This was an interesting conversation. I really appreciate the interviewers even handed line of questioning, and I say that as a left leaning viewer. The interviewee presents some ideas that really needed that push back and clarifying questions. My big issue with the ideas proposed here is that the interviewee's concept of fascism still feels incredibly nebulous, despite how much time was spent attempting to explain it. He motions towards "super violence", and violence that explicitly targets political opponents, but he never lays out what he views as tenets of fascism, or critical criteria for when speech should be suppressed. I'm sure he goes into more detail in his book, but it really seems like something that should have been a priority in the interview, especially since he bemoans colloquial usage of the term. It's disappointing that after an hour of conversation, I still don't really know who he means should be no-platformed. I don't find myself agreeing with his ideas, but I'm interested in looking more into his writings.
I'm beginning to see these people who insist that fascism is esoteric, over complicated, far away and sophisticated as straight up fascist enablers. I'm already seeing actual fascists adopt these obfuscating and deceptive bad faith talking points. Whether or not they give a damn, they're playing into the hands of very sinister and wicked people. I suspect this man is a far right bad faith actor. He's a Trump apologist for crying out loud. And finally, I'm very disappointed in Alex for practically uncritically providing this man with a megaphone. He really is just signal boosting this man and his dangerous ideas. I mean, he not only claims but insists that the American republican party is center right. I've never heard anything so preposterous from a British person, much less what I assume to be a serious writer. I sure hope Alex isn't trying to cultivate a right wing audience for clout or financial reasons. I mean, this rebranding is off to a horrible start, imo.
I respectfully disagree, mainly on the grounds that fascism is inherently nebulous in that it can be constructed in different ways, but there are hallmarks of a political movement that can be rightly looked upon as fascist. Authoritarian leadership by a demigogue who uses violence to quash dissent, for example. Is it right to call Trump fascist? Not really, because the US had the benefit of military leaders who would either fight against his wishes or, in some cases, just not carry them out. Between Trump holding up the bible (he's never read) in the middle of a police-state show of force in Washington, to his endorsement of organic paramilitary groups and local violence, to his 2016 seed-planting of rigged elections and his subsequent attempts to rig elections - there comes a point where a reasonable person can see a fascist-in-waiting.
@@Philusteen you are fully right, fascism can't be defined and that's how it often takes root. you can't define fascism but you can look for identifiers such as those outlined by Umberto Eco which are really useful.
@@Philusteen The fact that fascism is nebulously defined is besides the point, because he is clearly using it in a specific context. He wouldn't be criticizing other people's use of the term if himself didn't have his own conception of what it means. That's what I took issue with - not that he didn't give *the* definition of fascism, which is indeed hard to pin down, but rather that he didn't give *his* definition.
Yeah, because the first 10 seconds of the video deliberately tickles the fancy of either the fascists trying to silence people by calling them fascist or the normal people understanding this.
If something egregious is said within the first 10 mins, most people won't wait 50 mins for no reason to make their counter that they'd likely have forgotten about. Not everyone watches and comments in the same way as you.
@@rauminen4167 You're just showing that you don't know what fascism is. Fascism is not when someone wants to silence people. Fascism has an actual definition and you aren't any better than the people using it as a buzz word about anything they don't like.
@@rauminen4167 Says the conservative who supports policies like book bans, shutting down libraries, laws like bans on trans people, and forcing women to bear children against their will. On the matter of free speech, he supports banning teachers from discussing that gay people and trans people exist. Not to mention the curbs on the right to protest, and the race selective voting restrictions. I personally think that's all pretty fascist but according to him this is what "normal people" support.
@@Sahtoovi Of course it has. The lucrative merger of big corporations, the news media and The Party. That said, silencing people is in fact fascist, so not entirely sure what you're getting at. Yes, marxists too were silencing their opposition - but that's just another similarity.
Anyone else find it weirdly creepy that every time Alex asks him about the possibility of those on the left abusing this technique or possibly being hypocritical in its use, he spins into a long deflection about it? Or that "people who think they're left wing" comment? Like I get that he's super partisan, so you don't really want to acknowledge that your side could ever be morally wrong, but that's something else
He quite literally said at one point that he doesn't think any left wing group should be deplatformed. This may be the most blindly partisian person I've ever seen.
And apparently we’re suppose to ignore it and deny it’s happening until it’s at your doorstep. It’s a mistake to ignore what’s happening in the states.
@@randyprice5392 I think he's saying (a bit later on re: rock against racism) not that we're supposed to ignore fascists, rather invite them out for a beer. (problem is of course that I end up believing in flat earth and jewish pedo cannibalism by the end of the booze up)
Fascists take control once the public sphere stops being objectively truthful, so fascists can freely spread their propaganda. Think Murdoch/Reagan gutting the USA's Fairness Doctrine, so Fox could freely lie to Americans...and the world.
I can recommend relistening to the part at 31:16. Here he argues that Fascism, even during the time when it is a fringe movement, is violent in a way that other political tendencies aren't, and that it can be recognised at this point, long before it gets any political power.
@@TheMilli Fascists take control the moment the public sphere stops being objectivily truthful. It's at that point fascsits can freely foist their lies, propaganda and corruption. It's an objective public sphere that keeps all tyrants out of our lives and out of power, as the tyrant have to lie, propagandize and corrupt to have their way.
Utterly reasoned unreason. A complete othering of one side and a complete leniency to the other. The case was poorly made and just shows that attempts to ring-fence "free speech" are always undermined by the simple question of "who do you trust to decide what is free speech".
Same! I felt a bit silly because I saw all the comments praising the conversation and I mostly felt that he didn't answer the questions in a understandable/meaningful way and my opinion and knowledge on the subject didn't budge (I was hoping it would at least open new lines of thought)
Exactly feeling the same way, I think the guy had nothing more to say other than to say to his friends on the left, "hey guys let's be a bit more sneaky about how we silence others" he wanted the left to love him and the right not to hate him for holding stupid views that people nowadays hold, unspoken views like "anyone who is not on the far left, must be on the far far right"
I think I can help. A hundred years ago some fascists came to power in Europe. Then some even worse (racist) fascists came to power in another European country. This was really bad for just about everyone. We need to prevent something like that happening again. Fascists stand against every one of our British values.
They never properly defined Fascism ever. I was literally shocked that such a fundamental question goes unanswered. If people can not define "fascism". Than can we get a comparison between tribalism or early America to "Fascism"? Is the industrial revolution and a strong federal government required for "fascism"?
The closest thing he affirms is that fascism is when you use mass violence against political opponents and suppress *all* other positions. And that it's on the extreme right. I'm not exactly sure why it is by definition on the right, as left vs. right was disappointingly never well defined in this conversation.
In case u r intetested, fascism can be defined as a populist form of palingenetic ultranationalism. That's Roger Griffins definition. The few other key definitions by major political theorists more or less say the same thing, with some additional features. I like Griffins coz it is very concise and precise. There are other features, but that's the core commonality used for categorisation. And, authoritarianism is not fascism. Suppression of speech & espression, by itself, is not fascist. It is not value judgement, it is about categorisation.
@@radioactivedetective6876 I like Griffin's concise description of fascism as well, but Renton seems to disagree. To him only someone openly using (physical) violence against the opposition can be fascist. So they either need to be stupid or already hold total power and reign freely to be called fascists, which is a weird standard imo.
@@radioactivedetective6876 The definition of fascism you provided is appreciated but the reason I asked for a time stamp for the point in the discussion when fascism was defined was because I was curious if the person advocating for violence against fascists ever bothered to define fascism and I had lost patience about half-way through waiting for what should have been established before the discussion began. Even with a definition it is extremely irresponsible to advocate for violence against people who claim or have been accused of holding a clearly defined label, but the level of extreme irresponsibility is far greater when advocating for violence against people who are designated with an undefined label or are designated as holding belief in an undefined idea. If violence against people who hold undefined ideas can be justified than this principle could be applied to justify violence against anyone. I was hoping to hear a clear definition to engage with the merits or dangers of advocating for violence against people who hold ideas based on that clear definition. The beginning of the discussion mentioned that the misapplication of the term fascism is often used to smear people or justify violence. As important as that is to recognize, by failing to provide a definition any discussion of an ill-defined concept called fascism merely perpetuates the misunderstanding and misapplication of the term. This is egregious when the discussion is on the justification of violence against people who hold this idea as there is no limiting principle to apply when attaching ill-defined labels to people whose rights we are being told can be violated with force.
The first line of defence against bad ideas becoming reality is the ability of the individual to discern these ideas as bad. In order for this to happen, individuals in society need to be able to understand the idea in the first place. Nobody can understand a set of ideas if it is censored. Never underestimate the ability of an educated population to rationalise what is right and wrong. It is what has allowed Western democratic society to flourish in the first place!
Agreed. We need this, and also education that helps even children identify the pros and cons of certain ideas without the schools indoctrinating them into any political camp. Use moderate right and moderate left ideas and highlight the pros and cons of both sides.
You can’t debate ideas that fundamentally do not care about debate. Fascists and fascism are perfectly well discussed without including them. Allowing them to debate aka platform them you aren’t debating them, you’re giving them opportunities to propagandise
@@setlerking You don't need to debate them. You need a population of people who can reason and think for themselves. That's my point. If a fascist has a platform to speak then good! Let the rational thinking individuals amongst us see and understand their backwards ideas.
@@setlerkinghe same can be said about socialism. the point however is by censoring and excluding them you are admitting that you don't want a free and open society you only want it to be free for ideas and opinions that you yourself agree with.
@@NKiwi2903 Indeed. The best decision I made in school was taking philosophical studies. Being taught the ability to think rationally and understanding how to form an argument has proved an invaluable tool in my life and is something that should be taught to our children as part of general curriculum.
You know why I'm opposed to fascism? Because of things like prohibiting free speech. I'll defend anyone's right to speak, even that of those who will try and censor others. Hence, even David Renton's.
if the reason u oppose fascism is because of free speech, and not its advocacy for violence towards groups of people based on inalienable factors then you need to look inwards bro.
You're defending misinformation and hateful rhetoric knowing full well that society is not prepared to fact check everything and that hateful rhetoric gets traction from social media. To support the right of fascists to exist in private places and communities on the internet is to support fascism itself.
I'm surprised that somebody who has endeavoured to publish a book on the topic cannot seem to muster an argumentation for their positions other than "tactical reasons" and optics. The irony of expressing a wish for a "principled argument" that is to apply only to the other side on top of that is baffling. Also interesting that actual political violence and intimidation tactics form the left have not been mentioned, as neither have the inherent potential of plenty of subset ideologies for it or historically realised potentials thereof. Then again, your guest did admit to being a far left actor himself. Trying to pretend that the left has less cultural capital, political influence or power today than any other time during this gentleman's lifetime seems absurd, but what I think is worse is the poisoning of the well through attribution of dishonesty to those who disagree with his assessment. 34:23 the communists did not just ban anti-communists, they banned anarchists, liberals, fascists, conservatives, religious people..... No analogy at all. None.
After the great depression there were record levels of unionisation. After that, the influence of the left has pretty much continuously decreased, to the point where capitalists are more wealthy than they have ever been by exploiting their workers as much as possible. Like Jeff Bezos causing his workers to have to use bottles instead of going to the toilet.
My hero ace! I laughed at that statement as well! He seems to have some good points, but saying that is either purposefully deceitful, or incredibly blind! But you saved me the labor of pointing that out.
