrist liberal mother in law to modern monetary theory. Something that I got nowhere with over years. She works in a high school, and started a discussion among the teachers. Later, she actually had a discussion with me over several things that she thought was ridiculous before. He may be far from perfect, but he does seem to be a bridge from the center for a lit of older voters.
@@LC-sc3en that’s an insult to Stewart. Jon has actually done good journalism and activism whereas Peterson wrote a self help book after being famously anti-transgender as he misrepresented a Canadian law.
@@saintsfearful that's a real conundrum, because he's certainly dishonest enough to misrepresent it, while also being enough of an idiot to have misinterpreted it. There's no excusing that he hasn't changed what he said even after it was explained to him though
Modern monetary theory is a scam, a Ponzi scheme. Learn about sound money and you wouldn’t make that statement. Your economics classes failed you completely.
Well, Skip should have rephrased it as "He's questioning the people in power in a slightly confrontational way, yet he has never once thought of changing the system that propped up such people."
To me, the difference between Stewart and Oliver has always been that Oliver knows he can’t get away with arguing against capitalism directly, Stewart wouldn’t even think to do that
John Oliver claims that "Europe" criticises the US military, but that in actuality, "it" is glad that the US protects "Europe". It's not clear what or whom *he* means by "Europe", but it's mostly regular people who hate how the US behaves on the world stage, and not European politicians or European media. John Oliver is pro-military to the point that he cares about vets and even decided to marry and have children with one. He jokes about how he can't say that he had a hard day at work because it sounds ridiculous given what his wife has done/does. You can't be that pro-US military and at the same time honestly against capitalism.
@@camelopardalis84 Pro-veteran is not even in the same league as pro-military. The US military couldn't give less of a shit about veterans. Pro-veteran positions are markedly leftwing as they usually accompany support for low-income housing and other social assistance programs, decreasing homelessness, funding more effective drug rehabilitation programs, and mental health awareness. Also, veterans are humans just like the rest of us. Most of them are not war criminals and despite the fact they made a poor career choice I don't think we should leave them to terrible fates because of that choice
@@quarkonium3795 In what sense did they make a "poor" career choice? Would you be willing to offer a synonym that's less vague? Not something like "bad" either.
he's the embodiment of "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism" or whatever. i think that might be a largely generational issue, but who's to say
Well, in a semi-functioning democracy, that is true. The only way to introduce significant changes to American capitalism is to ignore the majority of voters. That really sucks, but it is the situation.
The most annoying thing is that he insists on somebody somehow producing "free market capitalism". This is like insisting on producing perfect vacuum or frictionless plane in physics. It doesn't exist, it is metaphorical concept used in economics to simplify equations, it can't exist in real world, like you can't get to absolute zero in real world. You can get close to absolute zero and some interesting things happen to matter the closer you get, but you can never actually reach it. And because economics is a social science and not physics, people even disagree what "free marked capitalism" would even look like. The effect is close to going to a hundred priests and asking them to describe as detailed as possible what heaven looks like. You get a hundred different definitions, some more similar to each other, some wildly different. And the more questions you ask, the more different they'll be. Like seemingly innocent question of "Do dogs go to Heaven? What about cats?". The equivalent would be "Should state provide services on the market?" for example. In short, somebody needs to ask Jon Stewart what he considers to be free market capitalism. And I'll bet you 10.000$ that it is something close to socialism, or social democracy capitalism. Like, some things are considered rights and are not subject to market forces, most things are subject to market. But that is not neoliberal economic theory solution with their "free market will fix everything" thinking approach will ever reach. There is also a good book called "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" which describes that neoliberal way of problem solving, which seeks to make every possible solution "win win, nobody loses" solution, which in practice means "make it profitable for the capital owning classes. If you can't do that, it is not worth to even consider doing it".
It's not generational. I'm not much older than the cutoff for millennial but I'm getting tired of these ageist assumptions. Marxist thought being somewhat normalized now did not suddenly come about by the virtue of millennials, it was a long hard road that many people made sacrifices- sometimes extreme ones- for.
Like, even within the context of sincerely believing that the kids’ requests are impossible, and the context that they’re kids, you could at least explain the problem to them, at least partly. Something like “we’ve tried to do {X}, but then {Y} happened” or “in order to do {X}, we need to have 2/3 of congresscritters agree, and too many of them don’t”. Hell, that last one even gives you a chance to shift the blame-hopefully truthfully-to your political opponents. And if you /can’t/ out-argue a bunch of 8-year-olds, maybe your position needs some reexamination? Like, if an 8-year-old raises questions that you don’t have good answers to, or pokes holes in your argument that you can’t explain, maybe the problem isn’t the 8-year-old’s questions.
@@natbarmore It's been reported on a few times (The New Yorker did a piece on it) that Diane Feinstein is suffering from some degree of dementia, although she denies it. I don't know that she is able for politics or arguments anymore.
IKR. Of all the clips in this video this is the one that still upsets me. If those kids decided to get all Children-of-the-Corn on her ineffectual a$$, I wouldn’t mind.
Small but important note, the VA has added many respiratory cancers to the presumptive list for burn pit exposure. I think Stewart should be given credit to bringing light to that issue, and maybe even for pushing change along. That being said I agree with everything in the video. Stewart has an incredibly spotty record for really getting behind positive change, and coddling tons of interview subjects.
No no no, because Jon didn't try to solve all of the biggest issues, his efforts are worthless! At least, that's the conclusion this video essay apparently is painting. 🥴
I used to think it was weird hearing my dad yell all the time and talk to himself. Now I know better, at least I learned how to handle it without seeming crazy.
Dianne Feinstein bragging about perpetuating the same problems for 30 years is not the flex she seems to think it is, and I only wish one of those sunrise kids could have realized that and called her out on it when she said that.
The little kids in the clip shown are reminding Feinstein what democratic government really is -- of the people, by the people, for the people -- because they understand what it is. Feinstein's response is to tell them no, government is where people like me tell you to butt out 'cause 'I know what I'm doing' -- because she does not understand what it is.
I'm just 2 years younger than Jon Stewart so my experience is somewhat different. I was already a leftist and aware of his limitations, as a liberal, so I never held him up as high as that. A fan, sure, but not where I got my politics from. Even so, he filled a need in the popular discourse at the time. I'm not sure he does now. We've come to a point where calling capitalism out by name as the fountainhead of all these "Problems," and its replacement with a fundamentally different way of organizing labor and allocating resources as the necessary precondition for solving them, is no longer completely "out there" talk.
Jon Stewart can best be compared to a slave owner that preaches about how bad slavery is and roasts his fellow slave owners while doing everything he can to keep slavery legal because it makes him rich.
A good suggestion would be Dr Richard Wolff's books based on co-ops and allowing works shares, votes and being on the board of major PLCs based on how they do it in Germany.
@@chinafuture6484 Best? Really? What obvious moral and ethical failing does he regularly uphold that can even reasonably be compared to an enslaver? What is the slavery in your analogy?
@@VittorioLinoLevi not to speak for anyone else, but the analogy would be capitalism. Jon Stewart can't call out capitalism by name because he's done well by it, is the implication. I think it's overstated but not entirely inaccurate. Someone who benefits from the _status quo_ is unlikely to see it as a problem, or even as a _system_ at all - it's just the natural state of the world and can't possibly be any different. It's not so much a _moral_ failing as a failure of _perspective._
Remember a while back, when John Oliver's show was criticized as "explaining the problems with capitalism while avoiding using the word itself"? Maybe this is a similar case. As I'm aware, Oliver is better about it now than he used to be, maybe Stewart will get better over time too? Hopefully? Guys?
Nah. LWT avoiding using the word just helps emphasize to unaware viewers that thinking critically about an episode would more easily lead to them understanding that the *system* is bad. I think using the word ‘capitalism’ can put a lot of people off to the message but saying ‘money do this bad thing’ can lead to a more open audience (and probably skirt around whatever execs at HBO who might squirm if they felt overtly attacked.)
Added-I try to look at ways that centrist and everyone further right can be pulled away from apathy or hatred to seeing what the left is actually saying. In this case John Oliver would be offering some light counter-programming to get those word-averse people to think about *capitalism bad* without realizing it. Jon Stewart is just giving those same people either validation for centrist thought or fuel to stoke the stupid-fires on the right. Ive seen some right criticisms of LWT that tend to devolve from ‘this is stupid!’ to grumbling about the content because there isn’t as easy a way to extract simple taglines from 20 minute actual deep dives with a lot of nuance and solid research. It’s like they can’t really fight actual facts and logic 👀
I just am amazed that adults who pretend to be rational actors can ever say that capitalism is "just the free market". I'd like to see one example of a truly free market that resulted in the accumulation of capital necessary for capitalism to establish itself. As long as a fungible currency exists and there are private entities entrusted with issuing it there is no free market, just a ready-made formula for oligarchy.
@@johndough6225 Capitalism is a system in which a fungible means of currency [i.e. can be exchanged universally for all products and services] allows those with sufficient quantities to acquire on demand the requirements to generate wealth most notably labor, land and large scale means of production. There can be no formal limits on the ability of an owner to accumulate and consolidate this currency, and it will be issued by entities with a monopoly on its production, which means they essentially function as gatekeepers. For people who aren't majority holders of wealth to maximize the utility of their own capital, they must combine it with other people's capital and entrust it to someone who in turn will likely entrust it to someone else, lessening the control each individual has over its use in exchange for increasing the leveraging power and reducing individual responsibility. This disbursement and consolidation is also known as investment. A free market without this feature is more reminiscent of a swap meet or a flea market.
It's hard for a successful person to be critical of capitalism because in their minds the system worked because it recognised their greatness. If he was working class Jon would find it easier to be critical of the whole system.
A little over 15 years ago I started my own business thinking I would make some positive changes in my industry. After about 8 years I eventually gave up because I realized running me successful business was more about setting your morals aside and chasing money than about creating great products and services. I just re-entered the workforce, found a job that I somewhat enjoyed and chased the money. I'm doing quite well now. I can't really say that what I do makes much of an impact on the world though. It's pretty sad.
@@hankbarcelona7314 I built custom software for other companies. Basically the companies that make it have great sales people who sell very little for a lot of money and then hand it off to a team of low pay people who do a crap job on the project and they bill a hell of a lot of money for it. Essentially you have to hire people who schmooze and get in the door at the top of a company and get a contract because of who they know rather than what they can do. Near the end I spent a lot of money getting sales training from a company that does nothing but train sales people and they taught me a lot of good things (if you want to make a lot of money and don't care how you do it) but essentially it boiled down to make the decision maker feel good about spending money and that's the only thing that mattered. I have worked at several companies that brought in external software companies that had garbage software and we we're forced to spend millions and millions of dollars trying to get their crap to work when we knew we could build it for a fraction of the price but when we voiced our observations we were basically told to shut up and sit down and do what we're told because the director who's sleeping with the person and the other company told us to (yes that actually happened once).
To be fair, with his work to help 9/11 first responders and his work holding media and political figures’ accountable more than they had previously in a format accessible to young people (introducing a level of critical thinking that has been developed upon since to a mass American audience), Stewart has made a more valuable contribution to society than the majority of media celebrities. But he’s an old millionaire now and he has the same approach to societal problems and the same level of effectiveness as Bono.
Jon Stewart has never held any one truly accountable because he doesn't have the power to do so. He just offered fake leftists lip service and got rich doing it. Jon has always been an enemy of the working class, just look what he did to destroy OWS, the first socialist movement in the US in over 70 years.
I think that there’s a disconnect between what Stewart MEANS by free market capitalism and what the reality of that system actually is. When he pines for free markets, I think he’s thinking of “the free market of ideas”. That if a majority of Americans want a thing, then it means the market has spoken, and we need to get corporations to fall in line. But clearly the actual financial markets are completely disconnected from cultural zeitgeist.
No, he's talking about libertarian style laissez-faire capitalism, as opposed to the corporate crony capitalism that's taken over in the last seventy years or so in the US. Basically, he's like John Stossel but with progressive social views.
If you take one, honest look at the "free market of ideas", anyone interested in critical examination would find its flaws. The world simply doesn't, and has never, worked that way.
@@crimsonmask3819 laissez-faire capitalism is just crony capitalism with no regulations. "guys image how much better things would be if wallstreet was even less regulated"
The thing I'm seeing isn't so much that Jon doesn't know what capitalism is, so much as he is very clearly operating on the definition of "capitalism" that conservatives and neoliberals use.
Some people think that the Free in Free market means a market free from government regulation. Or that state that results from a market free of meaningful government regulation. But I was taught that the free in free market means every actor has equal opportunity to act and access resources, products and services, and reach customers without unequal interference from any entity government or from other independent actors within the market. I was taught that capitalism unregulated eats itself because with the profit incentive being the strongest driver, the concentration of wealth and power in any handful of actors will lead them to enact barriers or obstacles in the market for potential competitors (through private anticompetative actions or using their power to get anti competitive legislation which makes it harder for competitors to start) Which makes the market less free. So in order to have a truly free market the government must be a regulatory force which both limits the amount of power any one group or entity can obtain and enforce rules that keep the market as fair as possible to prevent anyone from having an unfair advantage. This can even be taken as far as advocating for social safety nets to help lessen the risk of starting one's own venture for those who are not independently wealthy. That is to say the definition of free market I learned necessitates high taxes, government regulation and strong social welfare programs. I haven't watched the show so I don't know if this is the fundamental misunderstanding going on when Jon says "what we have isn't a free market". Because from my learning it is not what we have is a captured market.
Good point. My thought here is "imagine a leftist going after JON FUCKING STEWART of all people, someone who has done far more for progressive causes than all lefty video essayists have ever done, combined."
@@LC-sc3en The Free Market is literally an impossible ideological dream. It can't be achieved. Our entire society revolved around capital and its owners, they have the power. The government may eventually break their power, as they did with the anti-trust laws against the first American monopolies... but the owning class will always claw it back. Why perpetuate this system of inequality?
@@LC-sc3enthere's the problem. When you say "I was taught", taught by who? A wrong teacher results in many wrong students. A free market is just that. Free from intervention. For example, I don't ever buy the cheapest tools. If it's cheap it's 💩 and I stay away from it. Sure there's a Market for cheap tools, but there's a bigger market for QUALITY tools that come at higher prices. The market has decided there's a place for cheap tools AND premium tools and they coexist. Intervention is things like the government demanding that ALL vehicles have airbags. Even if you're buying that brand new truck just to haul hay trailers from the field to the barn at 15 mph, you gotta support the airbag manufacturer. Only after vehicle customers were FORCED to support the airbag manufacturer did they have the ability to stop producing a quality product that stood up to customer scrutiny and they started the cost cutting that made them all faulty causing shrapnel injuries to the drivers
I feel like Jon Stewart is trapped in the time period when most Americans would've gotten most of their news through other Americans on TV. I'm Canadian, and I used to watch The Daily Show at its peak for fun, but I always felt some form of disconnect because his opinions were so heavily based on the U.S. being so fundamentally unchangeable. Meanwhile, I lived a mere 30-minute-drive away from the U.S.-Canada border, and, just for being born in that lucky position, I got universal healthcare. Of course, Canada isn't anywhere close to perfect, but having that outsider perspective made Stewart's limited takes always feel primarily defined by whatever other (usually pro-status-quo) American sources fed him and his writing team. Now, through the internet connecting entire populations across borders so easily, the bubble has popped, and Americans who once would've be in Jon Stewart's target audience can so easily compare and contrast themselves to other systems.
This is why Gen X (and however many boomers are left) is so pro status-quo. They are stuck in their bubbles. I'm honestly getting frustrating how many times I have proven to my mother that she believes things based on her emotions by bringing irrefutable facts that contradict her stance. She regularly concedes she was wrong. And yet time and time again she falls right back into her logical fallacies, despite having been demonstrated repeatedly that simply looking up the facts of the matter would contradict her assumptions on the matter. It's the definition of willful ignorance.
For TDS talking around the status quo was the perfect gimmick-newscasters reporting the news but with sarcastic commentary to contrast the inevitability that you are doing the establishment’s work. This new show is spectacularly unaware of why Jon Stewart flourished. He had great news commentary but as someone doing a themed episode show focussing on issues? Jon, your centrist is showing.
What I find so frustrating about Stewart is that his outdated, incomplete view of the modern world invalidates what I would argue is a genuine and impressive amount of compassion, intelligence, and sense of duty. Stewart, more than nearly anyone of his generation, seems to truly care about marginalized individuals and the problems that affect them, which led to a strict adherence to incrementalism. As you stated in the video, incrementalism has its place and is arguably more effective in forging immediate responses for people who can't wait, and Stewart's successful lobbying for first responders likely solidified this as the most effective, valid approach to problem-solving to him. His consistent skepticism towards big ideas and "re-training" stems from a pessimism towards pie-in-the-sky social revolution that eats into time and effort he could spend on tackling individual symptoms of systemic rot. This limited framing compels him away from even the causes he's directly advocated for, such as free universal healthcare and demilitarization. His refreshingly earnest perspective on racism gives me hope that he's aware of his potential biases and surrounding himself with smart, diverse people who can steer him into more directly addressing capitalism - and consequently recognizing the absurdity of moving America towards free-market capitalism instead of a mixed-market interpretation - but there's also nothing invalid with him staying focused on exposing individual issues that need immediate attention. His show (perhaps by design) demands a higher degree of critical and independent thinking because - unlike Last Week Tonight - Stewart insists on letting the other side present its argument regardless of its absurdity. The Problem expects you to know that the CEO of Shell is going to downplay the realities of climate change and champion the easiest potential solutions, whereas LWT carefully crafts a narrative around its issue, its fallacies, and how to get involved. It's essentially "The Problem with Jon Stewart" vs "The Solution with John Oliver", a lecture vs. an open forum.
The problem with the "left" is acting as if he's the enemy. Obviously he is an ally, and with the platform he has... the "left" should be promoting left wing ideas.
@@nickf7313 Progressives do have a certain predilection for "purity tests" i.e. anyone to the right of Democratic Socialist need not apply. Rather than recognizing the concerns and sympathies they have in common with Social Democrats and Liberals, Progressives are quick to label outsiders as "lost causes" when they aren't fantasizing about guillotines or powering the entire manufacturing industry with solar panels. As someone who aligns firmly in the left, it's deeply frustrating how poorly our platform is presented to others. The alt-right, by contrast, doesn't have this bad habit. They welcome anyone remotely conservative into their ranks and quickly get to work indoctrinating them into their worst belief systems.
The only thing Stewart ever cared about was his bank account. He's the "leftist" version of Tucker Carlson. Neither of them believe what they're saying and only say it to make more money. Evidence of this is shown when Jon did everything he could to destroy the OWS movement. Jon is rich and he doesn't care about the working class. Pointing out legitimate problems doesn't make a person virtuous. Jon is literally someone standing on the shore pointing out that someone is drowning while doing nothing to help them and actively stopping anyone else that tries.
@@chinafuture6484 So you think Stewart retired to purchase and run an animal hospitality farm because it was the best thing for his bank account? Is that also why he dedicated several years of his life lobbying with first responders? If so, the dude should at least be commended for finding such unusual angles to diversify his investment portfolio.
@@siphillis That farm and what Jon has done for the first responders does absolutely nothing to fix the root of the problem and he knows it. He's just a rich guy doing as he pleases. He is not your ally no matter how hard you simp for him.
Jon Stewart seems like the kind of person, who if he sees this, might actually do some introspection. I pray he does. He's a tour de force, but everything you've said in these videos is spot on. And I'm a huge fan of Stewart's. Please keep it up. Maybe he'll invite you for a panel some day.
Jon is rich, he's not your ally. Remember, he did everything in his power to crush the OWS movement. Stewart got rich telling fake libs what they want to hear, he will never give up his wealth because he doesn't believe in class equality.
The left continues to eat their own😂. This video is proof there is no willingness from the left to meet in the middle or do anything other than virtue signal. Maybe take a look at liquid natural gas and how it could drastically lower both US and international emissions. Of course it’s an evil fossil fuel so you don’t want to admit the truth, it is a better answer than solar or wind will ever be. No to nuclear, no to hydroelectric, both means of tremendous environmental improvement but the left doesn’t wanna hear that. So disappointing.
@@nonyajones4484 Jon isn't a leftists. If you had any critical thinking skills you'd realize that. I'd be surprised if you can even dress yourself without help in the morning after reading a comment like that.
@@chinafuture6484 I seriously question your own critical thinking skills after your own comment if thats how you react to someone saying, "hey, he might be smart enough to change".
My worry about advocating for small changes WITHIN capitalism is that we'll fall into the same trap as we did with recycling. We'll make small, cosmetic changes which, yes, would help (a little, in the short term). But then we'll feel better, reassured about the situation and simply go back to our busy lives and lose the momentum needed to make larger systemic changes. I'm trying to think of an issue where we've made definitive progress with small changes. I guess LGBTQ+ rights is the one that immediately comes to mind, but those rights are still tenuous. Even where I live, in Canada. (Super worried about the trans, intersex and non binary communities in the USA.) Bigoted government come with their own opinions on whether we should have rights or not, and it's a never ending cycle of spiking stress and vigilance. It fucking sucks to live with. So yeah, I'd rather put what energy I have left on working for systemic changes. Because while they are harder to implement, once the system has change, it should also be harder for anyone who wants to roll back to the old broken systems.
The problem with the small changes we have made in the past is that they have not been part of a long term incremental plan that is committed to and very difficult to back out of. Incrementally is sometimes the only way you can make big changes due to the nature of scale of the systems that need to be changed (of course this doesn't apply to things like rights or freedoms or new subsidies). But in order to be part of an actual solution they have to be part of a multi phase plan that will get us to the ultimate goal within a reasonable period of time. The order of steps, goals, metrics for measuring success, and consequences or resultant actions for failing have to be well defined. We don't do this very often outside of war adjacent things. We start down a road, forget about it, or forget why we were doing the thing in the first place and say "hey I've never seen measles kill or disable anyone or their child so it isn't super important that the government require anyone's kids be vaccinated so I declare freedom and personal choice the more important issue.
The problem with that thinking is there is a reason why we are in this predicament. Democrats have not been given full power in this country... There has a long decline to the right in the United States and no amount of pretending it doesn't exist will fix this country. The reason centrist are the way they are is because of repeated Republican victories. This idea to just blame the Democrats and ignore the republicans is why we are losing. What you want is a revolution if you say other wise it's a lie. Republicans will never give up the wins they have obtained without a fight and they have galvanized their people to the point we could have a mass shooting manifesto spewing guy everyday. I'm fine with a revolution but I'm not fine with losing... The history of America will not end with me cause the future of America doesn't care to do the work. The fact you believe our best chance at winning a revolution would be to face the republican party is silly.
What's crazy is we have historical proof which approaches work and which don't. Remember the Ozone hole? The solution to that came in the form of the Montreal protocol. It wasn't "let's encourage consumers to use cfc:s sparingly" or "the business side is the best to develop new, less-polluting chemicals". We saw a problem, identified the solution, and connected the two. Everything else was gaslighting.
Small changes won't solve the problem. The day the USSR fell, all the so-called "reformist social democrats" embraced neoliberalism, because if now you don't provide people shelter and bread, guess what, they can't call fucking Moscow! Just look how Bernie, Corbyn and Melenchon was defeated by the "reformist" systems. And all you need to rest all the reforms are dickheads like Thatcher or Regan in power, and they will eventually come because the Capital vehemently supports them! Incremental changes can bring only two things Neoliberalism and Fascism!
I was so excited to see Jon Stewart return. I realized something wasn’t right during a behind the scenes video. A writer causally said “everything is racist,” and Jon interrupted with “but if everything is racist, then nothing is racist!” I realized at that point that Jon Stewart probably hasn’t kept up with a lot of the theory behind left wing ideas of systems and injustices, and might not be the source I need to look to anymore. I don’t think he understood even after the writer quickly explained how white supremacy touches so much of our systems and history that it’s everywhere. He’s probably something like the traditional liberal/centrist, whereas I’m now more of a leftist. I think that’s pretty clear as well in terms of his commitment to dialogue and conversation, even extending to his toleration of misinformation sources like Joe Rogan (see his podcast). I’m still very grateful for Jon Stewart. His liberal, near centrist position is moral and passionate. It was a gateway for me out of conservative politics. And he’s right to wish for dialogue & honesty instead of corruption and political theater. I’m just looking for more now.
Jon was literally never a leftist. Just like people like Tucker Carlson aren't actually conservatives. They're all grifters who got rich telling their target audience what they want to hear. Don't forget, Jon Stewart helped destroy OWS, the first socialist movement in the US in decades. Jon is not an ally of the working class and never will be.
A friend told me, "To me, you're a leftist if you're anti capitalist", generally speaking. Capitalism is right wing as neoliberalism is also right wing. Congratulations on moving leftwards in order to deconstruct a lot about society and economic impact. Thing is, I still hold this idea that it takes work to continue on this path that puts up a lot of resistance.
Also, Jon probably can't be moved more leftward than he already is because he's probably getting lucrative deals from said capitalists. Just a theory. A game theory.
@@chinafuture6484 I’m only recently learning about leftist thought, so some of my ignorance is probably showing in my comment I didn’t think of it that way, thanks for pointing that dynamic out
@@BleedForTheWorld yeah, I don’t understand much yet about leftist thought but I do know that capitalism is inherently exploitative and we need something different There’s still part of me that’s not all the way there yet, but I’m definitely against the ways capitalism leads to exploitation, even if I don’t understand all the theory. Still not sure how to answer my friends who say it’s not that capitalism is bad, it’s that bad actors exploit people for profit
I work the late shift on Tuesdays so when I got home that election night, it was already over - but I'd been stuck at work & didn't know the result. But I'd put *Stephen Colbert's 2016 election night show* on DVR and decided to watch it from the beginning, with no spoilers, but much faster because skipping ads. *That* was an experience, that encapsulated the entire arc from smug certainty to _oh shit what's happening_ just perfectly.
I enjoyed Trump getting elected too. Sadly I had no idea what a fucking catastrophe an unrelenting narcissist would be in a position of power. I figured he couldn't be any worse than the rest of them. But hey, turns out, being owned by somebody is often the only thing that restrains them.
Something I've noticed about American discourse about capitalism is that capitalism is simultaneously broad and all encompassing, and so impossibly narrow that any small deviation from the societal status quo is no longer capitalism. That single payer healthcare and environmental regulations, and even unions mean living in a socialist system, and in the same breath ending capitalism means a world with literally no currency, monetary exchange, property or materialism whatsoever. That capitalism only describes a hyper specific scenario of l'aissez faire totally deregulated markets and *also* means any system whatsoever where currency and property and even exchange exists. It's as though capitalism is thought of by some as both a specific economic system and the very existence any economy itself.
This really indicates more about purity politics than understanding the strange/rare position Stewart occupied and what he did with that opportunity. It disappointing. The meta importance of Stewart isn’t that he didn’t go hard enough on condaliza rice or call out so and so politician; it’s that he was a late night comedian, a late night news show; and with basically zero expectations from a comedic show that rounds up the news in a half hour on a secondary cable channel, he executed that show with such soul and honesty that he became one of the most trusted voices in media. As a comedian! He wasn’t a journalist. He wasn’t an interviewer or some position of trust and respect ; his job was to tell dick jokes and make the news funny. What makes Stewart important and legendary isn’t that his every opinion was right, or that he exposed someone or whatever; it’s that he had a small position of power, and even though there was ABSOLUTELY NO expectation of him using it responsibly, he did. He took something meaningless and made it meaningful, engaging people otherwise engaged and bringing to light issues that had been swept under the rug. Individual viewpoint in that context are less important, because it’s about the context more than him as a person.
I appreciate this comment. As someone who doesn’t share a similar viewpoint as the creator of this video, Jon Stewart has introduced me to major concepts derived from compassion towards marginalized communities. He bridges a gap towards maybe more republican minded people by not condescending or claiming moral superiority. And while I’m certain there’s merit in some people having strong views about the ineptitude of Jon Stewart’s bases, I don’t think that merit lies at the end of every segment where Skip Intro puts his hand on his head and jokes sincerely about how Jon is idiotically not anti capitalist enough. Rather, the merit lay in the well produced, intelligently narrated explanations of the earnest and agreeable outlook he posits. Even if you think he doesn’t go far enough
Thank you dude. There’s a really good interview with him & Chris Wallace from back in the day where he talks about this & where he explains how his voice became a trusted voice & how its actually fucking ridiculous that people trust him because their interest in him isn’t because he’s some super politician for the people.. but it’s because of the abject failure of the mainstream media & the establishment in general that has pushed the American people to him & because he has no reason to lie & because he has no skin in the game (in terms of him needing to appeal to the people or to gain said trust) his voice became one that the American people wanted to hear & sought out. So I think it’s so fucken stupid when ppl criticize him as if he’s a politician & as if he has some kind of obligation to the American people to be someone or something other than what he is… a comedian. He’s the reason that I started caring about politics. He’s the reason why I started voting. He’s the reason why I started paying attention & standing up for my beliefs. He’s the reason why I stopped trusting the media. He’s the reason why I don’t subscribe to either party (I am not a centrist though) & he’s the reason why I learned that I don’t have to agree with everything the left does & I don’t have to blindly support them just because they’re not the right. So ppl can say whatever they want about him & talk as much shit as they want about him but at the end of the day he still has one of the most important voices on the left & he has helped sooooo many people, especially young people open their eyes to the truth about this country & has inspired them to pay attention to wtf is going on & how we are being fucked everyday by both the left & the right.
@@lefty3128 I absolutely hate that argument “well he’s not anti capitalist enough” “well he’s not ________ enough!” “Well he’s not doing enough!” ……. But he’s a comedian who has done MORE than enough & continues to speak out about important issues, issues that don’t even have a personal effect on him.. he continues to give voices to marginalized communities, he continues to educate & inspire young ppl to get involved in politics & to start giving a fuck about important issues. He has used his fame & voice in order to not only educate the American people but to also shed light on some hard topics that makes it all a little bit easier to cope with.. ya know? I just hate stupid ass people who look at what isn’t being done rather than what is.. but then at the same time they don’t hold that same energy towards our ACTUAL government or the ACTUAL politicians or the ACTUAL people in power & instead they waste their time bitching about comedian/political commentators instead of shedding light on more important topics… one could say his critics that use this same argument are also…. NOT DOING ENOUGH! Lol.
I do feel like it's giving people a bit too much credit to expect that they'll arrive at the anti-capitalist conclusions on their own after watching Jon Stewart. Some of them will, sure, but most people are going to need a little bit more nudging to consider questioning the entire status quo. And unfortunately most of them won't see any of the more progressive or left-leaning shows that were inspired by Jon Stewart. It's very easy to assume that other people will see the same things we do, because it seems so obvious what the next step is, but I've realised that this is not something you can ever rely on. I've been exposed to a lot of leftist ideas so it's a natural instinct for me to question capitalism, but a looot of people still don't have that context. A looot of people don't know what capitalism even means, they sort of just assume it means the concept of economy or literally any form of trade, and they think that capitalism is part of human nature and is an inherent part of civilisation itself. That's just how it's presented in the media and in schools and so on and so forth, especially in the US from what I can tell, and it's hard not to learn that mindset if that's the only one you ever see, if even the "leftists" (read: liberals) accept that framework. So people DO need someone to say it a bit more directly before they can do their own work. Doesn't necessarily have to be super in depth or anything, but at least they have to be pointed in the right direction before they can even know where to look for more information to make their decisions. I mean that said I do think that we are making progress on this front, it's just that I don't think it's "not giving Jon Stewart enough credit" to say he's kinda outlived his relevance and doesn't have much to add to the conversation anymore, and at worst provides a distraction from systemic issues. It really does feel like we kinda just don't need his input anymore, not that there's better shows out there that could use that attention instead.
@@DSPHistoricalSociety capitalism is one of the most efficient systems ever designed by human beings for rendering the planet as we know it uninhabitable and causing a loss of biodiversity equivalent to the event that killed the dinosaurs. Its based on the genocidal destruction and mass murder of third world liberation movements in living memory to keep them economically subservient on the imperial core the us itself has the worlds largest prison population, over 22% of worlds incarceration population (use is 4.25% of worlds population people in the us die because they can;t afford insulin every day us had worse child malnutrition rates than Vietnam and Cuba, has lower infant mortality and similar life expectancy than Cuba. Read the Jakarta Method, 6th extinction, and the new Jim Crow.
@@DSPHistoricalSociety cool, makes sense as anticommunist state indoctrination was intense in the us for some 100 years, as it was communisms arch enemy
Honest Jon Stewart’s conflation between human nature and capitalism feels almost nihilistic. It’s like he doesn’t believe we can create a new system and have to work with what we got even though what we’ve got is shit. I definitely agree I admire his attempts to find solutions but it’s still missing pieces of the equation..
But Jon's thinking makes sense; there is no country around that does not have a form of capitalism. We have been down the roads of socialism, communism, feudalism, etc., many times throughout history. What we need to do is expand the welfare state, much like they have done in Europe, but keep ideas that Americans love, i.e., you pay into Social Security and Medicare, through working.
@@drewengel7073 except it doesn't and you're wrong. Vietnam and Cuba are both states that don't use capitalism within themselves, and don't forget every other state that doesn't has been intentionally destroyed by those who do, just look at Catalonia.
@@drewengel7073 you cant reform a system that is inherently built on exploiting someone else. Products in industrial countries arent cheap for no reason, since most of the production sites are poverty striken countries cause the labour is cheap. also alot of the richest countries in europe were directly profiting of imperialism and can ride out on that or they have a ton of oil like norway
Interestingly enough, we were asked to create a rehabilitation strategy for Shell in Nigeria in our political communications class and that was the moment I realized I will never go into pr or politics PS thx for your videos, they are always very easy to understand and entertaining to watch and I don't want them to end!
Props to you for having a soul. Next time go one step farther and document the experience, but those fuckers on blast. If you can. I mean, take care of your safety, then do what you can for the world.
@@gsgaming6976 A lot of the Southern hemisphere countries are in terrible situations from deals with greedy corporations. Look into what Nestle or Coca Cola are up to there.