In addition to this, I found myself wondering if David was describing fascism or communism when he was first explaining that fascism specifically crosses the line to outright violence towards it's political enemies. He went on to explain that there is a racial element to fascism, which appears not to be present in the communist utopian vision. However, I do know that during Stalin's reign in the soviet union, being a member of the bourgeoise was enough for you to be found guilty of (or arrested and tortured until you admit to being guilty of) a crime against the state. As the labour camps demanded more and more labour, the standards for what counted as bourgeoise broadened to the point that just being a non Russian was enough to land you with a sentence in the camps. So honestly, I find it increasingly difficult not to include communism in any critical discussion of fascism, as the two ideologies are just so damn similar.
@@MrMantis0 Bro, labor camps accountered for a tiny fraction of soviet production (2%), it had nothing to do with increasing demand for it. The purpose of it was to reeducate bourguise. Many of those camps were actually serving their purpose, thats why you never heard about them and only heard of a couple
I was never quite certain of David Renton's was trying to communicate. There was a degree of Alex and David were talking past each other. Politely, so it doesn't stand out in any blatant way. David never seemed to want to engage on how his concepts applied to modern circumstances. Also David feeding his arms through his sleeves was adorable. 56:39
Yeah I started looking at comments cause halfway through I was still just confused by his answers that felt like non answers to me. Glad you said something.
@@WTH13SERIOUSLY it's at the 30m mark that I stopped the video to look for this comment. He has quite an outstanding bias blinding him to the conceptual picture Alex is trying to paint. Also my feedback in general is that if he doesn't consider the left to only have influence because it's "online and not in reality", he's giving me big boomer vibes and he needs to move into this decade. These atmospheres are increasingly less distinguishable and there's more and more crossover.
Is it just me or did he never answer the question of whether it would ever be justifiable to deplatform a left leaning group that was begin to exhibit behaviors indicative of fascism. He seemed to just say "people would want to start silencing them" without mentioning if they were right to do so or not. This seems weird coming from someone who seems to be unabashed in his idea that fascism should be silenced.
But how can a left leaning group, which is essentially about egalitarianism, be a fascist, which is by definition anti-egalitarian? If you try to stick with a parsimonious definition of fascism, then left fascist is a contradiction in terms. This is of course not to say that the left leaning groups cannot be tyrannical
I don't think he was defining fascism as either specifically right or left but neither did he fully define it (untill very near the end where he indicated that people carrying out practices he identified as fascist namely silencing an opposition via violence are fascist regardless of political persuasion, but that liberals could not carry out these actuons and still be liberal) despite alex trying to get him to. I feel they were somewhat talking past each other throughout because of this lack of clarity over the terms.
Bingo. Alex asked the guest questions in order to clarify and explain and the issue was evaded. We might be more forgiving if this man was not an author on the topic. He seemed in denial of problems on the left wing, seemingly assuming totalitarianism would push a regime into facism despite post-war China being a contrary example.
I don't get it. Renton, Kisin, and Barron have been really awful guests. They do not seem very principled or reasoned, instead talking about feelings, tactics and intuitions without being able to flesh them out at all. I listened to this hour long interview and the only thing I got out of it is that facism in the early 1900s was bad and shouldn't have been allowed to have a platform at that time. Everytime O'Conner tries to get him to say anything he takes 10 minutes to say nothing. I think you are trying to be cordial, which works great when the guests are great, such as Craig, Brierley, and Woodford, but with your more recent guests there are glaring issues in thier reasoning that they dance around the entire time. Without directly stating that these things don't make sense or that they didn't answer a question I, as a viewer, get frustrated by the experience.
If Alex is exposing the problems with his guests merely by asking polite questions then he is problably doing well as an interviewer. If he does any better, nobody will want to give him interviews.
@@leonais1 I agree and think he is doing a great job interviewing, which is the problem when guests are low quality. Next time he reads a book that catches his fancy, a video essay may be a better viewer experience. An interview like this would only be a good viewer experience if the person being interviewed is famous some other way, a politician, a leader of an organization or some other such thing where showing that them having problems would be interesting in itself.
@@mrg7405 Probably not the right video to talk about it. Imagining I didn't include Kisin in the list my point would be conducting a great interview on a person without clear principled ideas is a poor viewer experience even if it does lay their beliefs bare.
@Never repeats I, at least, was talking about his talk on within reason and not his greater body of work. For instance when O'Connor confronted him with the idea that speech could be considered a form of violence just like any other physical act he floundered for a while, then repeatedly called him clever, then stated 'I think we all instinctively understand the difference'.
The thing is, you can't define hate speech itself as a reason to call someone a fascist, so it can't be used to make a case for fascism. In the US, hate speech is protected under the Bill of Rights since hate speech is still free speech. So, then how else would you determine that someone is a fascist? There are atrocities done towards certain people in the US by the government, such as taking children from the parents of people crossing the border from Mexico and holding those people for an indeterminate time, but I don't know if that would qualify as a fascist action. There is also a lot of homelessness and people driven into poverty that is ignored by the government. That irritates me to no end and I wish I were in a position to do something about, but again, I don't think that would classify as a fascist state. So, then exactly how do we define a fascist and when do we decide to start limiting free speech? Once we start limiting free speech for certain people, we are going against the very principles upon which the US is established and it can lead to a slippery slope where we are tempted to widen the margin to start limiting other types of speech until essentially anyone who speaks out about any topic is oppressed and afraid to speak at all out of fear of being arrested or put to death.
I was with David all the way up to him claiming to be able to read the minds (by extension the motivations) of those with a different political viewpoint to himself.
@TBOTSS yup. This has always been my issue with people that claim to know when free speech should be restricted. My question is, where is the line where acceptable speech ends and more importantly, WHO gets to decide this?
He said Tommy Robinsons actions were incommensurate with somebody who believes in free speech. He did not claim that Tommy Robinson is a fascist, or that he can read Tommy's mind.
What a dreary book his must be, offering, from what I can see, little to even those who agree with his fundamental assumption that the only real threat to free speech comes from the right. I don’t know how Alex kept his patience with this slippery character.
I always laugh when someone calls the silicon valley billionaires left wing, like really? BILLIONAIRES? LEFT WING? do you understand what leftism is? can you define socialism? this isn't directed at Alex because I know he was just bringing up what others think btw.
@@myjciskate4 no, the prefer to manipulate socialist midwits using their own ingroup language. exactly as it should be. come buy your "punch a nazi" shirts! $20! get one for a comrade! who's a good little revolutionary, you are! yes you! you're gonna save the planet! now pay off your student loans ;)
The number of times Mr. Renton articulated his intent to treat the two sides of the political spectrum quite diferently in regards to scrutiny or 'no-platforming' exposes his premise.
@@阳明子 If you think we're not going to use that word when referring to left wing extremism that fits the definition, think again. We caught on to the lefts attempt to dominate language a long time ago. Nice try, though.
@@阳明子 Only the dullest of dullards would dare claim Trump was a fascist or even an extremest. Leftist politicians on the other hand, the case is much easier to make.
I'm 15 minutes in and can already tell this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's obviously not actually paid much attention to the situation on the ground out here in the states.
It's hard for me to take him serious when he quite literally says no left wing group should be de-platformed and he refuses to admit any left wing group could possibly be violent enough to deserve de-platforming. When you give him a hypothetical of a left wing group that is just as violent as fascists he basically just says they would be fascists then. His entire argument is literally special pleading, he says himself he won't apply standards to his own side, only to the side he doesn't like.
I've not listened to all of isn't the entire point specifically aimed at fascism rather than being about free speech for just broadly being right wing? "When you give him a hypothetical of a left wing group that is just as violent as fascists he basically just says they would be fascists then." ...then I suppose at that point yes. I don't see how a left wing group would end up being fascist (besides in name only perhaps), that seems a very "both-sides" mentality. It might seem somewhat paradoxical but to me it falls among the same line where to be intolerant of intolerance fits within an ideal of tolerance. As fascism would use violence against the free speech of its opposition, it's not that weird to make that claim. Suppressing the free speech of people who want go against free speech in the name of free speech, basically.
I think the notion of “fairness” here belies a false equivocation that fascism as an ideology is just violent authoritarian right-wingism with violent authoritarian leftism as its opposite. That’s an oversimplified misunderstanding of the specific nature of fascism. They aren’t equal and opposite. Left-wing extremist ideology, aberrations aside, does not NECESSITATE authoritarian censorship or a genocidal level of violence as its explicit end. Fascism is unique in that it does and that’s part of what defines it, so yes if a “left-wing” group delved into that they would be making the horseshoe and defying their own supposed ideals. This is why deplatforming might be a necessary political vaccine to something like fascism as otherwise it would become a cancer within the free speech paradigm that would destroy it from within, using (at times reprehensible, but relatively marginal) left-wing spooks to justify wholesale totalitarian moves as they have throughout history. Instead we should be focusing on discriminating essentially fascist ideas from social conservatism and drawing a clear line to avoid censoring with too broad a brush and triggering a retaliatory fascist surge.
That’s because your equating the right and left with equal legitimacy. If you learn the foundational beliefs of both sides and then the effects they have had on the world, you would see this is not the case. The left is legitimate, the right is not.
@@NotYurAverageJoe since when is violence a necessary part of the definition of fascism? It’s certainly true that authoritarian political systems can almost never come to be without violence but that’s not necessary, it’s just our practical experience. With that, the relationship to socialism is rather obvious. Fascism is not, in itself, a reflection of right or left politics. It’s not on that spectrum. It’s an attribute, potentially, of any system.
From the title of the book to this man’s inability to define either his “side” or his opponents - or even the definition of fascist is the picture of irony - irony that projects its own sin onto its perceived opponent and wishes to annihilate it - in this case using actual fascism(using the state and corporate power to control speech) - to defeat perceived “fascism”
Like I said on the previous clip, I don't think he's paying much attention to stochastic violence here. He breaks down "violence" into "actual" violence and "threats of violence", but these are not clean categories, as threats themselves can be stochastically manifest as actual or concrete. Then he further states that by "actual" violence he wants to talk about "imminent" violence, violence that isn't "several steps away". But this either relegates stochastic violence to mere threats, which is ridiculous, or could potentially include stochastic violence only in the case that a figure is the most *proximal* cause of the stochastically violent effect. In our Jan 6 committee hearings, there is widespread and compelling reason to say DT was a key, proximal cause for the violence and deaths attempted against our presidential vote. I get the distinction he's trying to make, but trying to square it with his comments about DT just being some mean old right-wing figure is just baffling. His niche definition either fails to capture what we intend to talk about in our political discourse, in which case he cannot say that we are *wrong* in our application of the word, or he does intend to talk about what we otherwise mean about fascism, in which case his exclusion of figures like DT (and potentially Erdogan and Bolsonaro) is just too coarse to account for the varieties of political violence we see today. I just get the feeling that his category of fascism is fed too much by fear of slippery-sloping away from what he thinks is the clearest acceptable cases for no-platforming rather than considering fascism as a category to be intrinsically slippery, as is pointed out by Eco and Paxton for example, because it problematizes an otherwise clean solution to the platform problem. But, I'll give him a read anyway and hope it gets better in writing.