PR and advertising make me sick, dude. I agree with the concept of “Create a message that communicates a product to people who will actually want it. You’re just connecting a product to people and will help them” but that goes wayyyyy too far and ends up in manipulation
Would be nice if someone in that group had told Fienstein that she obviously doesn't know what she's doing since she's been failing for those 30 years. Or that she hasn't been doing the right thing for those 30 years.
"This can't be real capitalism because it's not a Utopia like the capitalist propagandists told me capitalism is." It's as stupid as insisting the pickup truck you bought isn't a "real" Chevy because it's not remotely "Built Like A Rock."
I always kind of thought that the point was to show that the free market is an illusion and that moving towards it would just make things worse. Maybe I was just projecting my own readings onto that a bit, now I am not so sure...
Agree with everything in the video so far with one exception. I'm currently studying economics at Berkeley and many extremely loud voices (Nobel prize winners even) absolutely are saying every country needs to slash emissions no matter how developed they are. It is a real issue that the US and other imperial core countries have been able to use so much of the carbon emission budget to develop themselves while poor countries are just expected to accept a less developed economy or pioneer a new, less emissions intensive path. There are a lot who want to kick away the ladder, so to speak. It's not just about transitioning to net zero, it's about how we have a just transition which doesn't screw over poor countries specifically (like we always have). Tons of people who are, rightly, concerned with the climate are ignoring this issue. Stewart is right that we need to have a better answer for developing countries. For example, we have waited too long and been too inactive to solve climate change without China, for instance, massively cutting its emissions. This is unfair. Developing countries are now unfortunately required to use far less emissions than the west has used to become rich. We've waited too long to avoid this, but we do have to call out how fucked up it is. Edit: Sorry if this is rambling. I'm lying in-bed with covid and feel like shit lol.
We shouldn't turn up our nose at nuclear for the sake of it, but it's important to note that renewables are easier to roll out in terms of speed and cost, and their costs are to this day still dropping, while the cost of nuclear plateaued a decade ago. There's an interesting paper by an Oxford research group which goes into this in more details
Oddly, I credit a lot of my radicalization to Noam Chomsky being on The Daily Show, then going down a rabbit hole of old Chomsky videos and writing while working at a shitty retail job, but he's definitely a capitalism realist.
The worst thing about liberals AND conservatives in this country is the conservatives force me to be on the same team with the liberals. Edit: no, the worst thing about conservatives is the whole “stanning for fascism” thing. But I’m not crazy about the other thing.
I think the worst part about it is more the fact that both sides hate each other, despite the fact that the leaders we end up electing are a lot more similar than we like to admit regardless of party
@@gameb9oy the leaders only look the same if you have no investment in who wins. For a lot of people who wins us the difference between a situation being stable or even better or devolving into something way worse
@@coldfrost3 It really doesn't matter whom won because what gameb9oy said is right. We NEVER had been stable it simply got worse in 3D plane. America been in some sort of war since WW1 IF I really want to deep cut since the civil war. No pres made it better and only one that kinda did JFK they popped him. Nothing got better, what you did Obama and Biden did better than W. Bush and that man?...
Depending on what kind of people want to buy a house and where exactly, beachside property that is threatened by climate change still sells well. There's a Potholer54 video that touches on that. (The second to last posted; three months ago.) Just to be clear: Neither he nor I are climate change deniers of any sort.
Because Jon loves capitalism. It made him rich. He doesn't care about the rest of you, only his money. And he makes money telling fake libs what they want to hear.
Capitalism isn’t the issue. It’s unregulated capitalism The SEC fails to regulate Wall Street and the stock market, the Fed prints trillions and blames inflation on Russia, Congress is still getting lobbied & insider trading in 2022 And the Department of Justice does the bare minimum to stop all of that
@@liamtahaney713 It can be regulated. It’s not easy given the US’s current state but it’s possible. Enforcement of the law regardless of economic status and transparency of how those in power conduct their work is a great start.
I grew up among aspiring comedians in Los Angeles of the 1970's. Here is what I have to say about Jon Stewart. He has managed to do anything at all with his opportunity, and such opportunities are rarer than hen's teeth. If he gets a drop of quality out of it, he's doing better than most. I spent my adult years as an executive in a software firm. Jon Stewart gets capitalism to a very great degree. What he doesn't 'bother' to do is the exposition to this, where we learn which way is up and which is down. From our skewed perspective in a heavily propagandized reality tunnel, there is much to learn before we can even recognize the truth. Also, people have been trained to expect big drama from a story (Stewart talks about this a lot) and yet our reality tends to change incrementally. There won't be a climate macho boss battle with tsunamis of sharks battering down our cities. No, not like that. Think of it like this. Every gallon of gasoline you burn is stolen from the future, and they NEED it.
Jon Stewart isn't perfect, but he's not bad. Like other people have pointed out, he is a good start. He's the André Rieu of progressives, a gateway drug into the really good stuff.
How is Jon Stewart a good start? He's not a true progressive any more than Tucker Carlson is a true conservative. They're grifters. They tell their audiences what they want to hear so they can get rich. Jon is an enemy of the working class and always will be. He went out of his way to derail OWS because he doesn't believe in class equality.
@@chinafuture6484 Whatever you say sing song ding dong- _China Future_ 😂🤣 China has no future other than stealing tech breakthroughs from the west. Way to like your own comment, clearly the Chinese way
So glad you gave props to John Oliver. I saw a late towards him in part 1 and it blows my mind. He's gotten more left as time goes on and is the perfect gateway to the left
After we've heated the planet up and melted all of the ice sheets in this half of the 21st century, we can just build really big freezers (plugged into the oil-guzzling electricity grid yum yum) and make new ice sheets. Idk why people think that that's unreasonable? #problem #solved (/s)
As someone in the climate science space, I was really frustrated with Stewart's episode on climate change. The people he had on his panel were experts on paper only, and said some truly wrong things. The Shell CEO was allowed to tell numerous lies that were not corrected nor held accountable. And Stewart's idea for dealing with climate change ignores just about everything we already know about fixing the problem. It was a very concrete example for me of why Stewart isn't the right guy for that role anymore (and probably never was). And I'm sure for others familiar with his other topics/takes, they've felt this too.
I'm not well read nor versed in these discussions. Would you fine people have any recommendations for laymen like myself to better understand the science, politics, and talking points (to counter common climate denial arguments)?
@@shanefoster2132, Skeptical Science is a great starting point. John and the team have been addressing the science and misinformation there for a long time. They've even created a free online uni course. If you just want the science, most science organisations (NASA, Bureaus of Meteorology, NOAA, CSIRO, IPCC, etc) have heaps of stuff. If you want the politics, that's a murky field where you need to understand who gets paid by whom (DeSmog great on this).
@@StNick119, I've only seen one or two of his videos, so hard to comment. I can recommend a couple of YTers. Climate Town Just Have a Think Potholer Our Changing Climate Not Just Bikes AGU
As someone that has enjoyed Stewart's comedy all through his biggest era and someone who still listens to his show now I appreciate you taking him to task on these things, someone has to/should. There is also another issue though, and I think it's something you're not giving him credit for, and that's that people with said power will fight against meaningful change that doesn't bring them profit and short of a violent coup, there is really no displacing them at this point, and even then, in the french revolution they didn't have tanks, drones and bombs. They will not give that power up, they cannot be shamed or reasoned with, they can only be stripped of their power violently. I've spend decades on this, they will not let it go, under no circumstance, ever. I honestly hope you end up succeeding well like Cody Johnston's Show (even though it has it's problems) "Some More News" I remember when he was about to break on the platform and I feel like you're in just about the same place, and I hope you go in that direction after watching this 2 parter. I also really really hope the staff and Stewart review your responses; Hell I hope that they give you a job as a contributor or interview, etc.
Honest question, how is greedy capitalists not willing to give up power due to greed except through violence, a credit to Stewart? How is that a plus for him? I'm legitimately confused with this part of your comment.
@@casteanpreswyn7528 Because short of violent revolution this means that you kind of have to deal with them as part of the solution or nothing will happen, see all of US congress in the last 40 years for direct examples.
@@randomstranger623 There's been times where he's been shown to have his research be wrong/cherry picked on the show, and no retractions are ever made by the show. It's one thing when you get called out by the insane Q folks for being wrong because they are insane, but it's another when leftist folks show up with receipts and are like "we agree there's problems, but you're not helping because you're mis-categorizing some stuff in a way that isn't completely true". This is admittedly more of a problem in the beginning of the show, likely when they had less budget for research and possibly standards because it was more of a goof but also a news show, but it's not something that has ceased to be a problem, but rather, it's much less of a problem now as they've begun making less use of single quotes and more use of multiple news sources/quotes to support a narrative. This doesn't mean that it's still 100% accurate, but it's less likely to be as biased when multiple reliable news sources confirm the same thing. By contrast, Adam Ruins everything always puts their sources on screen and when they have been called out for narative bias they've done episodes to address just where they either may have gotten it wrong, or to support themselves with additional evidence, which is much more responsible. Nobody expects newsfolk of any brand, but particularly comedy folk to be 100% accurate, but when you never make retractions it isn't a good look because it leaves the record still tarnished.
@@akkmedia6578 no, violent revolution is the *only* way to deal with capitalist. As I stated, violence is the only way they'd give up their lifestyles of intentionally making others suffer. You example of US congress for the last 40 years proves the point you shouldn't deal with them as part of the solution. Lol
I think Stewart when talking about a capitalistic system is talking about the theoretical structure of a free market economy. Which is not how the U.S. works currently. A free market would mean little to no barriers to entry and equal playing field for all players in the market. Meanwhile you’re speaking of the outcome of an oligopolistic market. Which is caused by the inherent political power structure that exists that isn’t really mentioned in a free market economy theory. Similarly there is often a confusion about theoretical communism and communism seen in countries such as the Soviet Union.
After their first episode on the Burn Pits, the Jon Stewart podcast asked for people to call in with feedback and questions on the show for them to discuss. I called in with two questions that I think each basically summarize your two videos on Stewart: 1) How is it that you can continue to consider yourself a comedian first and foremost after putting out an episode that's deeply researched, includes hard-hitting interviews with the people in power, and is being followed up with a trip to Congress to address the issues discussed? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that you're a journalist or even an activist first and foremost at that point, with comedy simply being the delivery system. 2) Why, in all of your discussions about how to fix the problem with burn pits, did you not once bring up universal healthcare? The cancer caused by burn pits is obviously awful and should be treated, but I think all cancer that anyone gets for any reason is awful and deserves to be treated. While Jon's approach may lead to more immediate change (which is good!), this is just going to become a continuous battle of tackling treatment for condition after condition with the VA until we find a way to universally address these issues at the root. We need a long term solution too. My question wasn't addressed on the podcast (no ill will there, to be clear), but it's nice to see these videos that really put all the evidence in one place to reinforce how I was feeling after his first episode back. I like Jon Stewart, I think he does a lot of good, and he was a huge influence on me, but he does feel a bit like a man out of time at this point - and I wonder if the younger writing room he has on his new show is too starry eyed over their hero to really push him into the present as much as he needs. The incremental solutions he proposes and his hard held belief that civility and respectability is of utmost importance just doesn't fly anymore. It's kind of wild to see the guy who made so much noise about jailing bankers after the 2008 financial crisis basically rollover for oil execs when it comes to addressing climate change. He was a real progressive back in the day; the war on terror was a popular idea after 9/11 and Jon stood strong against it, shined a light on its issues. These clips reminded me that he was very funny while doing it too! I hope he can pivot the direction of his show in the ways you talked about here.
The bigger statement that needs to be made is that comedy is not effective activism on immediate and important issues. Stewart recognised this when he fought for vets. No comedy used. Result achieved in good time. You can use comedy when the issues aren't urgent and you want to raise awareness. But awareness isn't action. It's just awareness. We all need to grow up and stop waiting to be entertained into knowing about the issues and instigating solutions.
Omg yes I am living for this series. I haven’t been able to put my finger about how I was feeling about Stewart and his work these days and you’ve put everything so clearly in one place.
I came here from a John video pointing out the issues with the US tax system and how other countries get better stuff with tax their money His 90% method is to get the audience who may not actually take the thoughts to the face to make them come to the conclusion themselves then they move further than him. which is a really strong teaching technique from my experience doing tutoring and with professors. He may not be as extreme as you liked but this method is pretty strong for people who maybe more reactive to direct content
So Jon Stewart’s new show is a variation of his protege John Oliver’s show format. But without the not-so-surprise reveal each episode that he did every insane joke scenario he set up for the audience.
A producer on Wisecrack mentioned recently that the issue for comedy and capitalism is that stand-up comedy is almost purely entrepreneurial in spirit. So you often end up seeing all of these hyper capitalist comedians. John Lovitz also comes to mind.
This video reminds me of the Jacobins during the French Revolution. For those that don't know, the Jacobins was a French political club which sought to influence the nation's path through the Revolution. But they got so caught up in deciding the details of future France that they forgot to make any progress at all. Instead of strengthening institutions and helping the millions of people starving as a result of the Revolutions instability, they squabbled over who was the most revolutionary and which type of revolutionary was the best. Eventually, the revolutionary's biggest enemy was other revolutionaries. They fought amongst themselves so much that the Old Elite was able to regain much of their old positions of power. In other words. We need to stop going after people who are fighting on the same side as us, just because they dont agree completely with us on every count. Wait to purge the revolution until the war is won!. Jon Stewart may not be perfect, in your eyes, but please realise that he is doing good.
Interesting so you are mad that john stewart attacked the occupy movement? The center is allowed to attack the left ad nauseum but when the left fights back suddenly we are the bad guys, come off it
I strongly disagree with so much of this video (I still left a like though, because the video is very well put together!). This is a problem I have with a lot of the left. So many issues are framed as large-scale systemic issues and every every solution is so daunting that many people just become either angry or depressed. Neither option leads to action. Say what you want about Jon, but he has _actually_ acomplished things. He has _actually_ gotten things done. Something that just can't be said for most of the people critisizing him. Yes his solutions aren't as deep-reaching as you might want, but they are actually achievable. It puts a better world within reach for most people. As much as I agree with the left on policy, I have many issues with how we frame issues for others.
I've been binging Deep Space 9 on Netflix, and every time I click "Skip Intro," it makes me want to go back and rewatch some of the Copaganda vids. And that (not the busted algorithm) is why I saw this vid was uploaded. Was this your secret plan all along? Nefarious.
I genuinely think Apple might have been part of the issue. He said on the daily show recently that Apple wouldn’t let him have Lina Khan on his podcast while the problem with John Stuart was on tv
Fuck markets ok. You want central planning in full effect? Soviet union, Venezuela, China. Didn't work out so well for them and before you go blaming anything else aside from the actual Command economy that created its mess, Think to yourself "Am i being disingenuous". In case you dont want central planning in full effect, rather Regulation and Mixed-market economies... Its the status quo..... You are living it, Problem? Maybe its the Status quo...
I think I understand why Stewart is doing what he's doing. I, who understands ALL these things, can only watch a few minutes of this at a time before I need a pallet cleanser of, oh... abandoned puppies. What we have done is crushing The power of companies like shell is unfathomable. and yes, Stewart needs to push harder, but one feels like Sisyphus.
I think it is admirable of you to want him to address larger issues. But it is a balancing act. Changing American military policy or eliminating plastic is likely to be futile in the short term. But there are pieces we can change to make it better. Starting with small achievable goals and working your way up is more realistic.
lol Stewart spoke at my commencement (yes, i'm a boomer-millenial in my late 30s, YOU think I'M self-CONSCIOUS about IT?!?!). i think you're right, but in all fairness MY politics really didn't exist back then, beyond the broad liberalism he presented, which could be said for 99% (heh) of the population pre-Bernie, no? Bernie switched it up on em. This stuff was NOT "cool" back in the day. It *should've* been, but it wasn't. Bernie swagged it out so we all could shine.
this is careful not to use the term "platforming" Sullivan, i feel, but might as well have, and i just don't understand the issue w having opposing viewpoints on a TV show, of all things. not to echo the Daily Show's "it's entertainment first" cop-out, but... using someone/thing as a foil isn't exactly a new method of presentation, and it's super effective. think about the ppl we're tryna appeal to. u think they're not a little less likely to claim "BIASED" if there's some sucker like Sully on? also this guy says he doesn't read comments, when if i was tryna make a comic book and needed a character who lived off reading comments 24/7 it'd be this kid
I think that Jon Stewart is the most honest show host. Maybe he can he wrong but his honest approach Also Led him to acknowledge mistakes and Open important conversations. He really is invilved in his causes and That's parte of his appeal. I love him but Also I understand and appreciate This análisis. Great video.
The bit with Diane Feinstein is so cringe inducing. "You're telling me that it's my way or the highway". Yes, that's (theoretically) the way democracy works. You do what your constituents want you to do. "And I don't respond to that." Which is a huge part of the problem, laid bare pretty explicitly.
John Oliver is my effing hero. Also is nearly impossible to convict offenders of domestic and sexual violence. I was abused by a boyfriend, and the cops took *me* to jail because I was hopped up on adrenaline from being put through a wall and "look kinda crazy." Of course I look crazy. A guy just put me through a wall. ACAB And yes, I watched the entirety of your Copaganda series. Loved it.