Stochastic violence is a way for midwits to feel smart while committing the logical fallacy of equivocation so that they can make up rules for others to follow that they themselves can violate whenever they like. What you do is use the loose definition of violence when it comes to other people, but use a strict definition when it comes to yourself. If someone calls you a jerk, that's verbal violence. Since they've been violent to you, you're justified in smashing them over the head with a club. You equivocate on the term "violence". This is the founding philosophy of antifa, it's how they justify their constant assaults and vandalism as "defense". That 80 year old lady carrying her groceries home from Walmart isn't wearing a BLM t-shirt, and blacks were kept as slaves before, and discrimination is just as bad today as it ever was, it's just invisible now, and this lady could be wearing a shirt protesting it but she isn't, so she's tacitly supporting it, which means this lady is a slaver and deserves to be hospitalized with head injuries. That's how the minds of folks like Jake work. When it is stripped of the flowery nonsense, you can see very easily how intellectually and morally bankrupt the concept of stochastic violence is. Some people on January 6 committed vandalism. They were amongst a larger crowd who protested. They were amongst a larger crowd than that who heard Trump speak. Therefore Jake concludes that Trump is guilty of the attempted violent overthrow of the government. That's the level of intellectual discourse going on amongst leftists these days. It's pathetic.
What is a death attempted against a presidential vote mean? No one has been charged with murder or attempted murder during the Capitol riot. The only people who died were people among the crowd of rioters. The January 6th Committee was a show court, a spectacle of hand-picked testimony unconstrained by rules of actual courts and without any presentation by a defendant. Donald Trump held a protest at the Capitol to challenge the election results which he claimed to believe were the result of voter fraud. There is no law that prohibits someone from expressing a belief that an election result was manipulated. There is no law that prohibits someone from protesting and petitioning the government. In fact there are protections that prohibit the state from interfering in the right to protest. The protestors at the Capitol exercised their legally protected right to protest. The subset of protesters who engaged in violence, vandalism and trespassing are individually responsible for the crimes they committed and should be tried individually with evidence for the specific crimes they are being charged with presented for the prosecution and defense to present legal arguments. This is the rule of law. What is your argument for upending the rule of law, a mechanism for justice that has been fine-tuned over centuries? So that you are unconstrained to punish your political opponents? The restriction of political persecution was one of the main motivations for the construction of a rule of law based on due process.
So then you're arguing for mind reading, so that the selected fascism enforcers can stop pre-crime early in the benign (but of course proximal!) phase of thought and words? You know, that sounds like less stochastic authoritarianism and more actual authoritarianism 😅
@@OurNewestMemberI didn't argue for anything other than that Renton's definition of fascism, at least as presented here, is objectionably narrow compared to other experts in fascism and common discourse on the topic. The choices are to double down on Renton's definition (in which case we need some meaningful account for why things like stochastic violence are don't count as genuinely fascistic) or to acknowledge that Reston is being idiosyncratic. Given that you objected to neither of those things, likely because neither require mind reading, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
@@jakemetzger9115 interesting. I found the scope also bothersomely narrow but I think problematic for different reasons. My objection to stochastic violence is that enforcing it necessarily implies taking action with increasing uncertainty about the intent and effect of the violence (hence the reference to the "mind reading" that would be required to carry out this approach in practice to enforce "violence" which has not quite yet manifest). It's the typical objection of "how do we trust who determines what is a threat, and who gets to use force to stop the threat?" My complaint about the narrow scope is that I don't think regular people care nearly as much about whether some authoritarianism is left or right, nationalist, collectivist, etc. So the focus on fascism is irrelevant to the bigger picture of use of force and public safety, etc. However, of course he is allowed to write a book specifically on fascism, even if I find it a missed opportunity. But it sounds like you're saying his definition of fascism itself is...too restrictive? I think you mean specifically the part about ("actual"?) violence being the key defining part (because it does not include proximal violence and maybe even incitement to violence?).
Donald Trump didn't actually have any ideology other than narcissism. He'll go in any direction that will give him enough praise and attention to fill the empty void in his heart. The problem is that a lot of fascist ideas are bubbling up in the GOP, and he will gladly go along with them in order to follow the applause.
I'm betting he would, with the exact same meaningless disclaimer of "but I don't just mean the FAKE stochastic terrorists; only the super-duper-REAL stochastic terrorists..." (which would all go out the window, the nano-second he got the chance to use such a law against his political enemies- "Stochastic" or not.) Left OR right-wing, this is how authoritarians operate. Nobody STARTS OFF by saying "I want to silence anyone on the other side of politics to me..." But you don't use insanely vague, murky, notoriously- hard- to- precisely -define labels like "facist" (or, it'd probably be the equally- meaningless "Cultural Marxist", if he was coming from the right), if you only intend to target GENUINELY dangerous people (but... we ALREADY have laws against inciting violence, don't we?
@@mrg7405 I think considering your firm dismissal of the entire subject, you're not only perfectly aware what I'm talking about, you also know perfectly well how it can happen and therfore know it really does exist.
Alex, I was very impressed by your moderate and measured approach, by your careful and clear push back on many things he said. This other guy though... Wow. I am impressed by how much he tries to wriggle. He never really defines fascism as an ideology, only as a set of behaviours... And a lot of those behaviours have also been pretty common in communist regimes... He seems to say that, once left wing groups start becoming violent, they have then become fascist themselves... The implication being that they are then right wing? As an actual liberal, I have no problem lumping fascists and Nazis and communists and the same box as people I would really rather did not exist (but would certainly never advocate their de-platforming), but he does seem to be in denial about things, both the nature of violence that many left-wingers can be capable of in the name of left-wing ideologies without actually turning into ideological fascists, as well the institutional power currently held by left-wing ideas (I say ideas, rather than left-wingers, as it is not always clear what ideology a person in a position of power has, but it is clear and an institution can embrace an ideology if it garners power to that institution). His position on no-platforming right-wingers because certain right wingers do not actually believes in free-speech surely means he should expect those of us and an opposing position to no-platform him on exactly the same basis.
It's funny, I watch these interviews and think of how novel it is to see them done in this manner. Then I realize "oh wait, this was pretty much textbook at one point decades ago." If you watch old news programs with people like Walter Cronkite and Edward R Murrow. I found the guest's position to track right up to around 35 minutes in where he took a turn and started to exhibit blinders as to how free speech is being assaulted and from what quarters. Around the 40:00 mark he describes the effectiveness "de-radicalizing" programs in the 1970's which sounds a whole hell of a lot like reeducation.
The inevitable problem is who decides who has free speech, also decides who is a fascist. The difference between a fascist and a "fascist" is ultimately decided by them. This problem isn't an easy one to solve and might not even be possible to solve. So the question becomes is this a problem that can be avoided or solved at all? At the very least it's an interesting thought.
It's tricky for sure. Peronally my thought is that while it's difficult to pin down what and who is fascist, you really still better try if the alternative is just letting them go unopposed.
@@cheesi I don't think opposition and removing free speech are quite the same. If anything I think allowing them to speak is a weaknesses for them, as it allows them to be confronted directly.
The issue is that the idea is held solely on the belief that the definition of who is a fascist will not change in the future for the convenience of someone's political opponents.
The title here seems a bit misleading. Not platforming people does not equate to eliminating their free speech, it only means owners of a particular platform won't allow the party to engage their free speech on that platform. Of course they can always create their own platform - even if it's just standing on a corner holding a sign.
This is such a dumb Leftist argument I hope one of these days people actually challenge this idiocy. Giving away FS to corporations when corporations ARE the street corners...... I hope people that are sane Leftists start debunking this nonsensensical statement.
So you support effectively having to PAY MONEY for your right to free speech?!? (Or at the very least, pay to BE HEARD) So, it totes wouldn't be a "free speech" issue at all, if TH-cam and/or Twitter, Reddit, FB etc all decided to ban any user who promoted abortion right? Or who opposed racism? Or who promoted acceptance of LGBT? Those companies would be acting totally within their rights, and not limiting "free speech" at all, right? Or, is it ONLY "not a freedom of speech issue", when the corporations are silencing your political ENEMIES? I'm black, and gay. But I would never support large sites like YT, Twitter, etc de-platforming even the worst white supremacists or homophobes (unless they directly threaten violence, in a way that would get ANYONE banned) ...Because I've got enough life experience to know that once a precedent like that is set, minority groups will ALWAYS end up getting harmed worst, with the least right of reply. No government stays in power forever. Whatever laws/policies you want to impose on THE OTHER GUY, will eventually end up targetting YOUR side, when the pendulum swings the other way... I know it's a cliche, but if you don't support freedom of speech for those you disagree with MOST, then you don't support free speech AT ALL.
It's crazy to hear a person arguing that you shouldn't allow free speech for a nebulous group that you just kind of get to define however you want... If suppression of speech is allowed it will always be abused.
The issue is cyclic and historical. Those interested should check "A Critique of Pure Tolerance" the 1965 book by philosopher Robert Paul Wolff, sociologist Barrington Moore Jr., and philosopher Herbert Marcuse.
Seemingly can't figure out the difference between an opponent and an enemy. Opponents are to be defeated, enemies are to be destroyed. Our failure to distinguish the two will be our downfall
An opponent is a person who is simply in opposition to you or your position. They need to be engaged with and talked to through discourse and most importantly in good faith. An opponent does not necessarily mean you harm or even have any bad feelings towards you at all. A friend can be an opponent. An enemy by definition bears you I'll will and is motivated by negative emotion to cause you harm, and may not always be reasoned with or deserve discourse. An opponent and an enemy are poles apart...not even in the same ball park of adversary.
The problem with fascism - it was an ordered, organized intimidation of political enemies to promote a clear ideology. The problem with the modern left - it is a chaotic, unorderly intimidation of political enemies to promote a vague and severely confused ideology.
Two thoughts...1. When ideology, rhetoric and talking points are rooted in racism and "power-over" philosophy...they should not be allowed to go about their spreading of such filth easily. This is my opinion. BUT 2. It could be easily argued that by allowing at least some of this stuff to be on open platforms, we could potentially use it as a way to interface with this stuff and correct people instead of driving them into the clandestine underbelly of the web. Shine light on it and disinfect so to speak. I am not sure #2 would hold up though, it has been my experience that once people lock into this crap, they are stuck there for as long as they want, no matter how much you reason with them.
Our education systems have to teach people to use actual critical thinking properly. It's interesting how the higher someone's education level is, the less likely they are to be far right or fascists... I wonder why
@@Sahtoovi think about it, you're putting somebody else on the other end of a binary opposition and then attributing to them the aspects of the worst possible parasites. It completely removes the possibility for dialogue.
@@notloki3377 What dialogue? I doubt that the people whose ideologies are pretty much based around oppressing minorities don't care about dialogue. You are doing the extremely centrist move of "we must have a civilized talk with them". Tell me, how did we defeat fascism in ww2? Spoiler: it was not with polite conversation.
After watching the video and reading a lot of the comments, it seems quite clear that 1) there needs to be clearly criteria for what is fascism and 2) we need a term form Left-wing Authoritarianism like we do for Right-wing Authoritarianism (aka Fascism). We could go the easy route and use the same format that the term Fascism got with its origins being from the fascisti word associated with Mussolini's party and so we could use Bolshevikism due to the bolshevik word associated with Lenin's party.
De-platforming is a strategy of the weak and ambivalent and ultimately hurts anti-fascists. De-platforming has a number of negative consequences: 1) It reinforces the idea that people are *afraid* of certain ideas being heard, which is very different than people *disagreeing* with the ideas 2) It eliminates opportunities for ant-fascists to hone their rhetorical chops; the conservative movement has been refining its messaging and strategy for DECADES; this is why conservatives (and I mean real conservatives like Buckley, Friedman, George Will - not Shapiro, Cruz, etc) often wipe the floor with liberals in public debates (the only competent liberals I think I've ever seen are Hitchens, Harris, and Alex) 3) It allows bad and dangerous ideas (dangerous not because they could be heard, but rather dangerous because they already exist in the minds of many) to go unchallenged in the public sphere. This is an argument that Jordan Peterson actually makes, and I agree with it wholeheartedly - the only way to defeat a bad idea is not to de-platform it but rather to tear it to shreds. In short: de-platforming is the strategy employed by people who know they are going to lose in a public debate, but have so little faith in their ability to fight back, they scream "the other people are too bad and dangerous to be heard!" rather than "I feel powerless to stop them."
Any incitement of hate, discrimination or violence violates human rights, so fella needs to learn some basic shit. And he doesn't know what fascism is, either.
@K T I don't know why we assume humans have rights to begin with; it just seems like a thing we all agree exists without justification. This is an issue I particularly have with the left and the right: they both think they have the moral high ground, thus dehumanizing the other without being truly genuine in their arguments. So what do you think? Eager to see your point of view
@@abbasfadhil1715I wouldn't even say that we all agree on them. that's another lie that is propagated from the people who claim human rights exist and it's conveniently the same people who have been defining what those human rights are and how other humans have to abide by them. the original justification was that they were somehow "natural" rights which is clearly not true as nature doesn't give a crap about any rights and neither do any other animals. If you asked a north Korean , a neo nazi and a tribesman from the Namib desert wether they all agreed on human rights I'd bet money on the fact that they would in fact not agree on them as many of our western pseudo intellectuals presume.
This man fails in his assessment of Fascism and who is and isn't fascism. This presupposes that fascists are violent from the get go and don't escalate violence once they reach power. It also presupposes that fascist in power can simply undo the democratic protections woven into the fabric of a society without consent and expect to remain in power. In both cases the Nazi's are the prime examples. They didn't instigate widespread violence until they attained political power and they didn't disband the Reichstag outside the political mechanism of German politics of the time. The Nazi's were still fascist well before either Kristallnacht or even The Enabling Act
Intellectual fascism is where people are so sure of their opinions that they believe they have the right to quash those of others. They believe this because they’ve not learned one of lifes most fundamental lessons: That life is a process of re-evaluating your opinions as your wisdom and experience increases. The immaturity of this position also fails to understand repeated lessons of history, and how the motive to direct and skew the debate, is always intended to be self-serving.
Fascism is not authoritarianism. Suppressing other voices, terrible as that may be, is not fascism. Political theory has very specific definitions for fascism.
@@radioactivedetective6876 Ok, so if a right wing government comes to power, decides to strip away gay pride online, bans pro-lgbt content everywhere (from government offices, malls, youtube, tiktok, media), are they fascist? No element of palingenetic ultranationalism, zero political violence against the opposition. I bet you would call that fascism. It's just that when a leftist bougie intellectual wants to ban speech, that's fine.
On Trump, it is a weak argument to say don't deplatform him because it's not possible (as opposed to on principle). Just go on principles that fascists should be de-platformed, and make the case as to whether he should be or not.
This is possibly the most credible person on the globe when it comes to Fascism: "How is fascism defined? Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York told Live Science that fascism is "a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques." According to Paxton, fascism uses such propaganda to promote: -anti-liberalism, rejecting individual rights, civil liberties, free enterprise and democracy -anti-socialism, rejecting economic principles based on socialist frameworks -exclusion of certain groups, often through violence -nationalism that seeks to expand the nation's influence and power" Source: Live Science; What is Fascism?
_"-anti-socia lism, rejecting economic principles based on soci alist frameworks"_ This is where Paxton has no clue what he is talking about. Fasci sm was a soc ialist ideology based on national syndi calism. They never rejected social ism, they rejected mar xism.
@@hanansheikh5016 : an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) own/control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership/control of the means of production. or simply, the collective ownership or control of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. in history when the people handed over all the things to those already in power... it never went well. It doesn't matter what pretty horrid label you give it... it still ends in Northe Korea or NaZi camps...
I am disappointed that they didn't adress communism in USSR. It used violence (for example gulags) and it didn't allow any opposition. On the other hand, it fought against fascism and nazism. So does it fall into 'fascist' category or not?
i think you're looking at the political comapss in the wrong way. fascism is not the definition of extreme-authorian, its an ideology that leans towards it. USSR falls under stalinism. both of them are extreme-authorian, but different in ideology. so no, it doesn't fall under the same category
29:00 Renton literally just finished saying that any argument in favour of free speech must be "mirrored", i.e. applied to both left and right, and that this is the only way to make a principled argument. And then responds to a question of the left potentially becoming "fascisitic" and requiring censorship like right-wing political violence with "Well I would never advocate the no-platforming of leftist views". Total dodge, total hypocrisy. It indicates that the thesis of his book is not being made on a principled basis, by his own definitions. He keeps using words like "mistake" when it comes to Leftists violating principles and behaving unethically. The kiddy gloves are on for leftists, but the gloves come off for the right. Stalinism was every bit as evil as Nazism and Fascism. Never treat the left as in any way more fundamentally benign than the right. They are not. We have already seen both the Left and the Right behaving in equally violent and immoral ways in the same country: it happened in Weimar Germany. Both the left and the right used tactics or terror and violence to try and wage a political war. It's very frustrating to see, as he is otherwise a very moderate and palatable leftist. But the absence of principle, the favouring of purely consequentialist ethics, and mostly pragmatic reasoning makes it impossible for me to accept his thesis as someone who is not on his team. It's a parochial argument, when it ought to be universal in its terms.
Renton seems to make a lot of excuses to not label Trump a fascist but he seems to ignore the fact that the reason Trump's administration wasn't outright fascist was because he was surrounded by people who kept talking him down from doing fascist things or just not carrying out his orders. If not for all these external restraints, there would be no doubt that Trump is fascist. By all accounts, his first instinct in every situation lands firmly in that area. Luckily for all of us, the man lacks the intelligence and leadership skills to bring his wishes to fruition. He may be the de facto leader of a fascist uprising but it will take others to make it happen which leaves us with an opening to take it down before it takes over.
@@rkdeshdeepak4131 It has been accurate for quite some time. We shouldn't have to wait until The Night of Long Knives repeats itself. We have the power of historical reference. Any educated person can see where this is going. Those who do not learn from history are damned to repeat it. And those who do learn from history are damned to watch the world fail again and again, for they are so grossly out-numbered.
I think David Renton is rather narrow with his definition of fascism and what it means to be fascist, you can be ideologically minded as a fascist and be unable to kill your political enemies, even if they want to do so. I understand his point that it applies to a political figurehead who would go to that extent but some fascist simply hide their identities, simple as. Perhaps this meaning is only applicable to his no platforming argument, in which it is not a general defintion of being a fascist.
This might be a controversial question, but... What about the equally far left, or other groups, they can be equally violent in their opposition. When free speech is denied to anyone, it's potentially denied to everyone. I am not talking in the "shouting fire in a theatre" free speech here. I don't know the answer to this question but it seems to be a very slippery slope. The real problem is that where the line is drawn can be a very arbitrary, and those drawing that line are like anyone susceptible to getting it wrong. It might start off with banning free speech for fascists but then there's the possibility that it's extended for an other group deemed equally bad. Then if two groups are OK then why not 3, or 4 or 44. Where does it stop? There are a number of questions that need answering. Who gets to decided? Is there a right of appeal? How does this person get the position of deciding? How do you get rid of this person when they are manifestly wrong? At the 10 minute mark David's description could apply to the far left too. The political system in Russia and China could easily be categorised in this way.
The most important voices are the ones we disagree with. It is important for both parties, for education but more importantly to keep them in the public domain and not in hiding where they will become more extreme in their views. An hour in, no true Scotsmen
This is the guy who spied on a fellow barristers (Allison Bailey) phone calls at work and then reported her to her bosses at Garden Court Chambers for being transphobic. All because she expressed concern people were insisting lesbians like her had to agree & accept people born male who claimed they were women and lesbian into their groups & dating pool. How do I know? Allison took GC Chambers to court and this guys behaviour was brought up in the evidence. His behaviour sounds a bit stasi like to me.
Rather vapid book, this dude is definitely a lawyer. Enjoyed the discussion but this guy just doesn't seem trustworthy. If we had a project together, I'd watch my tongue closely.
clearly because he is sexist and loves to discriminate against females! on that note hwo do you know that none of his 26 guests identify as women ? did they mention their pronouns and prefferences or are you simply assuming their genders ? that's not very progressive of you if I may say so...
Alex, how are you coping with the mental health issues? I hope u are feeling better. Do take care and reach out to your loved ones whenever u feel like talking. You are so special, surely your frieds and family will be eager to be there with you in whatever capacity u need them. You don't need to do this alone. And don't hesitate to seek medical help. It is tough, but certainly u'l beat this.
I disagree. I don’t think fascism is qualified by physical violence. Why wait to until there is violence in the mix to label the tendency? I do not wish to wait until I am in the midst of violent suppression to label correctly the policies that brought me to that awful situation. Why fear identifying it for what it is before violence is surrounding us? By then it will be too late.
Which is also why Trump is not a racist when he realizes that people that were indoctrinated into a religion that is fundamentally not compatible with the liberal values of our western societs and commit statistically more crimes because of it, may not be the best in our liberal western countries.
In the context of this discussion I'll warrant you could substitute almost every instance of the word fascism with the word socialism and it would be difficult to detect incoherence were you to be unaware of the switch. For this reason I find this man's premise uncompelling and betrays the fact that this man has chosen a side (probably in adolescence) and is not very introspective about it.
Are fascism and socialism comparable to you? You could also replace it with liberalism, centrism etcetc. Are liberalism and centrism inherently harmful and hateful? Are they ideologies that actively try to oppress minorities? I don't think they are. Socialism isn't really even an ideology, it's an economic system.
I want to agree with David's overall conclusion, but the narrowness of his criteria for deplatforming benefits the fascists themselves. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but he came across as dismissive of the power that large social media platforms have to funnel certain people in the direction of fascism if left unchecked. Maybe this is a bad analogy, but it's like allowing a tumor to grow in your body but not removing it until it becomes cancerous and metastisizes.
Everytime the interviwer presses this guy on his double standards, he just reshifts the focus of the conversation. Wack. Hold him to account, man come on
David's responses here make it seem like he doesn't actually want to confront interlocutors in a serious way. Your pushing him on his stance and where he draws the line for no-platforming was a great opportunity for him to argue why fascism is particularly special but it was a miss. I am not moved whatsoever against a liberal use of no-platforming by his statements here. Perhaps his writings do a better job of bearing on the actual controversy but this discussion was quite disappointing. I really enjoyed you pushing him on his stance but he did a poor job of responding.
Jeez this comment section is cringe to read, the lot of y’all don’t understand what you’re taking about with your “go woke go broke” drivel. Have you even watched the video yet?