I agree with nearly everything you say but I do see value in John Stewart as an on-ramp for apolitical people or naive libs to get introduced to left of center ideas and that hopefully some of them seek out further media that will move them further left. I'm older and have been involved in leftist politics for 2 decades and it was John Stewart who was largely responsible for politicizing me as I began watching The Daily Show in high school so I definitely see value in him as an entry point in a leftist media pipeline, as long as content creators such as yourself continue to course correct would be libs before they settle into the comfortable assumption that we can maintain the status quo if we can just figure out the right tweaks for capitalism.
i still enjoy stewart, because at least he acknowledges certain basic truths about american society, but it is always good to be reminded that he’s not showing you the whole picture. great video!
I especially hate him presenting climate change as a side effect of "humanity's progress" because if you look into it - we could have made all the same progress without fossil fuels. The primary difference would have been a small slowing of progress as energy needs would have to come before technological needs.
It seems like John Stewart and Angry Writer Man are just...kinda misunderstanding the motivations for things like recycling, etc. Like, there are other reasons to do things that are better for the environment other than reducing climate change. And there are other reasons to do things other than their environmental impact. Like, I see some discourse on occasions that's like "we're supposed to eat less meat because meat is bad for the environment but me not eating a cheeseburger is not gonna fix climate change". And like, yeah, no, a single person not eating a burger is not gonna fix climate change but that doesn't change the fact that the general public en masse feeding money into an industry that does environmentally catastrophic things strengthens that industry. And it doesn't change the fact that like, that industry is terrible for animals and for workers. And it doesn't change the fact that we consume so much fucking meat now just because it's available without even thinking about it. Like, there are other things to consider besides "Does my single individual action single-handedly reverse climate change? No? Guess it's not worth doing then."
I think the point is that "what is the point to try change myself, when even with doing the most eco-friendly changes and incentiving others to do the same, it would be a little fraction of the impact on the Earth compare to what governments and big companies can do if tommorw they decide for change" And tomorrow is an exaggeration but not too much. This is probably the thoughts of many people with a rather pessimistic outlook, this are kinda my thoughts except that I don't view recycling useless of course, good for local ecosystems and the ocean(for now I just recycle plastic bottles...). But I have read an article precisely about big companies being curiously proponents of recycling and I have seen some of those myself, not a lot of evidence but a lot of companies have done far worse for saving face or profits on the past. And of course I'm not saying that we shouldn't protect local ecosystems in exchange of just worrying for climate change on the macro level. We should, with out doubt, do both. But it's still worth pointing out that companies are potentially trying to avoid major responsabities about climate change by positive publicity, that for best or worst recycling is use. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
How he is presenting himself is prevalent in a lot of older and aging activists. It seems to me like he’s understands that the system won’t be changed unless it challenged itself. He seems to be challenging society to put their money where their mouth is
My problem is Jon being on apple instead of going solo, patreon and such, so he can go harder in the paint. Why put a leash on yourself? But I still love him.
I like you and your channel and I also like Jon Stewart. I think he embraces the hackiness of his comedy but also does want to get some answers out of people. I don't think there's any reason for him to be doing this new show on a selfish level, I think he actually wants to do good.
22:30 - I believe you actually meant "half a _century_ ", likely wishful thinking and funny enough I typed this in the same incorrect way as it just sort of rolled off the tongue or something. Just an _extremely_ minor accidental mistaken word in an hour of amazing critique, great job man, all of this has indeed also been my "problem with Jon Stewart".
Is not that a free market capitalist society is power centered around the rich. It is that a free market capitalist society is unstable and cannot exist without changing from that state.
We're In Hell is an amazing video essayist, thank you for putting him in the video. A namedrop would've been good, but you were damn close and I appreciate you :))
Jon Stewart is like the mechanism on the roller coaster, he takes you slowly to the top showing you the view that you can't see from the ground, but he doesn't push you over the edge; he relies on you to take the plunge into action or get off. He really can't come straight out and call himself a socialist without losing his position.
I don’t think Jon is a problem, if anything at most he seems misguided at times, maybe a bit dated in his way of challenging things, but there always room for improvement. Plus, all those blunders he makes seems honest enough, I didn’t always have the best papers in school, my concern is complacency or trying to appeal to humanity and common ground and all that.
"[fossil fuel companies] have been covering up climate change research for half a decade." I think you mispoke there. They've been doing this for half a CENTURY.
Loved how you laid out in your comparison between Stewart and his successors what consistently effective and meaningful progressive change can look like, and in so doing, gave a shoutout to so many of the progressive content creators I already watch.
Old John making Libertarian and Conservative arguments. There's a lot of capitalist libertarians that use that line: "Oh, we don't have true capitalism. Not free market capitalism. That's the problem!" Even though they're benefiting from it while deflecting.
We don't have free market capitalism. That's the problem with *capitalism* though, not the problem with our system. Capitalism's foundations rely on a set of fundamentally impossible assumptions.
like i commented on the last video, stewart called himself a socialist until asked about and he made it clear that he did not know the definition of socialism funny that it's the same for capitalism. this is the political commentator liberals clamour over. cute stuff
Liberal by definition is pro-capitalism. Specifcially, liberalism values laissez faire capitalism with zero government involvement whatsoever. Neo-liberals also value laissez faire capitalism but are in favor of government intervention so long as that intervention directly benefits suppliers at the expense of consumers.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 Dude here is cofusing liberal with libertarianism. libertarianism, and Neo-liberals is just rebranded libertarianism, are deeply conservative. also laissez faire capitalism is suppose to have intervention, what your talking about is something like a Corporatocracy basically oligarchy.
@@AL-lh2ht No, I'm not. I'm using what the term actually means. Libertarian is NOT an economic stance, it exists on an entirely different spectrum. We use "right" and "left" to describe economic policy. Libertarian is independent of that. Extremist libertarian left would be anarcho-communists, extremist libertarian right would be anarcho-capitalists. The opposite end of that spectrum is authoritarian. Inherently, neoliberalism is NOT libertarian, it's explicitly opposed to libertarian principles. Laissez faire literally means "to do nothing". Anti-interventionism is the core of laissez faire capitalism. The name of a political party has less than nothing to do with what the people under that banner actually believe. Case in point, Hitler's National Socialist Party was anti-socialist. They put a great deal of effort into removing socialists from the Party, and into literally murdering socialists for being socialist. While it's understandable that you may have seen the US Libertarian Party and what they stand for and associated it with Libertarianism, it's factually inaccurate. They are in no way Libertarian.
I still want HBO to cancle Bill Maher and create a new show for Hasan Minhaj. Personal anecdote, recently, I rewatched The Patriot Act's episode on Justin Trudeau and Canadian oil, and I was stunned at just how much I've moved from my liberalist perspective, because I remember being so incredibly pissed off at Hasan for "not understanding the complexity of the issue", and now I cheered when he put Trudeau's feet to the flame
If you don't mind sharing, I'd love to hear some more about what that transition looked like for you. What beliefs changed and why? I only know the broad overview about Trudeau and oil in Canada so I'm interested in those details and the chain of thoughts.
I really relate to that. I’ve recently been trying to learn more about socialism and leftist thought. Prioritizing workers and people in general over profits is a strong belief now. And it’s more important to me than just a more “liberal” version of the status quo.
@@alynames7171 I was around 16-17 at the time and I don't think I honestly had any strong opinions for anything. I saw the world as black-and-white and thought that any attacks levied at this international liberal star was an attack that only benefited Trump was willing to overlook bad things as necessary. Broadly, I think I wanted to return to a time that I really didn't understand; before bloodthirsty populists came to power in the US, and the Philippines, where I lived. Then the changes to perspective came as I started watching Last Week Tonight more often, I started to engage more with the politics here, and I pretty much realized how much of a hell my country and America was even before Duterte and Trump. Now instead of blindly praising Trudeau for "being a good leader", I somehow convinced some of my family to support the leftwing in Canada's last election (lol) and am trying to do the same thing here for the elections next month.
Lol, in an effort to show off how a conversation should go with white people about race and fixing it, Jon Stewart creates a panel that shows off the reality show nature of modern cable news and does the very thing he hates about it. Lord... I hope he figures this shit out quick.
That panel was such a mess. I really feel like it needed a second half with only productive, good faith participants willing to actually engage with the topics without red herrings or equivocation
@@empatheticrambo4890 yeah. Presentation as it stands presents an argument that we must include those in the community even if they are looking to be disruptive and not participate in good faith, and then settle for the, "you're entitled to your opinion" ending at best.
if Jon Stewart or Jon Oliver pointed out that Capitalism is the problem, they'd lose all of their funding in 5 seconds. They'd be put in more controversy than even they - ingrained cornerstones of political comedy - could handle. I've noticed they tiptoe around it a whooole lot, as you've pointed out. There's no way they don't know, there must be some sort of block in saying it. Especially in regards to Jon Oliver, where it's an even more obvious pattern.
Socialism is still a super dirty word, and "socialism is evil" is an insanely ingrained pattern of thought in the average citizen's worldview. People just simply cannot imagine another economic structure working, and obviously the media obviously propagates this line of thought. If the Jons pointed out capitalism, they'd be accused of wanting to spark the revolution - i.e. "inciting violence," which would for suuuure lead to investor backouts, even if it weren't true - they'd be accused of being ridiculous or silly, or just outright being socialist, or communist evildoers.
@@poptraxx418 The source of a government's power is the people's collective decision to allow that government to have power. Largely, the reason the people allow the government to have that power is because they have the most money. That's generally how almost all governments in recorded history have worked. You are rich and therefore people obey you, because it benefits them to do so. Either because you're rich enough to afford soldiers that will kill, rape, and pillage on command, or because you pay them to obey you. None of that changed with modern times. And we're even seeing it now, as individual companies start to rival the economic might of governments, they challenge the authority of governments... and win, often. Capitalism *is* the government. It always has been.
One piece of constructive feedback: I think it would have been good to add one more piece of explanation as to why capitalism concentrates wealth over time, on top of Chomsky's quote. Namely that having wealth allows you to absorb risk, which allows you to make investments that can make you more money over time, whereas poorer people are forced to make false economies, spending less in the short run because they have no option otherwise, but ultimately being costed more in the long run. Capitalism advantages wealthy people in their accrual of wealth, and disadvantages the poor, and that's BEFORE they rig the system with lobbying and union busting and on and on and on...
It's helpful to understand Jon's issue with perspective and framing to zero in on his genuine surprise at the idea that not all people think the way Americans think. So here's a thing - I have encountered many (MANY) Americans of both the baby boomer generation and the following generation x, who are possessed of a strange and curious belief about humanity. Regardless of political leanings (quite a few see themselves as liberals - even progressives), they have grown up conditioned with a phenomenally cynical view of human nature. Often times, they don't even seem to realize just how misanthropic they are towards the human race. This attitude leads them to assume as a bedrock principle that humanity is inherently ONLY competitive, that cooperation and collaboration are only every trained and conditioned, even if admirable goals to be pursued. They believe that babies are essentially born yearning to get cracking on trading futures and tots are eyeing up their rivals in kindergarten to find the weak marks and begin selling them product and capturing their labor. I think that this ultra cynical and toxic viewpoint has been reinforced by a combination of predatory capitalism as a culture, and the later half of the 20th century in the context of the cold war. Americans particularly lived with a culture of creepy nihilism - a doomsday belief that nuclear war and the end of the world loomed just over the horizon. There was no hope, no future, and only the mad rush towards "power" and the acquisition of status and wealth were real. Own enough land, with a deep enough basement, to hide out the end of the world. There is a reason why Americans are obsessed with nihilistic apocalyptic fiction and particularly zombies. (Playing out the subconscious fear that their own fellow citizens are just brain-eating cannibals waiting to descend upon them. Finally, a morally defensible excuse to shoot them all.) Finally, this cynicism is mixed in with the narcissistic American tendency to view itself as the cap on top of human progress - the leader of the world, center of humanity, and the standard against which everyone else is measured and gauged. It's hard for many Americans, even well-meaning ones, to stop and realize that no - not all of the other 6+ billion people on Earth think like Americans. Or value what Americans do, or have the same beliefs about the nature of life, and human beings. Even the nice Americans are really fucking arrogant. So we find otherwise perfectly nice folks like Jon who don't realize they're approaching life from a really warped, damaged, crippled mindset and point of view. They have only ever seen through a mirror darkly and have confused the reflection with reality.
So I don’t know where to post this but it feels relevant to this in many ways: Can you did a piece on Severance??? It’s a tv show about capitalism and labour and it’s really good and I feel like it’s right up your alley
![[Live] : ONE 169 วันนี้!! "อนาโตลี vs อูมาร์"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IK3YZVWuFJg/mqdefault.jpg)
I will say, he introduced my centrist liberal mother in law to modern monetary theory. Something that I got nowhere with over years. She works in a high school, and started a discussion among the teachers. Later, she actually had a discussion with me over several things that she thought was ridiculous before. He may be far from perfect, but he does seem to be a bridge from the center for a lit of older voters.
Yeah maybe he's to progressivism what Jordan Peterson is to the Alt Right. Except for way more intelligent and compassionate ;)
@@LC-sc3en that’s an insult to Stewart. Jon has actually done good journalism and activism whereas Peterson wrote a self help book after being famously anti-transgender as he misrepresented a Canadian law.
@@saintsfearful that's a real conundrum, because he's certainly dishonest enough to misrepresent it, while also being enough of an idiot to have misinterpreted it. There's no excusing that he hasn't changed what he said even after it was explained to him though
@@tjmburns what are you talking about?
Modern monetary theory is a scam, a Ponzi scheme.
Learn about sound money and you wouldn’t make that statement.
Your economics classes failed you completely.
"Hes questioning people in power, not power itself" couldn't have said it better man. Great insight
Democrats always do this. Putting brown faces in power is definitely not the answer.
But he does. Talking about how people in power abuse the power is talking about power itself… isn’t it?
Well, Skip should have rephrased it as "He's questioning the people in power in a slightly confrontational way, yet he has never once thought of changing the system that propped up such people."
I feel like he serves as an important middle point. He’s a stepping stone for a lot of people.
@user-en6gs6jr6w yea I wasn't saying this sarcastically
To me, the difference between Stewart and Oliver has always been that Oliver knows he can’t get away with arguing against capitalism directly, Stewart wouldn’t even think to do that
John Oliver claims that "Europe" criticises the US military, but that in actuality, "it" is glad that the US protects "Europe". It's not clear what or whom *he* means by "Europe", but it's mostly regular people who hate how the US behaves on the world stage, and not European politicians or European media.
John Oliver is pro-military to the point that he cares about vets and even decided to marry and have children with one. He jokes about how he can't say that he had a hard day at work because it sounds ridiculous given what his wife has done/does. You can't be that pro-US military and at the same time honestly against capitalism.
@@camelopardalis84 Pro-veteran is not even in the same league as pro-military. The US military couldn't give less of a shit about veterans. Pro-veteran positions are markedly leftwing as they usually accompany support for low-income housing and other social assistance programs, decreasing homelessness, funding more effective drug rehabilitation programs, and mental health awareness. Also, veterans are humans just like the rest of us. Most of them are not war criminals and despite the fact they made a poor career choice I don't think we should leave them to terrible fates because of that choice
@@quarkonium3795 In what sense did they make a "poor" career choice? Would you be willing to offer a synonym that's less vague? Not something like "bad" either.
Misinformed would be a good symonym. @@camelopardalis84
@@camelopardalis84 they chose to be part of a fascist death machine what's so hard to understand
he's the embodiment of "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism" or whatever. i think that might be a largely generational issue, but who's to say
Well, in a semi-functioning democracy, that is true. The only way to introduce significant changes to American capitalism is to ignore the majority of voters. That really sucks, but it is the situation.
The most annoying thing is that he insists on somebody somehow producing "free market capitalism". This is like insisting on producing perfect vacuum or frictionless plane in physics. It doesn't exist, it is metaphorical concept used in economics to simplify equations, it can't exist in real world, like you can't get to absolute zero in real world. You can get close to absolute zero and some interesting things happen to matter the closer you get, but you can never actually reach it. And because economics is a social science and not physics, people even disagree what "free marked capitalism" would even look like. The effect is close to going to a hundred priests and asking them to describe as detailed as possible what heaven looks like. You get a hundred different definitions, some more similar to each other, some wildly different. And the more questions you ask, the more different they'll be. Like seemingly innocent question of "Do dogs go to Heaven? What about cats?". The equivalent would be "Should state provide services on the market?" for example.
In short, somebody needs to ask Jon Stewart what he considers to be free market capitalism. And I'll bet you 10.000$ that it is something close to socialism, or social democracy capitalism. Like, some things are considered rights and are not subject to market forces, most things are subject to market. But that is not neoliberal economic theory solution with their "free market will fix everything" thinking approach will ever reach.
There is also a good book called "Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World" which describes that neoliberal way of problem solving, which seeks to make every possible solution "win win, nobody loses" solution, which in practice means "make it profitable for the capital owning classes. If you can't do that, it is not worth to even consider doing it".