I don't even know why right wingers even watch this channel. You'd think they would learn something from it, seeing as how they do, or at least appear to. I suspect these trolls just use the comments section because it's one place they're guaranteed to see engagement. 90% of right wingers comments I see, and I see a ton, are either asinine or completely juvenile. I just hope they truly are juveniles and that they'll keep watching and grow out of it.
@@LukeMcGuireoides Thats your opinion. I watched the video and this Guy could not even define fascism. I May even be on his side If he had a clear and accurate definition of fascism.
Unn dude, Trump would have totally jalied his opponents if he knew others would go along. Just because he could not do it does not mean he wouldn't do it.
You totally would be into child trafficking if you had the opportunity. Just because you haven't doesn't mean you wouldn't if the right opportunity presented itself.
I disagree with a huge amount of Alex's positions but have found him excellent at drilling below examples to find principles that can be well defended. This interview didn't seem to me to achieve this and while I don't put too much blame on Alex as he did make several pushes toward this but the guest seemed to continously resort to examples, conflating accepted examples with hypotheticals. Scale of violence is the only principle I managed to pull out. This is further weakened by examples where say Trump is fascist adjacent so the principle is... potential fascism which is large scale violence on a small scale should be restricted too?
So Communism, which produced 2 Dictators, both of whom were each independently responsible for more deaths than Hitler, (putting him into 3rd place for dictators' death tolls) that's fine? If silencing & violence is a concern - shouldn't be a concern that goes beyond who/what ideology, is doing the silencing & violence?
Numbers relating to deaths under communism are both grossly inflated and also deeply misrepresented. For instance, a lot of people died in the USSR during Stalin's leadership as a result of a massive Nazi invasion.All the horror stories about him are part of Nazi Germany’s “Big Lie” (Goebbels himself admitted to exaggerating and propagandizing the Katyn massacre). I recommend reading some of Grover Furr’s work on Stalin to help unlearn some of these lies and put things in better historical context. Marxist-Leninists emphasize critical support for people and organizations that have furthered the cause of communism. That being said, none of us will honestly claim that Stalin was perfect. He was, however, a good man and a great comrade who’s most responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany. He deserves to be recognized for his many accomplishments, and his works are absolutely worth a read. Stalin didn’t kill many people. People inflate the statistic by talking about world war 2 deaths on the Eastern front and somehow blame them all on him, even tying Nazi deaths to him like it’s a bad thing. They also talk about gulags, the gulags was just a normal prison system like anywhere else in the world. During the second world war, most of the resources went towards the war, taking away from the prisoners in those systems, not only that but if you look at a map of the gulag system, where they are placed, when most of the deaths occurred in the system, you would also realize that over 70-90% of the deaths occurred under Nazi occupation of those prisons (this is just off the top of my head so might not be 100% correct). After world war two the people in this prison system had 8 hour work days, and even received a wage for their work. Heres a CIA report on the Gulags which paints them as the prison system they are Now if we are talking about famines, to my knowledge Stalin cannot control the weather, and thats a major reason why most of the famines occurred.
It is curious that we seldom see authoritarian communists being denounced when it's the case that this group is responsible for far more death and misery than even Hitler.
I think he sort of talked about this. Those would be examples of things that have sort of started on the left but in the end they were just fascist. So no they wouldn't be fine.
Communism produced two dictators? And they are "independently" responsible for more deaths than Hitler? Not really. There is a direct causal connection from fascism to violence and the suppression of people. What is the causal connection from communist ideology to dictators?
Ideological incoherence is a feature of fascism, not a bug. DT lacked the political power to persecute political opponents, it's not like he was clutching pearls at the thought. It's safe to say he was a proto-fascist, especially considering the legal persecution of political opponents the GOP went through with this week in Nashville.
He is a populist, a supremacist, ultranationalist, based his pitch on reviving the mythical golden past (MAGA), politics based on blaming out-group for national decadence - pretty much ticks all the boxes. As u day, it is just that he couldn't consolidate power.
@@biologicalengineoflove6851 Reducing fascism to political persecution renders the term useless since it therefore can be applied to all tyrannical regimes in history, and we already have a lot of words for those kinds of systems. Fascism is a political ideology, not a method.
@@TeikonGom Political ideologies and methods are not mutually exclusive, on the contrary, all political ideologies _are_ methods for determining political power structures. Fascism is a political ideology which serves as a method to consolidate authoritarian power, just like democracy is a political ideology which serves as a method to limit authoritarian power. We can easily trace the history of nationalist and monarchist authoritarianism through the lens of modern fascism, the absolute power of a monarch differs only in trappings from the power of a fascist dictator. This is where ideas like monarcho-fascism come from. This is why fascism is not reduced to political persecution, but political persecution is identified as one hallmark of fascism. Rather than obscuring it to meaninglessness, this recognizes the hallmark specifically. So anytime political persecution is used to consolidate authoritarian power, it could be considered "doing a fascism." On the other hand, having democratic safeguards in place to protect democracy from malignant, bad-faith actors (who would corrupt and warp the democratic process for their own ends without such safeguards), is not described as political persecution (except disingenuously by them), and more accurately called justice.
Respectfully, I do not think that word (fascism) means what he thinks it means. Fascism is not defined by the willingness to engage in violence against one's political enemies even though this may occur. Fascism is a specific type of ethno-cultural nationalism which is often, but need not always be, totalitarian in its promulgation of its ideals.
@@SineN0mine3 the point ==..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................==> you
Donald Trump definitely flirted with fascist ideas and praised fascists leaders, and I think an unrestrained Donald Trump without a staff of sane people holding him back would have indeed gone down that route eventually. This is the man who asked "Why do we have nukes if we aren't going to use them."
The Quran is a guide book for behaviour for Muslims - that and the example of Mohamed’s behaviour. The Quran states that a man has licence to strike his wife for persistent insubordination (4:34) THAT is the promotion of violence. How is that therefore not fascistic in tone? Yet does the author object to the Quran being promoted in thousands of mosques in Britain? It’s safe to say he doesn’t, so there is a hypocrisy there and it reveals the flimsiness of his position. Though I get the thrust of what he’s trying to promote, it seems HE gets to decide what behaviour constitutes fascism. Tommy Robinson initially reacted to the odious demonstration by Jihadi types in Luton protesting British troops marching through town. The British troops who defend the freedoms THEY ENJOY living in Britain. I’d say pretty well ALL British found the Jihadi fascistic (I choose to describe it as fascistic given the nature of the superstitious ideology they promote) demeanour something that rightly deserved push back. I wonder whether the author objected to Tommy Robinson addressing the Oxford Student Union? What about his behaviour at that address reflected fascistic demeanour?
Anti-war demonstrations are not only legal, but necessary. The soldiers who returned were not personally to blame for the governments' mistakes, but 'we were only following orders' isn't exactly a great excuse. The British troops weren't there defending anyone's freedoms, they were lied to and as a result, thousands of innocent people are dead. That's what the muslim community were protesting. If you are genuinely invested in protecting freedom, you shuold support holding governments and by extension their armies, to account.
@@hareecionelson5875 I believe it was British involvement in Iraq which the jihadis were protesting. That involvement led to the emancipation of the Shia and Kurdish communities. Without that involvement those communities would still be under the boot of Saddam and the Sunnis. Much of the unrest and killings that followed - most of the death’s over the period the troops were in situ - was from Muslim gang militias acting to protect and expand their own terfs. Those troops, on whom the Muslims metaphorically spat, protect - with their lives - the residents of Britain, including the provocative scum that were involved in those protests.
The part where Alex asks if there were some conspiracy against the right to silence their speech on social media platforms, the guest doesn't even bother to consider the hypothetical. Why is he so disingenuous about his beliefs?
Oh looking forward to listening to this, why do I have to adult right now and put off listening until later…?🤷🏻♀️ Oh. I AM an adult!? Drat. Anyway and jokes aside, gonna be interesting. Thanks Alex
No, you aren't an adult if you are looking forward to listening to why it is okay to deny free speech to right wing people based on their political affiliation. Note that this isn't an argument to deplatform extremists. It's purely a claim that politically right wing people shouldn't be given a chance to speak. Nobody else is involved here. Not even left wing fascists - and if you don't think they exist, the World Economic Forum's fusion of private and public interests in the attempt to serve the global good is pure fascism coming from the left. Their final solution just involves putting people in pods and feeding them insects until they die rather than putting them in work camps until they die. Hopefully you were wanting to see arguments *against* the deplatforming of ordinary civilians who think unapproved thoughts.
If you're gonna draw the line of free speech just right before fascism, well then you might as well move it even further, right? That's the problem. It's a slippery slope. And that's why some principles, like free speech, need to be he'd fast.
I think a better title would be "Censorship for Fascists". Free Speech deals with the government. The platforms are owned by individuals, not the government. No one has the right to use another individual's property without their permission.
Kudos, and Alex took a bad turn inviting this man on and basically acquiescing to his fascist enabling. This man is either a moron or a bad faith actor.
"Oh, so we just gotta create your means of comunication and then let them be run by someone else? Neat." *proceeds to fund Silicon Valley* That argument is as bad faith as bad faith gets.
@@Zer0Spinn It's about property rights. You don't have a right to someone else's property. Also, I don't use any social media outside of TH-cam. I think social media is a scourge on society.
That felt like Renton was separating fascism from all its defining characteristics except the violence, then saying anyone who engages in such is a fascist. Hence, he can't think of left-wing groups enacting the same violence because they would, by definition, not be left-wing anymore. I do understand that his book is meant to be more like a guide to effective deplatforming, rather than reasoning why fascists are the only group who should face as such. It was alarming however that the "perfect" version of no platforming a fascist would result in "complete public support for you doing anything you like against them". I could not discern any underlying principle in Renton's position, only that he really disapproves of fascists and so supports their deplatforming.
I think the “thanks for being here” inside someone else’s home trend is great.
Can't have these guys roaming the streets, spilling tea and dropping biscuits everywhere.
@@Ixnatifual Jesus f.cking Christ😂
Somehow your comment had me giggle quite a bit.
Well Played🖖🏻
This was an interesting conversation. I really appreciate the interviewers even handed line of questioning, and I say that as a left leaning viewer. The interviewee presents some ideas that really needed that push back and clarifying questions. My big issue with the ideas proposed here is that the interviewee's concept of fascism still feels incredibly nebulous, despite how much time was spent attempting to explain it. He motions towards "super violence", and violence that explicitly targets political opponents, but he never lays out what he views as tenets of fascism, or critical criteria for when speech should be suppressed. I'm sure he goes into more detail in his book, but it really seems like something that should have been a priority in the interview, especially since he bemoans colloquial usage of the term. It's disappointing that after an hour of conversation, I still don't really know who he means should be no-platformed. I don't find myself agreeing with his ideas, but I'm interested in looking more into his writings.
I'm beginning to see these people who insist that fascism is esoteric, over complicated, far away and sophisticated as straight up fascist enablers. I'm already seeing actual fascists adopt these obfuscating and deceptive bad faith talking points. Whether or not they give a damn, they're playing into the hands of very sinister and wicked people. I suspect this man is a far right bad faith actor. He's a Trump apologist for crying out loud. And finally, I'm very disappointed in Alex for practically uncritically providing this man with a megaphone. He really is just signal boosting this man and his dangerous ideas. I mean, he not only claims but insists that the American republican party is center right. I've never heard anything so preposterous from a British person, much less what I assume to be a serious writer. I sure hope Alex isn't trying to cultivate a right wing audience for clout or financial reasons. I mean, this rebranding is off to a horrible start, imo.