@Church of Film 3,c
It's not generational. I'm not much older than the cutoff for millennial but I'm getting tired of these ageist assumptions. Marxist thought being somewhat normalized now did not suddenly come about by the virtue of millennials, it was a long hard road that many people made sacrifices- sometimes extreme ones- for.
@@smithjedediah it's not ageist to identify minor generational trends and speculate that someone's world view might be a product of those trends.
23:04 Jesus Christ, that's such an entitled reaction to a bunch of kids wanting to ask more of their politicians.
Like, even within the context of sincerely believing that the kids’ requests are impossible, and the context that they’re kids, you could at least explain the problem to them, at least partly. Something like “we’ve tried to do {X}, but then {Y} happened” or “in order to do {X}, we need to have 2/3 of congresscritters agree, and too many of them don’t”. Hell, that last one even gives you a chance to shift the blame-hopefully truthfully-to your political opponents.
And if you /can’t/ out-argue a bunch of 8-year-olds, maybe your position needs some reexamination? Like, if an 8-year-old raises questions that you don’t have good answers to, or pokes holes in your argument that you can’t explain, maybe the problem isn’t the 8-year-old’s questions.
@@natbarmore It's been reported on a few times (The New Yorker did a piece on it) that Diane Feinstein is suffering from some degree of dementia, although she denies it. I don't know that she is able for politics or arguments anymore.
IKR. Of all the clips in this video this is the one that still upsets me. If those kids decided to get all Children-of-the-Corn on her ineffectual a$$, I wouldn’t mind.
Probably cause Diane feinstein is a fucking monster, just look up her incident with the Confederate flag
@@natbarmore I'm not convinced she was actually aware that they were kids.
Small but important note, the VA has added many respiratory cancers to the presumptive list for burn pit exposure. I think Stewart should be given credit to bringing light to that issue, and maybe even for pushing change along. That being said I agree with everything in the video. Stewart has an incredibly spotty record for really getting behind positive change, and coddling tons of interview subjects.
he's done alot more then most I think
No no no, because Jon didn't try to solve all of the biggest issues, his efforts are worthless! At least, that's the conclusion this video essay apparently is painting. 🥴
So he's...human??
Well this might not be a teardown of Paw Patrol I been waiting for, but this could be fun to watch
I too am eagerly awaiting the day that Paw Patrol gets its comeuppance!
@@two_owls Yeah those puppies have had it too good for too long.
All dogs are good dogs, unless they're goddamn fascists.
It's so close!
Honestly? A cutesy cop show for babies is the pinnacle of sinister copaganda
When I was a kid I used to laugh at my dad for yelling at the TV. Now I'm 35 and I do the exact same thing. Thanks Skip Intro for making me feel seen.
Now you can yell at people in the internet yay
I used to think it was weird hearing my dad yell all the time and talk to himself. Now I know better, at least I learned how to handle it without seeming crazy.
i start each day by yelling at my tv, for at least an hour. then i turn it on.
Dianne Feinstein bragging about perpetuating the same problems for 30 years is not the flex she seems to think it is, and I only wish one of those sunrise kids could have realized that and called her out on it when she said that.
ye she ded
@@cl8804 Hell yeah!
@@AlphaGarg woooooo
The little kids in the clip shown are reminding Feinstein what democratic government really is -- of the people, by the people, for the people -- because they understand what it is.
Feinstein's response is to tell them no, government is where people like me tell you to butt out 'cause 'I know what I'm doing' -- because she does not understand what it is.
I'm just 2 years younger than Jon Stewart so my experience is somewhat different. I was already a leftist and aware of his limitations, as a liberal, so I never held him up as high as that. A fan, sure, but not where I got my politics from. Even so, he filled a need in the popular discourse at the time.
I'm not sure he does now.
We've come to a point where calling capitalism out by name as the fountainhead of all these "Problems," and its replacement with a fundamentally different way of organizing labor and allocating resources as the necessary precondition for solving them, is no longer completely "out there" talk.
Jon Stewart can best be compared to a slave owner that preaches about how bad slavery is and roasts his fellow slave owners while doing everything he can to keep slavery legal because it makes him rich.
A good suggestion would be Dr Richard Wolff's books based on co-ops and allowing works shares, votes and being on the board of major PLCs based on how they do it in Germany.
@@chinafuture6484 Best? Really? What obvious moral and ethical failing does he regularly uphold that can even reasonably be compared to an enslaver? What is the slavery in your analogy?
Liberals do not have limitations.
@@VittorioLinoLevi not to speak for anyone else, but the analogy would be capitalism. Jon Stewart can't call out capitalism by name because he's done well by it, is the implication.
I think it's overstated but not entirely inaccurate. Someone who benefits from the _status quo_ is unlikely to see it as a problem, or even as a _system_ at all - it's just the natural state of the world and can't possibly be any different. It's not so much a _moral_ failing as a failure of _perspective._
Remember a while back, when John Oliver's show was criticized as "explaining the problems with capitalism while avoiding using the word itself"? Maybe this is a similar case. As I'm aware, Oliver is better about it now than he used to be, maybe Stewart will get better over time too? Hopefully? Guys?
Nah. LWT avoiding using the word just helps emphasize to unaware viewers that thinking critically about an episode would more easily lead to them understanding that the *system* is bad. I think using the word ‘capitalism’ can put a lot of people off to the message but saying ‘money do this bad thing’ can lead to a more open audience (and probably skirt around whatever execs at HBO who might squirm if they felt overtly attacked.)
Added-I try to look at ways that centrist and everyone further right can be pulled away from apathy or hatred to seeing what the left is actually saying. In this case John Oliver would be offering some light counter-programming to get those word-averse people to think about *capitalism bad* without realizing it. Jon Stewart is just giving those same people either validation for centrist thought or fuel to stoke the stupid-fires on the right. Ive seen some right criticisms of LWT that tend to devolve from ‘this is stupid!’ to grumbling about the content because there isn’t as easy a way to extract simple taglines from 20 minute actual deep dives with a lot of nuance and solid research. It’s like they can’t really fight actual facts and logic 👀
I just am amazed that adults who pretend to be rational actors can ever say that capitalism is "just the free market". I'd like to see one example of a truly free market that resulted in the accumulation of capital necessary for capitalism to establish itself. As long as a fungible currency exists and there are private entities entrusted with issuing it there is no free market, just a ready-made formula for oligarchy.
@@donaldbarber3829 could you elaborate for an economics noob like me?
@@johndough6225 Capitalism is a system in which a fungible means of currency [i.e. can be exchanged universally for all products and services] allows those with sufficient quantities to acquire on demand the requirements to generate wealth most notably labor, land and large scale means of production. There can be no formal limits on the ability of an owner to accumulate and consolidate this currency, and it will be issued by entities with a monopoly on its production, which means they essentially function as gatekeepers.
For people who aren't majority holders of wealth to maximize the utility of their own capital, they must combine it with other people's capital and entrust it to someone who in turn will likely entrust it to someone else, lessening the control each individual has over its use in exchange for increasing the leveraging power and reducing individual responsibility.
This disbursement and consolidation is also known as investment. A free market without this feature is more reminiscent of a swap meet or a flea market.
It's hard for a successful person to be critical of capitalism because in their minds the system worked because it recognised their greatness.
If he was working class Jon would find it easier to be critical of the whole system.
Jon Stewart is an enemy of the working class. He always has been.
Yes
Have y’all watched him or is this just projection
@@Kevin-zf9jh Right. I don't understand the takedown here...
@@Kevin-zf9jh i watched him, but one episode a week i didn't notice the pattern
The fact that Jim Cramer still has a job after *"Roll 212!"* says all there is to say about the effectiveness of "truth to power"
"Truth to power" means nothing when those in power can effectively dictate what the truth is.
Right, its just entertainment. No effect.
Love that guy. Just invested in the reverse Cramer etf
@@hugegamer5988 idk what that is but from context I'm guessing it does the opposite of what Cramer recommends?
@@dwc1964 supposedly. And it’s up.
A little over 15 years ago I started my own business thinking I would make some positive changes in my industry. After about 8 years I eventually gave up because I realized running me successful business was more about setting your morals aside and chasing money than about creating great products and services. I just re-entered the workforce, found a job that I somewhat enjoyed and chased the money. I'm doing quite well now. I can't really say that what I do makes much of an impact on the world though. It's pretty sad.
Can you tell me more about your industry, and what kind of moral compromises you had to make (or would have had to make) to succeed in it?
@@hankbarcelona7314 I built custom software for other companies. Basically the companies that make it have great sales people who sell very little for a lot of money and then hand it off to a team of low pay people who do a crap job on the project and they bill a hell of a lot of money for it. Essentially you have to hire people who schmooze and get in the door at the top of a company and get a contract because of who they know rather than what they can do. Near the end I spent a lot of money getting sales training from a company that does nothing but train sales people and they taught me a lot of good things (if you want to make a lot of money and don't care how you do it) but essentially it boiled down to make the decision maker feel good about spending money and that's the only thing that mattered. I have worked at several companies that brought in external software companies that had garbage software and we we're forced to spend millions and millions of dollars trying to get their crap to work when we knew we could build it for a fraction of the price but when we voiced our observations we were basically told to shut up and sit down and do what we're told because the director who's sleeping with the person and the other company told us to (yes that actually happened once).
Hey welcome to adulthood!
@@User71956 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@User71956 ah yes wanting better is such a bad thing🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤡
To be fair, with his work to help 9/11 first responders and his work holding media and political figures’ accountable more than they had previously in a format accessible to young people (introducing a level of critical thinking that has been developed upon since to a mass American audience), Stewart has made a more valuable contribution to society than the majority of media celebrities.
But he’s an old millionaire now and he has the same approach to societal problems and the same level of effectiveness as Bono.
Jon Stewart has never held any one truly accountable because he doesn't have the power to do so. He just offered fake leftists lip service and got rich doing it. Jon has always been an enemy of the working class, just look what he did to destroy OWS, the first socialist movement in the US in over 70 years.
Virtue signalling is a common tactic for narcissists and their enablers.
I think that there’s a disconnect between what Stewart MEANS by free market capitalism and what the reality of that system actually is. When he pines for free markets, I think he’s thinking of “the free market of ideas”. That if a majority of Americans want a thing, then it means the market has spoken, and we need to get corporations to fall in line. But clearly the actual financial markets are completely disconnected from cultural zeitgeist.
I don't think it's that, I think he is looking at regulatory capture as being the big issue.
No, he's talking about libertarian style laissez-faire capitalism, as opposed to the corporate crony capitalism that's taken over in the last seventy years or so in the US. Basically, he's like John Stossel but with progressive social views.
If you take one, honest look at the "free market of ideas", anyone interested in critical examination would find its flaws. The world simply doesn't, and has never, worked that way.
@@crimsonmask3819 laissez-faire capitalism is just crony capitalism with no regulations. "guys image how much better things would be if wallstreet was even less regulated"
"We must allow our oil overlords to own our future in advance if want them to let us have one at all"" is a pretty fucked up take lol.
The thing I'm seeing isn't so much that Jon doesn't know what capitalism is, so much as he is very clearly operating on the definition of "capitalism" that conservatives and neoliberals use.
Some people think that the Free in Free market means a market free from government regulation. Or that state that results from a market free of meaningful government regulation.
But I was taught that the free in free market means every actor has equal opportunity to act and access resources, products and services, and reach customers without unequal interference from any entity government or from other independent actors within the market.
I was taught that capitalism unregulated eats itself because with the profit incentive being the strongest driver, the concentration of wealth and power in any handful of actors will lead them to enact barriers or obstacles in the market for potential competitors (through private anticompetative actions or using their power to get anti competitive legislation which makes it harder for competitors to start) Which makes the market less free.
So in order to have a truly free market the government must be a regulatory force which both limits the amount of power any one group or entity can obtain and enforce rules that keep the market as fair as possible to prevent anyone from having an unfair advantage. This can even be taken as far as advocating for social safety nets to help lessen the risk of starting one's own venture for those who are not independently wealthy.
That is to say the definition of free market I learned necessitates high taxes, government regulation and strong social welfare programs.
I haven't watched the show so I don't know if this is the fundamental misunderstanding going on when Jon says "what we have isn't a free market". Because from my learning it is not what we have is a captured market.
Good point. My thought here is "imagine a leftist going after JON FUCKING STEWART of all people, someone who has done far more for progressive causes than all lefty video essayists have ever done, combined."
Yeah, I'm looking forward to seeing of the creator understands capitalism. Long video but we'll see.
@@LC-sc3en The Free Market is literally an impossible ideological dream. It can't be achieved. Our entire society revolved around capital and its owners, they have the power. The government may eventually break their power, as they did with the anti-trust laws against the first American monopolies... but the owning class will always claw it back. Why perpetuate this system of inequality?
@@LC-sc3enthere's the problem. When you say "I was taught", taught by who? A wrong teacher results in many wrong students.
A free market is just that. Free from intervention.
For example, I don't ever buy the cheapest tools. If it's cheap it's 💩 and I stay away from it. Sure there's a Market for cheap tools, but there's a bigger market for QUALITY tools that come at higher prices.
The market has decided there's a place for cheap tools AND premium tools and they coexist.
Intervention is things like the government demanding that ALL vehicles have airbags. Even if you're buying that brand new truck just to haul hay trailers from the field to the barn at 15 mph, you gotta support the airbag manufacturer.
Only after vehicle customers were FORCED to support the airbag manufacturer did they have the ability to stop producing a quality product that stood up to customer scrutiny and they started the cost cutting that made them all faulty causing shrapnel injuries to the drivers
I feel like Jon Stewart is trapped in the time period when most Americans would've gotten most of their news through other Americans on TV. I'm Canadian, and I used to watch The Daily Show at its peak for fun, but I always felt some form of disconnect because his opinions were so heavily based on the U.S. being so fundamentally unchangeable. Meanwhile, I lived a mere 30-minute-drive away from the U.S.-Canada border, and, just for being born in that lucky position, I got universal healthcare. Of course, Canada isn't anywhere close to perfect, but having that outsider perspective made Stewart's limited takes always feel primarily defined by whatever other (usually pro-status-quo) American sources fed him and his writing team.
Now, through the internet connecting entire populations across borders so easily, the bubble has popped, and Americans who once would've be in Jon Stewart's target audience can so easily compare and contrast themselves to other systems.
This is why Gen X (and however many boomers are left) is so pro status-quo. They are stuck in their bubbles.
I'm honestly getting frustrating how many times I have proven to my mother that she believes things based on her emotions by bringing irrefutable facts that contradict her stance. She regularly concedes she was wrong. And yet time and time again she falls right back into her logical fallacies, despite having been demonstrated repeatedly that simply looking up the facts of the matter would contradict her assumptions on the matter.
It's the definition of willful ignorance.
Yeah, the moment you make one international friend online tends to be the moment you figure out how limited a lot of the stuff Jon says really is
Oh, you're Canadian? No one cares about your opinion then.
@@ZachJ-0 You can't fix stupid.
For TDS talking around the status quo was the perfect gimmick-newscasters reporting the news but with sarcastic commentary to contrast the inevitability that you are doing the establishment’s work. This new show is spectacularly unaware of why Jon Stewart flourished. He had great news commentary but as someone doing a themed episode show focussing on issues? Jon, your centrist is showing.
What I find so frustrating about Stewart is that his outdated, incomplete view of the modern world invalidates what I would argue is a genuine and impressive amount of compassion, intelligence, and sense of duty. Stewart, more than nearly anyone of his generation, seems to truly care about marginalized individuals and the problems that affect them, which led to a strict adherence to incrementalism. As you stated in the video, incrementalism has its place and is arguably more effective in forging immediate responses for people who can't wait, and Stewart's successful lobbying for first responders likely solidified this as the most effective, valid approach to problem-solving to him. His consistent skepticism towards big ideas and "re-training" stems from a pessimism towards pie-in-the-sky social revolution that eats into time and effort he could spend on tackling individual symptoms of systemic rot. This limited framing compels him away from even the causes he's directly advocated for, such as free universal healthcare and demilitarization.
His refreshingly earnest perspective on racism gives me hope that he's aware of his potential biases and surrounding himself with smart, diverse people who can steer him into more directly addressing capitalism - and consequently recognizing the absurdity of moving America towards free-market capitalism instead of a mixed-market interpretation - but there's also nothing invalid with him staying focused on exposing individual issues that need immediate attention. His show (perhaps by design) demands a higher degree of critical and independent thinking because - unlike Last Week Tonight - Stewart insists on letting the other side present its argument regardless of its absurdity. The Problem expects you to know that the CEO of Shell is going to downplay the realities of climate change and champion the easiest potential solutions, whereas LWT carefully crafts a narrative around its issue, its fallacies, and how to get involved. It's essentially "The Problem with Jon Stewart" vs "The Solution with John Oliver", a lecture vs. an open forum.
The problem with the "left" is acting as if he's the enemy. Obviously he is an ally, and with the platform he has... the "left" should be promoting left wing ideas.
@@nickf7313 Progressives do have a certain predilection for "purity tests" i.e. anyone to the right of Democratic Socialist need not apply. Rather than recognizing the concerns and sympathies they have in common with Social Democrats and Liberals, Progressives are quick to label outsiders as "lost causes" when they aren't fantasizing about guillotines or powering the entire manufacturing industry with solar panels.
As someone who aligns firmly in the left, it's deeply frustrating how poorly our platform is presented to others. The alt-right, by contrast, doesn't have this bad habit. They welcome anyone remotely conservative into their ranks and quickly get to work indoctrinating them into their worst belief systems.
The only thing Stewart ever cared about was his bank account. He's the "leftist" version of Tucker Carlson. Neither of them believe what they're saying and only say it to make more money. Evidence of this is shown when Jon did everything he could to destroy the OWS movement. Jon is rich and he doesn't care about the working class. Pointing out legitimate problems doesn't make a person virtuous. Jon is literally someone standing on the shore pointing out that someone is drowning while doing nothing to help them and actively stopping anyone else that tries.
@@chinafuture6484 So you think Stewart retired to purchase and run an animal hospitality farm because it was the best thing for his bank account? Is that also why he dedicated several years of his life lobbying with first responders? If so, the dude should at least be commended for finding such unusual angles to diversify his investment portfolio.
@@siphillis That farm and what Jon has done for the first responders does absolutely nothing to fix the root of the problem and he knows it. He's just a rich guy doing as he pleases. He is not your ally no matter how hard you simp for him.
Jon Stewart seems like the kind of person, who if he sees this, might actually do some introspection.
I pray he does. He's a tour de force, but everything you've said in these videos is spot on. And I'm a huge fan of Stewart's.
Please keep it up. Maybe he'll invite you for a panel some day.
Jon is rich, he's not your ally. Remember, he did everything in his power to crush the OWS movement. Stewart got rich telling fake libs what they want to hear, he will never give up his wealth because he doesn't believe in class equality.
The left continues to eat their own😂. This video is proof there is no willingness from the left to meet in the middle or do anything other than virtue signal. Maybe take a look at liquid natural gas and how it could drastically lower both US and international emissions. Of course it’s an evil fossil fuel so you don’t want to admit the truth, it is a better answer than solar or wind will ever be. No to nuclear, no to hydroelectric, both means of tremendous environmental improvement but the left doesn’t wanna hear that. So disappointing.
@@nonyajones4484 Jon isn't a leftists. If you had any critical thinking skills you'd realize that. I'd be surprised if you can even dress yourself without help in the morning after reading a comment like that.
@@chinafuture6484 I seriously question your own critical thinking skills after your own comment if thats how you react to someone saying, "hey, he might be smart enough to change".
@@casteanpreswyn7528 You're talking opinions, what ifs, and maybes. I'm laying down facts.
I would agree that a capitalist market labeling itself "free" is just pr and branding.
Totally
If only Bill O'Reilly was in charge, then we'd have no spin in The No Spin Zone™, brought to you by the small independent business known as FOX News®.
never seen anything quite as relatable as yelling "THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS IN A FOR-PROFIT MEDIA ENVIRONMENT!!!" at the tv
My worry about advocating for small changes WITHIN capitalism is that we'll fall into the same trap as we did with recycling. We'll make small, cosmetic changes which, yes, would help (a little, in the short term). But then we'll feel better, reassured about the situation and simply go back to our busy lives and lose the momentum needed to make larger systemic changes.
I'm trying to think of an issue where we've made definitive progress with small changes. I guess LGBTQ+ rights is the one that immediately comes to mind, but those rights are still tenuous. Even where I live, in Canada. (Super worried about the trans, intersex and non binary communities in the USA.) Bigoted government come with their own opinions on whether we should have rights or not, and it's a never ending cycle of spiking stress and vigilance. It fucking sucks to live with. So yeah, I'd rather put what energy I have left on working for systemic changes. Because while they are harder to implement, once the system has change, it should also be harder for anyone who wants to roll back to the old broken systems.
The problem with the small changes we have made in the past is that they have not been part of a long term incremental plan that is committed to and very difficult to back out of.
Incrementally is sometimes the only way you can make big changes due to the nature of scale of the systems that need to be changed (of course this doesn't apply to things like rights or freedoms or new subsidies). But in order to be part of an actual solution they have to be part of a multi phase plan that will get us to the ultimate goal within a reasonable period of time. The order of steps, goals, metrics for measuring success, and consequences or resultant actions for failing have to be well defined.
We don't do this very often outside of war adjacent things. We start down a road, forget about it, or forget why we were doing the thing in the first place and say "hey I've never seen measles kill or disable anyone or their child so it isn't super important that the government require anyone's kids be vaccinated so I declare freedom and personal choice the more important issue.
The problem with that thinking is there is a reason why we are in this predicament. Democrats have not been given full power in this country... There has a long decline to the right in the United States and no amount of pretending it doesn't exist will fix this country. The reason centrist are the way they are is because of repeated Republican victories. This idea to just blame the Democrats and ignore the republicans is why we are losing. What you want is a revolution if you say other wise it's a lie. Republicans will never give up the wins they have obtained without a fight and they have galvanized their people to the point we could have a mass shooting manifesto spewing guy everyday. I'm fine with a revolution but I'm not fine with losing... The history of America will not end with me cause the future of America doesn't care to do the work. The fact you believe our best chance at winning a revolution would be to face the republican party is silly.
What's crazy is we have historical proof which approaches work and which don't.
Remember the Ozone hole? The solution to that came in the form of the Montreal protocol. It wasn't "let's encourage consumers to use cfc:s sparingly" or "the business side is the best to develop new, less-polluting chemicals".
We saw a problem, identified the solution, and connected the two. Everything else was gaslighting.
Small changes won't solve the problem. The day the USSR fell, all the so-called "reformist social democrats" embraced neoliberalism, because if now you don't provide people shelter and bread, guess what, they can't call fucking Moscow! Just look how Bernie, Corbyn and Melenchon was defeated by the "reformist" systems. And all you need to rest all the reforms are dickheads like Thatcher or Regan in power, and they will eventually come because the Capital vehemently supports them! Incremental changes can bring only two things Neoliberalism and Fascism!
this is a large part of the reasons why reform does not work. We need revolution
Really makes you appreciate the teams of writers, researchers, and editors that backed Stewert and still back Oliver.
I was so excited to see Jon Stewart return. I realized something wasn’t right during a behind the scenes video. A writer causally said “everything is racist,” and Jon interrupted with “but if everything is racist, then nothing is racist!”
I realized at that point that Jon Stewart probably hasn’t kept up with a lot of the theory behind left wing ideas of systems and injustices, and might not be the source I need to look to anymore. I don’t think he understood even after the writer quickly explained how white supremacy touches so much of our systems and history that it’s everywhere.
He’s probably something like the traditional liberal/centrist, whereas I’m now more of a leftist. I think that’s pretty clear as well in terms of his commitment to dialogue and conversation, even extending to his toleration of misinformation sources like Joe Rogan (see his podcast).
I’m still very grateful for Jon Stewart. His liberal, near centrist position is moral and passionate. It was a gateway for me out of conservative politics. And he’s right to wish for dialogue & honesty instead of corruption and political theater. I’m just looking for more now.
Jon was literally never a leftist. Just like people like Tucker Carlson aren't actually conservatives. They're all grifters who got rich telling their target audience what they want to hear. Don't forget, Jon Stewart helped destroy OWS, the first socialist movement in the US in decades. Jon is not an ally of the working class and never will be.
A friend told me, "To me, you're a leftist if you're anti capitalist", generally speaking. Capitalism is right wing as neoliberalism is also right wing. Congratulations on moving leftwards in order to deconstruct a lot about society and economic impact. Thing is, I still hold this idea that it takes work to continue on this path that puts up a lot of resistance.
Also, Jon probably can't be moved more leftward than he already is because he's probably getting lucrative deals from said capitalists. Just a theory. A game theory.
@@chinafuture6484 I’m only recently learning about leftist thought, so some of my ignorance is probably showing in my comment
I didn’t think of it that way, thanks for pointing that dynamic out
@@BleedForTheWorld yeah, I don’t understand much yet about leftist thought but I do know that capitalism is inherently exploitative and we need something different
There’s still part of me that’s not all the way there yet, but I’m definitely against the ways capitalism leads to exploitation, even if I don’t understand all the theory. Still not sure how to answer my friends who say it’s not that capitalism is bad, it’s that bad actors exploit people for profit
I work the late shift on Tuesdays so when I got home that election night, it was already over - but I'd been stuck at work & didn't know the result. But I'd put *Stephen Colbert's 2016 election night show* on DVR and decided to watch it from the beginning, with no spoilers, but much faster because skipping ads. *That* was an experience, that encapsulated the entire arc from smug certainty to _oh shit what's happening_ just perfectly.
I was there in the audience. The vibe was palpable
I enjoyed Trump getting elected too. Sadly I had no idea what a fucking catastrophe an unrelenting narcissist would be in a position of power. I figured he couldn't be any worse than the rest of them. But hey, turns out, being owned by somebody is often the only thing that restrains them.
Something I've noticed about American discourse about capitalism is that capitalism is simultaneously broad and all encompassing, and so impossibly narrow that any small deviation from the societal status quo is no longer capitalism. That single payer healthcare and environmental regulations, and even unions mean living in a socialist system, and in the same breath ending capitalism means a world with literally no currency, monetary exchange, property or materialism whatsoever. That capitalism only describes a hyper specific scenario of l'aissez faire totally deregulated markets and *also* means any system whatsoever where currency and property and even exchange exists.
It's as though capitalism is thought of by some as both a specific economic system and the very existence any economy itself.
This really indicates more about purity politics than understanding the strange/rare position Stewart occupied and what he did with that opportunity. It disappointing. The meta importance of Stewart isn’t that he didn’t go hard enough on condaliza rice or call out so and so politician; it’s that he was a late night comedian, a late night news show; and with basically zero expectations from a comedic show that rounds up the news in a half hour on a secondary cable channel, he executed that show with such soul and honesty that he became one of the most trusted voices in media. As a comedian! He wasn’t a journalist. He wasn’t an interviewer or some position of trust and respect ; his job was to tell dick jokes and make the news funny. What makes Stewart important and legendary isn’t that his every opinion was right, or that he exposed someone or whatever; it’s that he had a small position of power, and even though there was ABSOLUTELY NO expectation of him using it responsibly, he did. He took something meaningless and made it meaningful, engaging people otherwise engaged and bringing to light issues that had been swept under the rug. Individual viewpoint in that context are less important, because it’s about the context more than him as a person.
More than 1 thing can be true at the same time.
i think you would benefit from watching the first vid on jon stewart he does adress these points you’re bringing up
I appreciate this comment. As someone who doesn’t share a similar viewpoint as the creator of this video, Jon Stewart has introduced me to major concepts derived from compassion towards marginalized communities. He bridges a gap towards maybe more republican minded people by not condescending or claiming moral superiority. And while I’m certain there’s merit in some people having strong views about the ineptitude of Jon Stewart’s bases, I don’t think that merit lies at the end of every segment where Skip Intro puts his hand on his head and jokes sincerely about how Jon is idiotically not anti capitalist enough. Rather, the merit lay in the well produced, intelligently narrated explanations of the earnest and agreeable outlook he posits.
Even if you think he doesn’t go far enough
Thank you dude. There’s a really good interview with him & Chris Wallace from back in the day where he talks about this & where he explains how his voice became a trusted voice & how its actually fucking ridiculous that people trust him because their interest in him isn’t because he’s some super politician for the people.. but it’s because of the abject failure of the mainstream media & the establishment in general that has pushed the American people to him & because he has no reason to lie & because he has no skin in the game (in terms of him needing to appeal to the people or to gain said trust) his voice became one that the American people wanted to hear & sought out. So I think it’s so fucken stupid when ppl criticize him as if he’s a politician & as if he has some kind of obligation to the American people to be someone or something other than what he is… a comedian. He’s the reason that I started caring about politics. He’s the reason why I started voting. He’s the reason why I started paying attention & standing up for my beliefs. He’s the reason why I stopped trusting the media. He’s the reason why I don’t subscribe to either party (I am not a centrist though) & he’s the reason why I learned that I don’t have to agree with everything the left does & I don’t have to blindly support them just because they’re not the right. So ppl can say whatever they want about him & talk as much shit as they want about him but at the end of the day he still has one of the most important voices on the left & he has helped sooooo many people, especially young people open their eyes to the truth about this country & has inspired them to pay attention to wtf is going on & how we are being fucked everyday by both the left & the right.
@@lefty3128 I absolutely hate that argument “well he’s not anti capitalist enough” “well he’s not ________ enough!” “Well he’s not doing enough!” ……. But he’s a comedian who has done MORE than enough & continues to speak out about important issues, issues that don’t even have a personal effect on him.. he continues to give voices to marginalized communities, he continues to educate & inspire young ppl to get involved in politics & to start giving a fuck about important issues. He has used his fame & voice in order to not only educate the American people but to also shed light on some hard topics that makes it all a little bit easier to cope with.. ya know? I just hate stupid ass people who look at what isn’t being done rather than what is.. but then at the same time they don’t hold that same energy towards our ACTUAL government or the ACTUAL politicians or the ACTUAL people in power & instead they waste their time bitching about comedian/political commentators instead of shedding light on more important topics… one could say his critics that use this same argument are also…. NOT DOING ENOUGH! Lol.
I do feel like it's giving people a bit too much credit to expect that they'll arrive at the anti-capitalist conclusions on their own after watching Jon Stewart. Some of them will, sure, but most people are going to need a little bit more nudging to consider questioning the entire status quo. And unfortunately most of them won't see any of the more progressive or left-leaning shows that were inspired by Jon Stewart.
It's very easy to assume that other people will see the same things we do, because it seems so obvious what the next step is, but I've realised that this is not something you can ever rely on. I've been exposed to a lot of leftist ideas so it's a natural instinct for me to question capitalism, but a looot of people still don't have that context. A looot of people don't know what capitalism even means, they sort of just assume it means the concept of economy or literally any form of trade, and they think that capitalism is part of human nature and is an inherent part of civilisation itself. That's just how it's presented in the media and in schools and so on and so forth, especially in the US from what I can tell, and it's hard not to learn that mindset if that's the only one you ever see, if even the "leftists" (read: liberals) accept that framework.
So people DO need someone to say it a bit more directly before they can do their own work. Doesn't necessarily have to be super in depth or anything, but at least they have to be pointed in the right direction before they can even know where to look for more information to make their decisions.
I mean that said I do think that we are making progress on this front, it's just that I don't think it's "not giving Jon Stewart enough credit" to say he's kinda outlived his relevance and doesn't have much to add to the conversation anymore, and at worst provides a distraction from systemic issues. It really does feel like we kinda just don't need his input anymore, not that there's better shows out there that could use that attention instead.
Capitalism works better than whatever dream scenario you have set up in your head.
@@DSPHistoricalSociety
capitalism is one of the most efficient systems ever designed by human beings for rendering the planet as we know it uninhabitable and causing a loss of biodiversity equivalent to the event that killed the dinosaurs.
Its based on the genocidal destruction and mass murder of third world liberation movements in living memory to keep them economically subservient on the imperial core
the us itself has the worlds largest prison population, over 22% of worlds incarceration population (use is 4.25% of worlds population
people in the us die because they can;t afford insulin every day
us had worse child malnutrition rates than Vietnam and Cuba, has lower infant mortality and similar life expectancy than Cuba.
Read the Jakarta Method, 6th extinction, and the new Jim Crow.
@@chriss780 Naw I'm good. I was born in the US
@@DSPHistoricalSociety cool, makes sense as anticommunist state indoctrination was intense in the us for some 100 years, as it was communisms arch enemy
@@chriss780 Communism didn't last for 100 year rip
Honest Jon Stewart’s conflation between human nature and capitalism feels almost nihilistic. It’s like he doesn’t believe we can create a new system and have to work with what we got even though what we’ve got is shit. I definitely agree I admire his attempts to find solutions but it’s still missing pieces of the equation..
I think that's exactly what he believes.
But Jon's thinking makes sense; there is no country around that does not have a form of capitalism. We have been down the roads of socialism, communism, feudalism, etc., many times throughout history. What we need to do is expand the welfare state, much like they have done in Europe, but keep ideas that Americans love, i.e., you pay into Social Security and Medicare, through working.
@@drewengel7073 except it doesn't and you're wrong. Vietnam and Cuba are both states that don't use capitalism within themselves, and don't forget every other state that doesn't has been intentionally destroyed by those who do, just look at Catalonia.
@@drewengel7073 you cant reform a system that is inherently built on exploiting someone else. Products in industrial countries arent cheap for no reason, since most of the production sites are poverty striken countries cause the labour is cheap. also alot of the richest countries in europe were directly profiting of imperialism and can ride out on that or they have a ton of oil like norway
@@casteanpreswyn7528 Vietnam has a form of capitalism so does Cuba
Interestingly enough, we were asked to create a rehabilitation strategy for Shell in Nigeria in our political communications class and that was the moment I realized I will never go into pr or politics
PS thx for your videos, they are always very easy to understand and entertaining to watch and I don't want them to end!
Props to you for having a soul. Next time go one step farther and document the experience, but those fuckers on blast. If you can. I mean, take care of your safety, then do what you can for the world.