I respectfully disagree, mainly on the grounds that fascism is inherently nebulous in that it can be constructed in different ways, but there are hallmarks of a political movement that can be rightly looked upon as fascist. Authoritarian leadership by a demigogue who uses violence to quash dissent, for example. Is it right to call Trump fascist? Not really, because the US had the benefit of military leaders who would either fight against his wishes or, in some cases, just not carry them out. Between Trump holding up the bible (he's never read) in the middle of a police-state show of force in Washington, to his endorsement of organic paramilitary groups and local violence, to his 2016 seed-planting of rigged elections and his subsequent attempts to rig elections - there comes a point where a reasonable person can see a fascist-in-waiting.
@@Philusteen you are fully right, fascism can't be defined and that's how it often takes root. you can't define fascism but you can look for identifiers such as those outlined by Umberto Eco which are really useful.
@@mateokenyon3311 excellent point! Eco is a great resource.
@@Philusteen The fact that fascism is nebulously defined is besides the point, because he is clearly using it in a specific context. He wouldn't be criticizing other people's use of the term if himself didn't have his own conception of what it means. That's what I took issue with - not that he didn't give *the* definition of fascism, which is indeed hard to pin down, but rather that he didn't give *his* definition.
fascinating to see a healthy debate in the comments within just 10 minutes of an hour-long video being uploaded
Yeah, because the first 10 seconds of the video deliberately tickles the fancy of either the fascists trying to silence people by calling them fascist or the normal people understanding this.
If something egregious is said within the first 10 mins, most people won't wait 50 mins for no reason to make their counter that they'd likely have forgotten about. Not everyone watches and comments in the same way as you.
@@rauminen4167 You're just showing that you don't know what fascism is. Fascism is not when someone wants to silence people. Fascism has an actual definition and you aren't any better than the people using it as a buzz word about anything they don't like.
@@rauminen4167 Says the conservative who supports policies like book bans, shutting down libraries, laws like bans on trans people, and forcing women to bear children against their will.
On the matter of free speech, he supports banning teachers from discussing that gay people and trans people exist. Not to mention the curbs on the right to protest, and the race selective voting restrictions.
I personally think that's all pretty fascist but according to him this is what "normal people" support.
@@Sahtoovi Of course it has. The lucrative merger of big corporations, the news media and The Party.
That said, silencing people is in fact fascist, so not entirely sure what you're getting at. Yes, marxists too were silencing their opposition - but that's just another similarity.
Anyone else find it weirdly creepy that every time Alex asks him about the possibility of those on the left abusing this technique or possibly being hypocritical in its use, he spins into a long deflection about it? Or that "people who think they're left wing" comment? Like I get that he's super partisan, so you don't really want to acknowledge that your side could ever be morally wrong, but that's something else
Definitely got the same impression. Every time his answer was "but what I'm trying to say in my book..."
Dude, just answer the question.
Nope, the honest people caught that, couldn't miss it. The left has no power, what!?
He similarly painted everyone who disagreed with social media moderation as right wing extremists, giving another story about Tommy Robinson.
He quite literally said at one point that he doesn't think any left wing group should be deplatformed. This may be the most blindly partisian person I've ever seen.
@Jacob-yb3hz for real. Like come on man, even if you don't believe it, that's like the most obvious 'is your position consistent?' question ever.
So a fascist can only be defined as a fascist once it has obtained total freedom of action? Odd.
And apparently we’re suppose to ignore it and deny it’s happening until it’s at your doorstep. It’s a mistake to ignore what’s happening in the states.
@@randyprice5392 I think he's saying (a bit later on re: rock against racism) not that we're supposed to ignore fascists, rather invite them out for a beer. (problem is of course that I end up believing in flat earth and jewish pedo cannibalism by the end of the booze up)
Fascists take control once the public sphere stops being objectively truthful, so fascists can freely spread their propaganda.
Think Murdoch/Reagan gutting the USA's Fairness Doctrine, so Fox could freely lie to Americans...and the world.
I can recommend relistening to the part at 31:16. Here he argues that Fascism, even during the time when it is a fringe movement, is violent in a way that other political tendencies aren't, and that it can be recognised at this point, long before it gets any political power.
@@TheMilli Fascists take control the moment the public sphere stops being objectivily truthful. It's at that point fascsits can freely foist their lies, propaganda and corruption.
It's an objective public sphere that keeps all tyrants out of our lives and out of power, as the tyrant have to lie, propagandize and corrupt to have their way.
Utterly reasoned unreason. A complete othering of one side and a complete leniency to the other. The case was poorly made and just shows that attempts to ring-fence "free speech" are always undermined by the simple question of "who do you trust to decide what is free speech".
See "Repressive Tolerance" by Herbert Marcuse
@@nirad8026 See woke scripture #7
1 hour video and I still couldn't figure out more than the title.
Same! I felt a bit silly because I saw all the comments praising the conversation and I mostly felt that he didn't answer the questions in a understandable/meaningful way and my opinion and knowledge on the subject didn't budge (I was hoping it would at least open new lines of thought)
Exactly feeling the same way, I think the guy had nothing more to say other than to say to his friends on the left, "hey guys let's be a bit more sneaky about how we silence others" he wanted the left to love him and the right not to hate him for holding stupid views that people nowadays hold, unspoken views like "anyone who is not on the far left, must be on the far far right"
I think I can help. A hundred years ago some fascists came to power in Europe. Then some even worse (racist) fascists came to power in another European country. This was really bad for just about everyone. We need to prevent something like that happening again.
Fascists stand against every one of our British values.
Same.
Same. I think its because he keeps on trying to use vague and subversive language to justify why he should be able to ban free speech and no one else.
Can anyone provide a timestamp when "fascism" is properly defined?
They never properly defined Fascism ever. I was literally shocked that such a fundamental question goes unanswered.
If people can not define "fascism". Than can we get a comparison between tribalism or early America to "Fascism"?
Is the industrial revolution and a strong federal government required for "fascism"?
The closest thing he affirms is that fascism is when you use mass violence against political opponents and suppress *all* other positions. And that it's on the extreme right.
I'm not exactly sure why it is by definition on the right, as left vs. right was disappointingly never well defined in this conversation.
In case u r intetested, fascism can be defined as a populist form of palingenetic ultranationalism. That's Roger Griffins definition. The few other key definitions by major political theorists more or less say the same thing, with some additional features. I like Griffins coz it is very concise and precise. There are other features, but that's the core commonality used for categorisation.
And, authoritarianism is not fascism. Suppression of speech & espression, by itself, is not fascist. It is not value judgement, it is about categorisation.
@@radioactivedetective6876 I like Griffin's concise description of fascism as well, but Renton seems to disagree. To him only someone openly using (physical) violence against the opposition can be fascist. So they either need to be stupid or already hold total power and reign freely to be called fascists, which is a weird standard imo.
@@radioactivedetective6876 The definition of fascism you provided is appreciated but the reason I asked for a time stamp for the point in the discussion when fascism was defined was because I was curious if the person advocating for violence against fascists ever bothered to define fascism and I had lost patience about half-way through waiting for what should have been established before the discussion began.
Even with a definition it is extremely irresponsible to advocate for violence against people who claim or have been accused of holding a clearly defined label, but the level of extreme irresponsibility is far greater when advocating for violence against people who are designated with an undefined label or are designated as holding belief in an undefined idea. If violence against people who hold undefined ideas can be justified than this principle could be applied to justify violence against anyone.
I was hoping to hear a clear definition to engage with the merits or dangers of advocating for violence against people who hold ideas based on that clear definition. The beginning of the discussion mentioned that the misapplication of the term fascism is often used to smear people or justify violence. As important as that is to recognize, by failing to provide a definition any discussion of an ill-defined concept called fascism merely perpetuates the misunderstanding and misapplication of the term. This is egregious when the discussion is on the justification of violence against people who hold this idea as there is no limiting principle to apply when attaching ill-defined labels to people whose rights we are being told can be violated with force.
The first line of defence against bad ideas becoming reality is the ability of the individual to discern these ideas as bad. In order for this to happen, individuals in society need to be able to understand the idea in the first place. Nobody can understand a set of ideas if it is censored.
Never underestimate the ability of an educated population to rationalise what is right and wrong. It is what has allowed Western democratic society to flourish in the first place!
Agreed. We need this, and also education that helps even children identify the pros and cons of certain ideas without the schools indoctrinating them into any political camp. Use moderate right and moderate left ideas and highlight the pros and cons of both sides.
You can’t debate ideas that fundamentally do not care about debate. Fascists and fascism are perfectly well discussed without including them. Allowing them to debate aka platform them you aren’t debating them, you’re giving them opportunities to propagandise
@@setlerking You don't need to debate them. You need a population of people who can reason and think for themselves. That's my point. If a fascist has a platform to speak then good! Let the rational thinking individuals amongst us see and understand their backwards ideas.
@@setlerkinghe same can be said about socialism. the point however is by censoring and excluding them you are admitting that you don't want a free and open society you only want it to be free for ideas and opinions that you yourself agree with.
@@NKiwi2903 Indeed. The best decision I made in school was taking philosophical studies. Being taught the ability to think rationally and understanding how to form an argument has proved an invaluable tool in my life and is something that should be taught to our children as part of general curriculum.
The idea that violent authoritarianism is purely a tool of the right and not of the left is obscene.
Both the far right and far left can bring about tyranny, don't let each fool you into thinking only the other one can and not them
🎯
You know why I'm opposed to fascism? Because of things like prohibiting free speech. I'll defend anyone's right to speak, even that of those who will try and censor others. Hence, even David Renton's.
if the reason u oppose fascism is because of free speech, and not its advocacy for violence towards groups of people based on inalienable factors then you need to look inwards bro.
@@mateokenyon3311 🤓
You're defending misinformation and hateful rhetoric knowing full well that society is not prepared to fact check everything and that hateful rhetoric gets traction from social media.
To support the right of fascists to exist in private places and communities on the internet is to support fascism itself.
@@thomascromwell6840 i support rhetoric you hate. i don't support threats, but just because you hate something doesn't make it wrong.
Free speech unchecked is exactly how fascism spreads. Then one day your freedom of speech is taken away, and you will wonder why.
I'm surprised that somebody who has endeavoured to publish a book on the topic cannot seem to muster an argumentation for their positions other than "tactical reasons" and optics.
The irony of expressing a wish for a "principled argument" that is to apply only to the other side on top of that is baffling.
Also interesting that actual political violence and intimidation tactics form the left have not been mentioned, as neither have the inherent potential of plenty of subset ideologies for it or historically realised potentials thereof.
Then again, your guest did admit to being a far left actor himself.
Trying to pretend that the left has less cultural capital, political influence or power today than any other time during this gentleman's lifetime seems absurd, but what I think is worse is the poisoning of the well through attribution of dishonesty to those who disagree with his assessment.
34:23 the communists did not just ban anti-communists, they banned anarchists, liberals, fascists, conservatives, religious people..... No analogy at all. None.
What influence does actual left have in the US? Democratic party is right wing. You are full of S
After the great depression there were record levels of unionisation. After that, the influence of the left has pretty much continuously decreased, to the point where capitalists are more wealthy than they have ever been by exploiting their workers as much as possible. Like Jeff Bezos causing his workers to have to use bottles instead of going to the toilet.
My hero ace! I laughed at that statement as well! He seems to have some good points, but saying that is either purposefully deceitful, or incredibly blind! But you saved me the labor of pointing that out.
In addition to this, I found myself wondering if David was describing fascism or communism when he was first explaining that fascism specifically crosses the line to outright violence towards it's political enemies. He went on to explain that there is a racial element to fascism, which appears not to be present in the communist utopian vision.
However, I do know that during Stalin's reign in the soviet union, being a member of the bourgeoise was enough for you to be found guilty of (or arrested and tortured until you admit to being guilty of) a crime against the state. As the labour camps demanded more and more labour, the standards for what counted as bourgeoise broadened to the point that just being a non Russian was enough to land you with a sentence in the camps. So honestly, I find it increasingly difficult not to include communism in any critical discussion of fascism, as the two ideologies are just so damn similar.
@@MrMantis0 Bro, labor camps accountered for a tiny fraction of soviet production (2%), it had nothing to do with increasing demand for it. The purpose of it was to reeducate bourguise. Many of those camps were actually serving their purpose, thats why you never heard about them and only heard of a couple
I was never quite certain of David Renton's was trying to communicate. There was a degree of Alex and David were talking past each other. Politely, so it doesn't stand out in any blatant way. David never seemed to want to engage on how his concepts applied to modern circumstances. Also David feeding his arms through his sleeves was adorable. 56:39
56:39 Defensive
Largely agree, though I thought Alex was trying to get to a deeper point than Renton was articulating.
Yeah I started looking at comments cause halfway through I was still just confused by his answers that felt like non answers to me. Glad you said something.
@@WTH13SERIOUSLY it's at the 30m mark that I stopped the video to look for this comment.
He has quite an outstanding bias blinding him to the conceptual picture Alex is trying to paint.
Also my feedback in general is that if he doesn't consider the left to only have influence because it's "online and not in reality", he's giving me big boomer vibes and he needs to move into this decade. These atmospheres are increasingly less distinguishable and there's more and more crossover.
@@Rave.- thanks, that’s exactly what I was thinking. I’m even on the 30 min mark
Only a man could claim that the threat of misogynistic violence is not real and present.
Lol sexist
Is it just me or did he never answer the question of whether it would ever be justifiable to deplatform a left leaning group that was begin to exhibit behaviors indicative of fascism.
He seemed to just say "people would want to start silencing them" without mentioning if they were right to do so or not. This seems weird coming from someone who seems to be unabashed in his idea that fascism should be silenced.
But how can a left leaning group, which is essentially about egalitarianism, be a fascist, which is by definition anti-egalitarian? If you try to stick with a parsimonious definition of fascism, then left fascist is a contradiction in terms. This is of course not to say that the left leaning groups cannot be tyrannical
@@MinimaAmoralia National Socialists.
@@MinimaAmoralia fascism is inherently left wing though
I don't think he was defining fascism as either specifically right or left but neither did he fully define it (untill very near the end where he indicated that people carrying out practices he identified as fascist namely silencing an opposition via violence are fascist regardless of political persuasion, but that liberals could not carry out these actuons and still be liberal) despite alex trying to get him to. I feel they were somewhat talking past each other throughout because of this lack of clarity over the terms.
Bingo. Alex asked the guest questions in order to clarify and explain and the issue was evaded. We might be more forgiving if this man was not an author on the topic. He seemed in denial of problems on the left wing, seemingly assuming totalitarianism would push a regime into facism despite post-war China being a contrary example.
I don't get it. Renton, Kisin, and Barron have been really awful guests. They do not seem very principled or reasoned, instead talking about feelings, tactics and intuitions without being able to flesh them out at all. I listened to this hour long interview and the only thing I got out of it is that facism in the early 1900s was bad and shouldn't have been allowed to have a platform at that time. Everytime O'Conner tries to get him to say anything he takes 10 minutes to say nothing.
I think you are trying to be cordial, which works great when the guests are great, such as Craig, Brierley, and Woodford, but with your more recent guests there are glaring issues in thier reasoning that they dance around the entire time. Without directly stating that these things don't make sense or that they didn't answer a question I, as a viewer, get frustrated by the experience.
Except Kisin was clear and principled
If Alex is exposing the problems with his guests merely by asking polite questions then he is problably doing well as an interviewer. If he does any better, nobody will want to give him interviews.
@@leonais1 I agree and think he is doing a great job interviewing, which is the problem when guests are low quality. Next time he reads a book that catches his fancy, a video essay may be a better viewer experience. An interview like this would only be a good viewer experience if the person being interviewed is famous some other way, a politician, a leader of an organization or some other such thing where showing that them having problems would be interesting in itself.
@@mrg7405 Probably not the right video to talk about it. Imagining I didn't include Kisin in the list my point would be conducting a great interview on a person without clear principled ideas is a poor viewer experience even if it does lay their beliefs bare.
@Never repeats I, at least, was talking about his talk on within reason and not his greater body of work. For instance when O'Connor confronted him with the idea that speech could be considered a form of violence just like any other physical act he floundered for a while, then repeatedly called him clever, then stated 'I think we all instinctively understand the difference'.
The thing is, you can't define hate speech itself as a reason to call someone a fascist, so it can't be used to make a case for fascism. In the US, hate speech is protected under the Bill of Rights since hate speech is still free speech. So, then how else would you determine that someone is a fascist? There are atrocities done towards certain people in the US by the government, such as taking children from the parents of people crossing the border from Mexico and holding those people for an indeterminate time, but I don't know if that would qualify as a fascist action. There is also a lot of homelessness and people driven into poverty that is ignored by the government. That irritates me to no end and I wish I were in a position to do something about, but again, I don't think that would classify as a fascist state. So, then exactly how do we define a fascist and when do we decide to start limiting free speech? Once we start limiting free speech for certain people, we are going against the very principles upon which the US is established and it can lead to a slippery slope where we are tempted to widen the margin to start limiting other types of speech until essentially anyone who speaks out about any topic is oppressed and afraid to speak at all out of fear of being arrested or put to death.
"No free speech for Communists." A common sense case to no platforming. 👈
Lol you think that every based anti fascist is Stalinist?!
@@endloesung_der_braunen_frageTake based away cornball thats rightwing slang
I was with David all the way up to him claiming to be able to read the minds (by extension the motivations) of those with a different political viewpoint to himself.
"A Fascist is someone I deem a Fascist" David Renton.
@TBOTSS yup. This has always been my issue with people that claim to know when free speech should be restricted. My question is, where is the line where acceptable speech ends and more importantly, WHO gets to decide this?
Do you have any proof that he can't?
@@mmhmm9271 do you have proof that reading minds is even possible?
He said Tommy Robinsons actions were incommensurate with somebody who believes in free speech. He did not claim that Tommy Robinson is a fascist, or that he can read Tommy's mind.
What a dreary book his must be, offering, from what I can see, little to even those who agree with his fundamental assumption that the only real threat to free speech comes from the right.
I don’t know how Alex kept his patience with this slippery character.
David seems to have a very "it could never happen to me" approach to the left.
So easily exploitable. Just label your enemies fascists, so they dont have a platform. Oh wait, that already happens. So dumb.
I always laugh when someone calls the silicon valley billionaires left wing, like really? BILLIONAIRES? LEFT WING? do you understand what leftism is? can you define socialism? this isn't directed at Alex because I know he was just bringing up what others think btw.
Based. Leftism has been redefined as liberal / identity politics
they pretend to be left wing so they can steal the money from low iq trailer park socialists. it's just profitable for them.
For real. It's like these people don't actually read theory at all.
@@myjciskate4 no, the prefer to manipulate socialist midwits using their own ingroup language. exactly as it should be.
come buy your "punch a nazi" shirts! $20! get one for a comrade! who's a good little revolutionary, you are! yes you! you're gonna save the planet!
now pay off your student loans ;)
The left is not one singular ideology.
The number of times Mr. Renton articulated his intent to treat the two sides of the political spectrum quite diferently in regards to scrutiny or 'no-platforming' exposes his premise.
He's very clear he is speaking about FASCISM, not right wing politics. He specifically says Trump is not a fascist - you can sleep tight.
@@阳明子 If you think we're not going to use that word when referring to left wing extremism that fits the definition, think again. We caught on to the lefts attempt to dominate language a long time ago. Nice try, though.
@@阳明子 Only the dullest of dullards would dare claim Trump was a fascist or even an extremest. Leftist politicians on the other hand, the case is much easier to make.
I'm 15 minutes in and can already tell this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. He's obviously not actually paid much attention to the situation on the ground out here in the states.
They’re mostly talking about Britain and Europe.
@@chesterdonnelly1212 I find watching this after the uk this morning started a police state, funny as fuck, the guys stupid
Why does it always have to be sbout americans?
It's hard for me to take him serious when he quite literally says no left wing group should be de-platformed and he refuses to admit any left wing group could possibly be violent enough to deserve de-platforming. When you give him a hypothetical of a left wing group that is just as violent as fascists he basically just says they would be fascists then. His entire argument is literally special pleading, he says himself he won't apply standards to his own side, only to the side he doesn't like.
I've not listened to all of isn't the entire point specifically aimed at fascism rather than being about free speech for just broadly being right wing?
"When you give him a hypothetical of a left wing group that is just as violent as fascists he basically just says they would be fascists then."
...then I suppose at that point yes. I don't see how a left wing group would end up being fascist (besides in name only perhaps), that seems a very "both-sides" mentality.
It might seem somewhat paradoxical but to me it falls among the same line where to be intolerant of intolerance fits within an ideal of tolerance. As fascism would use violence against the free speech of its opposition, it's not that weird to make that claim. Suppressing the free speech of people who want go against free speech in the name of free speech, basically.
I think the notion of “fairness” here belies a false equivocation that fascism as an ideology is just violent authoritarian right-wingism with violent authoritarian leftism as its opposite. That’s an oversimplified misunderstanding of the specific nature of fascism. They aren’t equal and opposite. Left-wing extremist ideology, aberrations aside, does not NECESSITATE authoritarian censorship or a genocidal level of violence as its explicit end. Fascism is unique in that it does and that’s part of what defines it, so yes if a “left-wing” group delved into that they would be making the horseshoe and defying their own supposed ideals. This is why deplatforming might be a necessary political vaccine to something like fascism as otherwise it would become a cancer within the free speech paradigm that would destroy it from within, using (at times reprehensible, but relatively marginal) left-wing spooks to justify wholesale totalitarian moves as they have throughout history.
Instead we should be focusing on discriminating essentially fascist ideas from social conservatism and drawing a clear line to avoid censoring with too broad a brush and triggering a retaliatory fascist surge.
It’s not fascist to kill fascists…
That’s because your equating the right and left with equal legitimacy. If you learn the foundational beliefs of both sides and then the effects they have had on the world, you would see this is not the case. The left is legitimate, the right is not.
@@NotYurAverageJoe since when is violence a necessary part of the definition of fascism? It’s certainly true that authoritarian political systems can almost never come to be without violence but that’s not necessary, it’s just our practical experience. With that, the relationship to socialism is rather obvious. Fascism is not, in itself, a reflection of right or left politics. It’s not on that spectrum. It’s an attribute, potentially, of any system.
From the title of the book to this man’s inability to define either his “side” or his opponents - or even the definition of fascist is the picture of irony - irony that projects its own sin onto its perceived opponent and wishes to annihilate it - in this case using actual fascism(using the state and corporate power to control speech) - to defeat perceived “fascism”
The irony of the title is amazing.