@@gsgaming6976 A lot of the Southern hemisphere countries are in terrible situations from deals with greedy corporations. Look into what Nestle or Coca Cola are up to there.
@@michaeladkins6 Preaching to the choir.
PR and advertising make me sick, dude. I agree with the concept of “Create a message that communicates a product to people who will actually want it. You’re just connecting a product to people and will help them” but that goes wayyyyy too far and ends up in manipulation
30:36 'We can't fire this cop just because we wanna keep people safe.' aghast - I don't know what to say to that
Would be nice if someone in that group had told Fienstein that she obviously doesn't know what she's doing since she's been failing for those 30 years. Or that she hasn't been doing the right thing for those 30 years.
Jon Stewart is a living embodiment of Mark Fisher's notion of capitalist realism. His political imagination and analysis seem very limited.
"This can't be real capitalism because it's not a Utopia like the capitalist propagandists told me capitalism is."
It's as stupid as insisting the pickup truck you bought isn't a "real" Chevy because it's not remotely "Built Like A Rock."
Solid as a rock!
It's funny because capitalists are always making fun of us for saying "it's not real communism" while doing the same thing.
@@saucevc8353 true but let's not pretend their isn't a direct link between market freedom and prosperity
@@Dan16673 prosperity for whom?
I always kind of thought that the point was to show that the free market is an illusion and that moving towards it would just make things worse. Maybe I was just projecting my own readings onto that a bit, now I am not so sure...
Agree with everything in the video so far with one exception. I'm currently studying economics at Berkeley and many extremely loud voices (Nobel prize winners even) absolutely are saying every country needs to slash emissions no matter how developed they are. It is a real issue that the US and other imperial core countries have been able to use so much of the carbon emission budget to develop themselves while poor countries are just expected to accept a less developed economy or pioneer a new, less emissions intensive path. There are a lot who want to kick away the ladder, so to speak. It's not just about transitioning to net zero, it's about how we have a just transition which doesn't screw over poor countries specifically (like we always have). Tons of people who are, rightly, concerned with the climate are ignoring this issue. Stewart is right that we need to have a better answer for developing countries. For example, we have waited too long and been too inactive to solve climate change without China, for instance, massively cutting its emissions. This is unfair. Developing countries are now unfortunately required to use far less emissions than the west has used to become rich. We've waited too long to avoid this, but we do have to call out how fucked up it is.
Edit: Sorry if this is rambling. I'm lying in-bed with covid and feel like shit lol.
Then endorse nuclear
@@Dan16673 Nuclear is awesome.
@@samquattrociocchi4427 my man!
We shouldn't turn up our nose at nuclear for the sake of it, but it's important to note that renewables are easier to roll out in terms of speed and cost, and their costs are to this day still dropping, while the cost of nuclear plateaued a decade ago.
There's an interesting paper by an Oxford research group which goes into this in more details
"Empirically grounded technology forecasts and the
energy transition"
By Rupert Way et al
Oddly, I credit a lot of my radicalization to Noam Chomsky being on The Daily Show, then going down a rabbit hole of old Chomsky videos and writing while working at a shitty retail job, but he's definitely a capitalism realist.
Oh so your pro russian invading ukraine?
@@AL-lh2ht Dude, what?
The worst thing about liberals AND conservatives in this country is the conservatives force me to be on the same team with the liberals.
Edit: no, the worst thing about conservatives is the whole “stanning for fascism” thing. But I’m not crazy about the other thing.
I think the worst part about it is more the fact that both sides hate each other, despite the fact that the leaders we end up electing are a lot more similar than we like to admit regardless of party
@@gameb9oy the leaders only look the same if you have no investment in who wins. For a lot of people who wins us the difference between a situation being stable or even better or devolving into something way worse
@@coldfrost3 It really doesn't matter whom won because what gameb9oy said is right. We NEVER had been stable it simply got worse in 3D plane. America been in some sort of war since WW1 IF I really want to deep cut since the civil war. No pres made it better and only one that kinda did JFK they popped him. Nothing got better, what you did Obama and Biden did better than W. Bush and that man?...
@@coldfrost3 you tell him buddy.
@@gameb9oy both sides are the same and if you don’t think so you’re a racist right wing centrist nazi
1:01:46 - "Sell the houses to who, Ben?! Fucking Aquaman?!"
Depending on what kind of people want to buy a house and where exactly, beachside property that is threatened by climate change still sells well. There's a Potholer54 video that touches on that. (The second to last posted; three months ago.)
Just to be clear: Neither he nor I are climate change deniers of any sort.
Virtually all problems Stewart discusses lead back to capitalism at the core. Yet he doesn’t seem to get that.
Because Jon loves capitalism. It made him rich. He doesn't care about the rest of you, only his money. And he makes money telling fake libs what they want to hear.
Capitalism isn’t the issue. It’s unregulated capitalism
The SEC fails to regulate Wall Street and the stock market, the Fed prints trillions and blames inflation on Russia, Congress is still getting lobbied & insider trading in 2022
And the Department of Justice does the bare minimum to stop all of that
Because at the end of the day he is the beneficiary of the system. The guy is a millionaire
@@callofdutywii1 Capitalism can't be regulated because economic power is political power.
@@liamtahaney713 It can be regulated. It’s not easy given the US’s current state but it’s possible.
Enforcement of the law regardless of economic status and transparency of how those in power conduct their work is a great start.
I grew up among aspiring comedians in Los Angeles of the 1970's. Here is what I have to say about Jon Stewart. He has managed to do anything at all with his opportunity, and such opportunities are rarer than hen's teeth. If he gets a drop of quality out of it, he's doing better than most. I spent my adult years as an executive in a software firm. Jon Stewart gets capitalism to a very great degree. What he doesn't 'bother' to do is the exposition to this, where we learn which way is up and which is down. From our skewed perspective in a heavily propagandized reality tunnel, there is much to learn before we can even recognize the truth. Also, people have been trained to expect big drama from a story (Stewart talks about this a lot) and yet our reality tends to change incrementally. There won't be a climate macho boss battle with tsunamis of sharks battering down our cities. No, not like that. Think of it like this. Every gallon of gasoline you burn is stolen from the future, and they NEED it.
Jon Stewart isn't perfect, but he's not bad. Like other people have pointed out, he is a good start. He's the André Rieu of progressives, a gateway drug into the really good stuff.
Agreed! I honestly think that is an issue in progressivism. We have very few good gateway progressives while there are a ton of gateway conservatives.
Oh *PLEASE* tell me what the "good stuff" is
@@DSPHistoricalSociety David Graeber
How is Jon Stewart a good start? He's not a true progressive any more than Tucker Carlson is a true conservative. They're grifters. They tell their audiences what they want to hear so they can get rich. Jon is an enemy of the working class and always will be. He went out of his way to derail OWS because he doesn't believe in class equality.
@@chinafuture6484 Whatever you say sing song ding dong- _China Future_ 😂🤣 China has no future other than stealing tech breakthroughs from the west. Way to like your own comment, clearly the Chinese way
So glad you gave props to John Oliver. I saw a late towards him in part 1 and it blows my mind. He's gotten more left as time goes on and is the perfect gateway to the left
John Oliver? The deeply anglo-centric imperialist is your version of left?
COINTELPRO & McCarthyism have permanently damaged the brains of Americans.
After we've heated the planet up and melted all of the ice sheets in this half of the 21st century, we can just build really big freezers (plugged into the oil-guzzling electricity grid yum yum) and make new ice sheets. Idk why people think that that's unreasonable? #problem #solved (/s)
I'm sad you had to put /s on that, but I know it's all too necessary
As someone in the climate science space, I was really frustrated with Stewart's episode on climate change. The people he had on his panel were experts on paper only, and said some truly wrong things. The Shell CEO was allowed to tell numerous lies that were not corrected nor held accountable. And Stewart's idea for dealing with climate change ignores just about everything we already know about fixing the problem. It was a very concrete example for me of why Stewart isn't the right guy for that role anymore (and probably never was). And I'm sure for others familiar with his other topics/takes, they've felt this too.
As a climate science peer of yours, I felt the exact same way
I'm not well read nor versed in these discussions. Would you fine people have any recommendations for laymen like myself to better understand the science, politics, and talking points (to counter common climate denial arguments)?
@@shanefoster2132, Skeptical Science is a great starting point. John and the team have been addressing the science and misinformation there for a long time. They've even created a free online uni course.
If you just want the science, most science organisations (NASA, Bureaus of Meteorology, NOAA, CSIRO, IPCC, etc) have heaps of stuff. If you want the politics, that's a murky field where you need to understand who gets paid by whom (DeSmog great on this).
@@tim290280 What do you think of Simon Clark? He's a climate scientist with a TH-cam channel, I love his videos.
@@StNick119, I've only seen one or two of his videos, so hard to comment. I can recommend a couple of YTers.
Climate Town
Just Have a Think
Potholer
Our Changing Climate
Not Just Bikes
AGU
As someone that has enjoyed Stewart's comedy all through his biggest era and someone who still listens to his show now I appreciate you taking him to task on these things, someone has to/should.
There is also another issue though, and I think it's something you're not giving him credit for, and that's that people with said power will fight against meaningful change that doesn't bring them profit and short of a violent coup, there is really no displacing them at this point, and even then, in the french revolution they didn't have tanks, drones and bombs.
They will not give that power up, they cannot be shamed or reasoned with, they can only be stripped of their power violently. I've spend decades on this, they will not let it go, under no circumstance, ever.
I honestly hope you end up succeeding well like Cody Johnston's Show (even though it has it's problems) "Some More News" I remember when he was about to break on the platform and I feel like you're in just about the same place, and I hope you go in that direction after watching this 2 parter.
I also really really hope the staff and Stewart review your responses; Hell I hope that they give you a job as a contributor or interview, etc.
Honest question, how is greedy capitalists not willing to give up power due to greed except through violence, a credit to Stewart? How is that a plus for him? I'm legitimately confused with this part of your comment.
What's wrong with Cody's Showdy?
@@casteanpreswyn7528 Because short of violent revolution this means that you kind of have to deal with them as part of the solution or nothing will happen, see all of US congress in the last 40 years for direct examples.
@@randomstranger623 There's been times where he's been shown to have his research be wrong/cherry picked on the show, and no retractions are ever made by the show.
It's one thing when you get called out by the insane Q folks for being wrong because they are insane, but it's another when leftist folks show up with receipts and are like "we agree there's problems, but you're not helping because you're mis-categorizing some stuff in a way that isn't completely true".
This is admittedly more of a problem in the beginning of the show, likely when they had less budget for research and possibly standards because it was more of a goof but also a news show, but it's not something that has ceased to be a problem, but rather, it's much less of a problem now as they've begun making less use of single quotes and more use of multiple news sources/quotes to support a narrative.
This doesn't mean that it's still 100% accurate, but it's less likely to be as biased when multiple reliable news sources confirm the same thing.
By contrast, Adam Ruins everything always puts their sources on screen and when they have been called out for narative bias they've done episodes to address just where they either may have gotten it wrong, or to support themselves with additional evidence, which is much more responsible.
Nobody expects newsfolk of any brand, but particularly comedy folk to be 100% accurate, but when you never make retractions it isn't a good look because it leaves the record still tarnished.
@@akkmedia6578 no, violent revolution is the *only* way to deal with capitalist. As I stated, violence is the only way they'd give up their lifestyles of intentionally making others suffer.
You example of US congress for the last 40 years proves the point you shouldn't deal with them as part of the solution. Lol
I think Stewart when talking about a capitalistic system is talking about the theoretical structure of a free market economy. Which is not how the U.S. works currently. A free market would mean little to no barriers to entry and equal playing field for all players in the market.
Meanwhile you’re speaking of the outcome of an oligopolistic market. Which is caused by the inherent political power structure that exists that isn’t really mentioned in a free market economy theory.
Similarly there is often a confusion about theoretical communism and communism seen in countries such as the Soviet Union.
After their first episode on the Burn Pits, the Jon Stewart podcast asked for people to call in with feedback and questions on the show for them to discuss. I called in with two questions that I think each basically summarize your two videos on Stewart:
1) How is it that you can continue to consider yourself a comedian first and foremost after putting out an episode that's deeply researched, includes hard-hitting interviews with the people in power, and is being followed up with a trip to Congress to address the issues discussed? It's hard to avoid the conclusion that you're a journalist or even an activist first and foremost at that point, with comedy simply being the delivery system.
2) Why, in all of your discussions about how to fix the problem with burn pits, did you not once bring up universal healthcare? The cancer caused by burn pits is obviously awful and should be treated, but I think all cancer that anyone gets for any reason is awful and deserves to be treated. While Jon's approach may lead to more immediate change (which is good!), this is just going to become a continuous battle of tackling treatment for condition after condition with the VA until we find a way to universally address these issues at the root. We need a long term solution too.
My question wasn't addressed on the podcast (no ill will there, to be clear), but it's nice to see these videos that really put all the evidence in one place to reinforce how I was feeling after his first episode back. I like Jon Stewart, I think he does a lot of good, and he was a huge influence on me, but he does feel a bit like a man out of time at this point - and I wonder if the younger writing room he has on his new show is too starry eyed over their hero to really push him into the present as much as he needs. The incremental solutions he proposes and his hard held belief that civility and respectability is of utmost importance just doesn't fly anymore.
It's kind of wild to see the guy who made so much noise about jailing bankers after the 2008 financial crisis basically rollover for oil execs when it comes to addressing climate change. He was a real progressive back in the day; the war on terror was a popular idea after 9/11 and Jon stood strong against it, shined a light on its issues. These clips reminded me that he was very funny while doing it too!
I hope he can pivot the direction of his show in the ways you talked about here.
The bigger statement that needs to be made is that comedy is not effective activism on immediate and important issues.
Stewart recognised this when he fought for vets. No comedy used. Result achieved in good time.
You can use comedy when the issues aren't urgent and you want to raise awareness. But awareness isn't action. It's just awareness.
We all need to grow up and stop waiting to be entertained into knowing about the issues and instigating solutions.
Has Jon Stewart ever heard of neoliberalism??
Fish haven't heard of water.
@@jeffengel2607 Lol excellent one-liner
That is just rebranded libertarianism.
Omg yes I am living for this series. I haven’t been able to put my finger about how I was feeling about Stewart and his work these days and you’ve put everything so clearly in one place.
So glad you gave a shout out to SomeMoreNews
I came here from a John video pointing out the issues with the US tax system and how other countries get better stuff with tax their money
His 90% method is to get the audience who may not actually take the thoughts to the face to make them come to the conclusion themselves then they move further than him. which is a really strong teaching technique from my experience doing tutoring and with professors.
He may not be as extreme as you liked but this method is pretty strong for people who maybe more reactive to direct content
So Jon Stewart’s new show is a variation of his protege John Oliver’s show format. But without the not-so-surprise reveal each episode that he did every insane joke scenario he set up for the audience.
*progeny
@@legzdiamond2356 He's not his dad
@@legzdiamond2356
*Protégé
@@rileykim6068 You can use progeny to describe figurative descendants as well as literal.
@@legzdiamond2356 True, it still feels weird to me though. I think bbr64 bbr64 is right that protege sounds better.
A producer on Wisecrack mentioned recently that the issue for comedy and capitalism is that stand-up comedy is almost purely entrepreneurial in spirit. So you often end up seeing all of these hyper capitalist comedians. John Lovitz also comes to mind.
This video reminds me of the Jacobins during the French Revolution. For those that don't know, the Jacobins was a French political club which sought to influence the nation's path through the Revolution. But they got so caught up in deciding the details of future France that they forgot to make any progress at all. Instead of strengthening institutions and helping the millions of people starving as a result of the Revolutions instability, they squabbled over who was the most revolutionary and which type of revolutionary was the best. Eventually, the revolutionary's biggest enemy was other revolutionaries. They fought amongst themselves so much that the Old Elite was able to regain much of their old positions of power.
In other words. We need to stop going after people who are fighting on the same side as us, just because they dont agree completely with us on every count. Wait to purge the revolution until the war is won!. Jon Stewart may not be perfect, in your eyes, but please realise that he is doing good.
Interesting so you are mad that john stewart attacked the occupy movement? The center is allowed to attack the left ad nauseum but when the left fights back suddenly we are the bad guys, come off it
I strongly disagree with so much of this video (I still left a like though, because the video is very well put together!). This is a problem I have with a lot of the left. So many issues are framed as large-scale systemic issues and every every solution is so daunting that many people just become either angry or depressed. Neither option leads to action.
Say what you want about Jon, but he has _actually_ acomplished things. He has _actually_ gotten things done. Something that just can't be said for most of the people critisizing him. Yes his solutions aren't as deep-reaching as you might want, but they are actually achievable. It puts a better world within reach for most people.
As much as I agree with the left on policy, I have many issues with how we frame issues for others.
I've been binging Deep Space 9 on Netflix, and every time I click "Skip Intro," it makes me want to go back and rewatch some of the Copaganda vids. And that (not the busted algorithm) is why I saw this vid was uploaded. Was this your secret plan all along? Nefarious.
Dude DS9 rules so hard.
I genuinely think Apple might have been part of the issue. He said on the daily show recently that Apple wouldn’t let him have Lina Khan on his podcast while the problem with John Stuart was on tv
Fuck markets, all my homies HATE markets.
Even farmer's markets, though? I guess a co-op would be better.
@@kat8559 farmers market... otherwise known as the dreaded wet market
All your homies will be rebelled against
Yeah fuck….markets…..
Jesus Christ….
Fuck markets ok. You want central planning in full effect? Soviet union, Venezuela, China. Didn't work out so well for them and before you go blaming anything else aside from the actual Command economy that created its mess, Think to yourself "Am i being disingenuous". In case you dont want central planning in full effect, rather Regulation and Mixed-market economies... Its the status quo..... You are living it, Problem? Maybe its the Status quo...
Seeing the deeper action John Oliver has done when addressing issues on his show was really nice, makes me wanna actually watch him now lol
I think I understand why Stewart is doing what he's doing.
I, who understands ALL these things, can only watch a few minutes of this at a time before I need a pallet cleanser of, oh... abandoned puppies.
What we have done is crushing
The power of companies like shell is unfathomable.
and yes, Stewart needs to push harder, but one feels like Sisyphus.
I’m willing to bet that you actually understand close to nothing
I think it is admirable of you to want him to address larger issues. But it is a balancing act. Changing American military policy or eliminating plastic is likely to be futile in the short term. But there are pieces we can change to make it better. Starting with small achievable goals and working your way up is more realistic.
lol Stewart spoke at my commencement (yes, i'm a boomer-millenial in my late 30s, YOU think I'M self-CONSCIOUS about IT?!?!).
i think you're right, but in all fairness MY politics really didn't exist back then, beyond the broad liberalism he presented, which could be said for 99% (heh) of the population pre-Bernie, no?
Bernie switched it up on em. This stuff was NOT "cool" back in the day. It *should've* been, but it wasn't. Bernie swagged it out so we all could shine.
oh yeh, his new show sucks.
and Chomsky riffs on that Adam Smith bit in the "Requiem for the American Dream" doc that's free on here, too
this is careful not to use the term "platforming" Sullivan, i feel, but might as well have, and i just don't understand the issue w having opposing viewpoints on a TV show, of all things. not to echo the Daily Show's "it's entertainment first" cop-out, but... using someone/thing as a foil isn't exactly a new method of presentation, and it's super effective. think about the ppl we're tryna appeal to. u think they're not a little less likely to claim "BIASED" if there's some sucker like Sully on?
also this guy says he doesn't read comments, when if i was tryna make a comic book and needed a character who lived off reading comments 24/7 it'd be this kid
wtf is a boomer millennial? If you were born between 1980 and 1999 you're just a millennial.
as someone who loves Jon Stewart, these were hard to get thru. but I'm glad I did. kudos, great work
I think that Jon Stewart is the most honest show host. Maybe he can he wrong but his honest approach Also Led him to acknowledge mistakes and Open important conversations. He really is invilved in his causes and That's parte of his appeal. I love him but Also I understand and appreciate This análisis. Great video.
He'd spit on you in real life but okay lol.
The bit with Diane Feinstein is so cringe inducing. "You're telling me that it's my way or the highway". Yes, that's (theoretically) the way democracy works. You do what your constituents want you to do. "And I don't respond to that." Which is a huge part of the problem, laid bare pretty explicitly.
John Oliver is my effing hero.
Also is nearly impossible to convict offenders of domestic and sexual violence. I was abused by a boyfriend, and the cops took *me* to jail because I was hopped up on adrenaline from being put through a wall and "look kinda crazy." Of course I look crazy. A guy just put me through a wall. ACAB
And yes, I watched the entirety of your Copaganda series. Loved it.
Honestly? I think you've been exceptionally fair to Stewart.
I liked some of what he did back in the day. I was also a lot younger. I went to an episode where Rudy was the guest and he was still revered.
I agree with nearly everything you say but I do see value in John Stewart as an on-ramp for apolitical people or naive libs to get introduced to left of center ideas and that hopefully some of them seek out further media that will move them further left. I'm older and have been involved in leftist politics for 2 decades and it was John Stewart who was largely responsible for politicizing me as I began watching The Daily Show in high school so I definitely see value in him as an entry point in a leftist media pipeline, as long as content creators such as yourself continue to course correct would be libs before they settle into the comfortable assumption that we can maintain the status quo if we can just figure out the right tweaks for capitalism.
i still enjoy stewart, because at least he acknowledges certain basic truths about american society, but it is always good to be reminded that he’s not showing you the whole picture. great video!
Patriot Act was the best Daily Show spiritual successor. I was pretty sad it got canceled.
I actually hope he sees this. It's a very fair and helpful critique.
I especially hate him presenting climate change as a side effect of "humanity's progress" because if you look into it - we could have made all the same progress without fossil fuels. The primary difference would have been a small slowing of progress as energy needs would have to come before technological needs.
It seems like John Stewart and Angry Writer Man are just...kinda misunderstanding the motivations for things like recycling, etc. Like, there are other reasons to do things that are better for the environment other than reducing climate change. And there are other reasons to do things other than their environmental impact.
Like, I see some discourse on occasions that's like "we're supposed to eat less meat because meat is bad for the environment but me not eating a cheeseburger is not gonna fix climate change". And like, yeah, no, a single person not eating a burger is not gonna fix climate change but that doesn't change the fact that the general public en masse feeding money into an industry that does environmentally catastrophic things strengthens that industry. And it doesn't change the fact that like, that industry is terrible for animals and for workers. And it doesn't change the fact that we consume so much fucking meat now just because it's available without even thinking about it.
Like, there are other things to consider besides "Does my single individual action single-handedly reverse climate change? No? Guess it's not worth doing then."
I think the point is that "what is the point to try change myself, when even with doing the most eco-friendly changes and incentiving others to do the same, it would be a little fraction of the impact on the Earth compare to what governments and big companies can do if tommorw they decide for change" And tomorrow is an exaggeration but not too much. This is probably the thoughts of many people with a rather pessimistic outlook, this are kinda my thoughts except that I don't view recycling useless of course, good for local ecosystems and the ocean(for now I just recycle plastic bottles...).
But I have read an article precisely about big companies being curiously proponents of recycling and I have seen some of those myself, not a lot of evidence but a lot of companies have done far worse for saving face or profits on the past.
And of course I'm not saying that we shouldn't protect local ecosystems in exchange of just worrying for climate change on the macro level. We should, with out doubt, do both. But it's still worth pointing out that companies are potentially trying to avoid major responsabities about climate change by positive publicity, that for best or worst recycling is use.
Thank you for coming to my TED Talk.
How he is presenting himself is prevalent in a lot of older and aging activists. It seems to me like he’s understands that the system won’t be changed unless it challenged itself. He seems to be challenging society to put their money where their mouth is
My problem is Jon being on apple instead of going solo, patreon and such, so he can go harder in the paint. Why put a leash on yourself?
But I still love him.
Even if he was on Apple he would still be the same.
I like you and your channel and I also like Jon Stewart. I think he embraces the hackiness of his comedy but also does want to get some answers out of people. I don't think there's any reason for him to be doing this new show on a selfish level, I think he actually wants to do good.
22:30 - I believe you actually meant "half a _century_ ", likely wishful thinking and funny enough I typed this in the same incorrect way as it just sort of rolled off the tongue or something. Just an _extremely_ minor accidental mistaken word in an hour of amazing critique, great job man, all of this has indeed also been my "problem with Jon Stewart".
Is not that a free market capitalist society is power centered around the rich.
It is that a free market capitalist society is unstable and cannot exist without changing from that state.
great vid! not sure why you didn't go with "The Problem with The Problem with John Stewart" but to each their own
Jon Stewart's brother is Larry Leibowitz, is COO of the NYSE. This maybe why he can't go for the Jugular of Capitalism !!!!
We're In Hell is an amazing video essayist, thank you for putting him in the video. A namedrop would've been good, but you were damn close and I appreciate you :))
Jon Stewart is like the mechanism on the roller coaster, he takes you slowly to the top showing you the view that you can't see from the ground, but he doesn't push you over the edge; he relies on you to take the plunge into action or get off.
He really can't come straight out and call himself a socialist without losing his position.
I don’t think Jon is a problem, if anything at most he seems misguided at times, maybe a bit dated in his way of challenging things, but there always room for improvement.
Plus, all those blunders he makes seems honest enough, I didn’t always have the best papers in school, my concern is complacency or trying to appeal to humanity and common ground and all that.
"[fossil fuel companies] have been covering up climate change research for half a decade."
I think you mispoke there. They've been doing this for half a CENTURY.
Loved how you laid out in your comparison between Stewart and his successors what consistently effective and meaningful progressive change can look like, and in so doing, gave a shoutout to so many of the progressive content creators I already watch.
Old John making Libertarian and Conservative arguments. There's a lot of capitalist libertarians that use that line: "Oh, we don't have true capitalism. Not free market capitalism. That's the problem!" Even though they're benefiting from it while deflecting.
We don't have free market capitalism. That's the problem with *capitalism* though, not the problem with our system. Capitalism's foundations rely on a set of fundamentally impossible assumptions.
Man I want Problem Areas With Wyatt Cenac to come back that show was amazing
like i commented on the last video, stewart called himself a socialist until asked about and he made it clear that he did not know the definition of socialism
funny that it's the same for capitalism. this is the political commentator liberals clamour over. cute stuff
Liberal by definition is pro-capitalism. Specifcially, liberalism values laissez faire capitalism with zero government involvement whatsoever. Neo-liberals also value laissez faire capitalism but are in favor of government intervention so long as that intervention directly benefits suppliers at the expense of consumers.
@@dontmisunderstand6041 Dude here is cofusing liberal with libertarianism. libertarianism, and Neo-liberals is just rebranded libertarianism, are deeply conservative.
also laissez faire capitalism is suppose to have intervention, what your talking about is something like a Corporatocracy
basically oligarchy.
@@AL-lh2ht No, I'm not. I'm using what the term actually means. Libertarian is NOT an economic stance, it exists on an entirely different spectrum. We use "right" and "left" to describe economic policy. Libertarian is independent of that. Extremist libertarian left would be anarcho-communists, extremist libertarian right would be anarcho-capitalists. The opposite end of that spectrum is authoritarian.
Inherently, neoliberalism is NOT libertarian, it's explicitly opposed to libertarian principles.
Laissez faire literally means "to do nothing". Anti-interventionism is the core of laissez faire capitalism.
The name of a political party has less than nothing to do with what the people under that banner actually believe. Case in point, Hitler's National Socialist Party was anti-socialist. They put a great deal of effort into removing socialists from the Party, and into literally murdering socialists for being socialist. While it's understandable that you may have seen the US Libertarian Party and what they stand for and associated it with Libertarianism, it's factually inaccurate. They are in no way Libertarian.
It's almost as if Capitalism is terrible.
He says from his castle, totally unaware of reality.
Capitalism is better then any other system in the history of mankind
I still want HBO to cancle Bill Maher and create a new show for Hasan Minhaj.
Personal anecdote, recently, I rewatched The Patriot Act's episode on Justin Trudeau and Canadian oil, and I was stunned at just how much I've moved from my liberalist perspective, because I remember being so incredibly pissed off at Hasan for "not understanding the complexity of the issue", and now I cheered when he put Trudeau's feet to the flame
If you don't mind sharing, I'd love to hear some more about what that transition looked like for you. What beliefs changed and why? I only know the broad overview about Trudeau and oil in Canada so I'm interested in those details and the chain of thoughts.
I really relate to that. I’ve recently been trying to learn more about socialism and leftist thought. Prioritizing workers and people in general over profits is a strong belief now. And it’s more important to me than just a more “liberal” version of the status quo.
@@alynames7171 I was around 16-17 at the time and I don't think I honestly had any strong opinions for anything. I saw the world as black-and-white and thought that any attacks levied at this international liberal star was an attack that only benefited Trump was willing to overlook bad things as necessary. Broadly, I think I wanted to return to a time that I really didn't understand; before bloodthirsty populists came to power in the US, and the Philippines, where I lived. Then the changes to perspective came as I started watching Last Week Tonight more often, I started to engage more with the politics here, and I pretty much realized how much of a hell my country and America was even before Duterte and Trump. Now instead of blindly praising Trudeau for "being a good leader", I somehow convinced some of my family to support the leftwing in Canada's last election (lol) and am trying to do the same thing here for the elections next month.
Lol, in an effort to show off how a conversation should go with white people about race and fixing it, Jon Stewart creates a panel that shows off the reality show nature of modern cable news and does the very thing he hates about it. Lord... I hope he figures this shit out quick.
That panel was such a mess. I really feel like it needed a second half with only productive, good faith participants willing to actually engage with the topics without red herrings or equivocation
@@empatheticrambo4890 yeah. Presentation as it stands presents an argument that we must include those in the community even if they are looking to be disruptive and not participate in good faith, and then settle for the, "you're entitled to your opinion" ending at best.
Yeah that's the episode that ended my interest on that show.
Er, wasn't that the whole point of that panel?
if Jon Stewart or Jon Oliver pointed out that Capitalism is the problem, they'd lose all of their funding in 5 seconds. They'd be put in more controversy than even they - ingrained cornerstones of political comedy - could handle. I've noticed they tiptoe around it a whooole lot, as you've pointed out. There's no way they don't know, there must be some sort of block in saying it. Especially in regards to Jon Oliver, where it's an even more obvious pattern.
Socialism is still a super dirty word, and "socialism is evil" is an insanely ingrained pattern of thought in the average citizen's worldview. People just simply cannot imagine another economic structure working, and obviously the media obviously propagates this line of thought. If the Jons pointed out capitalism, they'd be accused of wanting to spark the revolution - i.e. "inciting violence," which would for suuuure lead to investor backouts, even if it weren't true - they'd be accused of being ridiculous or silly, or just outright being socialist, or communist evildoers.
Capitalism isn't the problems it's is the government
@@poptraxx418 The source of a government's power is the people's collective decision to allow that government to have power. Largely, the reason the people allow the government to have that power is because they have the most money. That's generally how almost all governments in recorded history have worked. You are rich and therefore people obey you, because it benefits them to do so. Either because you're rich enough to afford soldiers that will kill, rape, and pillage on command, or because you pay them to obey you. None of that changed with modern times. And we're even seeing it now, as individual companies start to rival the economic might of governments, they challenge the authority of governments... and win, often.
Capitalism *is* the government. It always has been.
@@poptraxx418 Capitalism requires a strong government just to function.
One piece of constructive feedback:
I think it would have been good to add one more piece of explanation as to why capitalism concentrates wealth over time, on top of Chomsky's quote.
Namely that having wealth allows you to absorb risk, which allows you to make investments that can make you more money over time, whereas poorer people are forced to make false economies, spending less in the short run because they have no option otherwise, but ultimately being costed more in the long run.
Capitalism advantages wealthy people in their accrual of wealth, and disadvantages the poor, and that's BEFORE they rig the system with lobbying and union busting and on and on and on...
Not all of your allies need too agree 100% with you.
It's helpful to understand Jon's issue with perspective and framing to zero in on his genuine surprise at the idea that not all people think the way Americans think. So here's a thing - I have encountered many (MANY) Americans of both the baby boomer generation and the following generation x, who are possessed of a strange and curious belief about humanity. Regardless of political leanings (quite a few see themselves as liberals - even progressives), they have grown up conditioned with a phenomenally cynical view of human nature. Often times, they don't even seem to realize just how misanthropic they are towards the human race.
This attitude leads them to assume as a bedrock principle that humanity is inherently ONLY competitive, that cooperation and collaboration are only every trained and conditioned, even if admirable goals to be pursued. They believe that babies are essentially born yearning to get cracking on trading futures and tots are eyeing up their rivals in kindergarten to find the weak marks and begin selling them product and capturing their labor.
I think that this ultra cynical and toxic viewpoint has been reinforced by a combination of predatory capitalism as a culture, and the later half of the 20th century in the context of the cold war. Americans particularly lived with a culture of creepy nihilism - a doomsday belief that nuclear war and the end of the world loomed just over the horizon. There was no hope, no future, and only the mad rush towards "power" and the acquisition of status and wealth were real. Own enough land, with a deep enough basement, to hide out the end of the world. There is a reason why Americans are obsessed with nihilistic apocalyptic fiction and particularly zombies. (Playing out the subconscious fear that their own fellow citizens are just brain-eating cannibals waiting to descend upon them. Finally, a morally defensible excuse to shoot them all.)
Finally, this cynicism is mixed in with the narcissistic American tendency to view itself as the cap on top of human progress - the leader of the world, center of humanity, and the standard against which everyone else is measured and gauged. It's hard for many Americans, even well-meaning ones, to stop and realize that no - not all of the other 6+ billion people on Earth think like Americans. Or value what Americans do, or have the same beliefs about the nature of life, and human beings. Even the nice Americans are really fucking arrogant.
So we find otherwise perfectly nice folks like Jon who don't realize they're approaching life from a really warped, damaged, crippled mindset and point of view. They have only ever seen through a mirror darkly and have confused the reflection with reality.
So I don’t know where to post this but it feels relevant to this in many ways: Can you did a piece on Severance???
It’s a tv show about capitalism and labour and it’s really good and I feel like it’s right up your alley