Like I said on the previous clip, I don't think he's paying much attention to stochastic violence here. He breaks down "violence" into "actual" violence and "threats of violence", but these are not clean categories, as threats themselves can be stochastically manifest as actual or concrete. Then he further states that by "actual" violence he wants to talk about "imminent" violence, violence that isn't "several steps away". But this either relegates stochastic violence to mere threats, which is ridiculous, or could potentially include stochastic violence only in the case that a figure is the most *proximal* cause of the stochastically violent effect. In our Jan 6 committee hearings, there is widespread and compelling reason to say DT was a key, proximal cause for the violence and deaths attempted against our presidential vote. I get the distinction he's trying to make, but trying to square it with his comments about DT just being some mean old right-wing figure is just baffling. His niche definition either fails to capture what we intend to talk about in our political discourse, in which case he cannot say that we are *wrong* in our application of the word, or he does intend to talk about what we otherwise mean about fascism, in which case his exclusion of figures like DT (and potentially Erdogan and Bolsonaro) is just too coarse to account for the varieties of political violence we see today. I just get the feeling that his category of fascism is fed too much by fear of slippery-sloping away from what he thinks is the clearest acceptable cases for no-platforming rather than considering fascism as a category to be intrinsically slippery, as is pointed out by Eco and Paxton for example, because it problematizes an otherwise clean solution to the platform problem. But, I'll give him a read anyway and hope it gets better in writing.
Stochastic violence is a way for midwits to feel smart while committing the logical fallacy of equivocation so that they can make up rules for others to follow that they themselves can violate whenever they like.
What you do is use the loose definition of violence when it comes to other people, but use a strict definition when it comes to yourself. If someone calls you a jerk, that's verbal violence. Since they've been violent to you, you're justified in smashing them over the head with a club. You equivocate on the term "violence". This is the founding philosophy of antifa, it's how they justify their constant assaults and vandalism as "defense". That 80 year old lady carrying her groceries home from Walmart isn't wearing a BLM t-shirt, and blacks were kept as slaves before, and discrimination is just as bad today as it ever was, it's just invisible now, and this lady could be wearing a shirt protesting it but she isn't, so she's tacitly supporting it, which means this lady is a slaver and deserves to be hospitalized with head injuries. That's how the minds of folks like Jake work.
When it is stripped of the flowery nonsense, you can see very easily how intellectually and morally bankrupt the concept of stochastic violence is.
Some people on January 6 committed vandalism. They were amongst a larger crowd who protested. They were amongst a larger crowd than that who heard Trump speak. Therefore Jake concludes that Trump is guilty of the attempted violent overthrow of the government. That's the level of intellectual discourse going on amongst leftists these days. It's pathetic.
What is a death attempted against a presidential vote mean? No one has been charged with murder or attempted murder during the Capitol riot. The only people who died were people among the crowd of rioters. The January 6th Committee was a show court, a spectacle of hand-picked testimony unconstrained by rules of actual courts and without any presentation by a defendant. Donald Trump held a protest at the Capitol to challenge the election results which he claimed to believe were the result of voter fraud. There is no law that prohibits someone from expressing a belief that an election result was manipulated. There is no law that prohibits someone from protesting and petitioning the government. In fact there are protections that prohibit the state from interfering in the right to protest. The protestors at the Capitol exercised their legally protected right to protest. The subset of protesters who engaged in violence, vandalism and trespassing are individually responsible for the crimes they committed and should be tried individually with evidence for the specific crimes they are being charged with presented for the prosecution and defense to present legal arguments. This is the rule of law. What is your argument for upending the rule of law, a mechanism for justice that has been fine-tuned over centuries? So that you are unconstrained to punish your political opponents? The restriction of political persecution was one of the main motivations for the construction of a rule of law based on due process.
So then you're arguing for mind reading, so that the selected fascism enforcers can stop pre-crime early in the benign (but of course proximal!) phase of thought and words?
You know, that sounds like less stochastic authoritarianism and more actual authoritarianism 😅
@@OurNewestMemberI didn't argue for anything other than that Renton's definition of fascism, at least as presented here, is objectionably narrow compared to other experts in fascism and common discourse on the topic. The choices are to double down on Renton's definition (in which case we need some meaningful account for why things like stochastic violence are don't count as genuinely fascistic) or to acknowledge that Reston is being idiosyncratic. Given that you objected to neither of those things, likely because neither require mind reading, I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
@@jakemetzger9115 interesting. I found the scope also bothersomely narrow but I think problematic for different reasons.
My objection to stochastic violence is that enforcing it necessarily implies taking action with increasing uncertainty about the intent and effect of the violence (hence the reference to the "mind reading" that would be required to carry out this approach in practice to enforce "violence" which has not quite yet manifest). It's the typical objection of "how do we trust who determines what is a threat, and who gets to use force to stop the threat?"
My complaint about the narrow scope is that I don't think regular people care nearly as much about whether some authoritarianism is left or right, nationalist, collectivist, etc. So the focus on fascism is irrelevant to the bigger picture of use of force and public safety, etc. However, of course he is allowed to write a book specifically on fascism, even if I find it a missed opportunity.
But it sounds like you're saying his definition of fascism itself is...too restrictive? I think you mean specifically the part about ("actual"?) violence being the key defining part (because it does not include proximal violence and maybe even incitement to violence?).
Wait, did he just call the gop a center right party,
I really felt he asserted up front Donald Trump was not a fascist, then went on to inadvertently prove Donald Trump is a fascist.
Donald trump was a classic Liberal
@@gregoryyoung1758 well that would be hard to prove since Trump is far from a fascist
Donald Trump didn't actually have any ideology other than narcissism. He'll go in any direction that will give him enough praise and attention to fill the empty void in his heart. The problem is that a lot of fascist ideas are bubbling up in the GOP, and he will gladly go along with them in order to follow the applause.
@@jimtomo9207 He was also a nationalist (MAGA) as well which might be why he gets associated with facism.
I wonder what David would think of stochastic terrorism, whether that would be no-platformable.
I'm betting he would, with the exact same meaningless disclaimer of "but I don't just mean the FAKE stochastic terrorists; only the super-duper-REAL stochastic terrorists..." (which would all go out the window, the nano-second he got the chance to use such a law against his political enemies- "Stochastic" or not.)
Left OR right-wing, this is how authoritarians operate. Nobody STARTS OFF by saying "I want to silence anyone on the other side of politics to me..."
But you don't use insanely vague, murky, notoriously- hard- to- precisely -define labels like "facist" (or, it'd probably be the equally- meaningless "Cultural Marxist", if he was coming from the right), if you only intend to target GENUINELY dangerous people (but... we ALREADY have laws against inciting violence, don't we?
There is no such thing
@@mrg7405 I think considering your firm dismissal of the entire subject, you're not only perfectly aware what I'm talking about, you also know perfectly well how it can happen and therfore know it really does exist.
@@StuntpilootStef it's a nonsense term to push the equally nonsensical ideas like the idea that words can be violent
@@mrg7405 This is easily refuted by the mere existence of assassins
I'm curious whether the author would make the same case for Communists advocating for a violent revolution and a one party state
Alex, I was very impressed by your moderate and measured approach, by your careful and clear push back on many things he said.
This other guy though... Wow. I am impressed by how much he tries to wriggle. He never really defines fascism as an ideology, only as a set of behaviours... And a lot of those behaviours have also been pretty common in communist regimes... He seems to say that, once left wing groups start becoming violent, they have then become fascist themselves... The implication being that they are then right wing? As an actual liberal, I have no problem lumping fascists and Nazis and communists and the same box as people I would really rather did not exist (but would certainly never advocate their de-platforming), but he does seem to be in denial about things, both the nature of violence that many left-wingers can be capable of in the name of left-wing ideologies without actually turning into ideological fascists, as well the institutional power currently held by left-wing ideas (I say ideas, rather than left-wingers, as it is not always clear what ideology a person in a position of power has, but it is clear and an institution can embrace an ideology if it garners power to that institution).
His position on no-platforming right-wingers because certain right wingers do not actually believes in free-speech surely means he should expect those of us and an opposing position to no-platform him on exactly the same basis.
It's funny, I watch these interviews and think of how novel it is to see them done in this manner. Then I realize "oh wait, this was pretty much textbook at one point decades ago." If you watch old news programs with people like Walter Cronkite and Edward R Murrow.
I found the guest's position to track right up to around 35 minutes in where he took a turn and started to exhibit blinders as to how free speech is being assaulted and from what quarters.
Around the 40:00 mark he describes the effectiveness "de-radicalizing" programs in the 1970's which sounds a whole hell of a lot like reeducation.
The inevitable problem is who decides who has free speech, also decides who is a fascist. The difference between a fascist and a "fascist" is ultimately decided by them. This problem isn't an easy one to solve and might not even be possible to solve. So the question becomes is this a problem that can be avoided or solved at all? At the very least it's an interesting thought.
I agree, it's a slippery slope.
It's tricky for sure. Peronally my thought is that while it's difficult to pin down what and who is fascist, you really still better try if the alternative is just letting them go unopposed.
@@sigigle God's divine authority should decide that.
@@cheesi I don't think opposition and removing free speech are quite the same. If anything I think allowing them to speak is a weaknesses for them, as it allows them to be confronted directly.
@@HoratioKJV Might as well use a coin flip.
Most leftists calling Trump a fascist can't even define the word.
He explicitly says he thinks Donald Trump isn't a fascist...
@@doomwalker9934 Wasn't referring to him.
The issue is that the idea is held solely on the belief that the definition of who is a fascist will not change in the future for the convenience of someone's political opponents.
Trump wasn't anything except for his own ego.
A better president than Biden thats for sure
Less wars less crime less inflation etc
The title here seems a bit misleading. Not platforming people does not equate to eliminating their free speech, it only means owners of a particular platform won't allow the party to engage their free speech on that platform. Of course they can always create their own platform - even if it's just standing on a corner holding a sign.
This is such a dumb Leftist argument I hope one of these days people actually challenge this idiocy. Giving away FS to corporations when corporations ARE the street corners......
I hope people that are sane Leftists start debunking this nonsensensical statement.
Sort of like Parler?
So you support effectively having to PAY MONEY for your right to free speech?!? (Or at the very least, pay to BE HEARD)
So, it totes wouldn't be a "free speech" issue at all, if TH-cam and/or Twitter, Reddit, FB etc all decided to ban any user who promoted abortion right? Or who opposed racism? Or who promoted acceptance of LGBT? Those companies would be acting totally within their rights, and not limiting "free speech" at all, right?
Or, is it ONLY "not a freedom of speech issue", when the corporations are silencing your political ENEMIES?
I'm black, and gay. But I would never support large sites like YT, Twitter, etc de-platforming even the worst white supremacists or homophobes (unless they directly threaten violence, in a way that would get ANYONE banned)
...Because I've got enough life experience to know that once a precedent like that is set, minority groups will ALWAYS end up getting harmed worst, with the least right of reply.
No government stays in power forever. Whatever laws/policies you want to impose on THE OTHER GUY, will eventually end up targetting YOUR side, when the pendulum swings the other way...
I know it's a cliche, but if you don't support freedom of speech for those you disagree with MOST, then you don't support free speech AT ALL.
No-platforming means withdrawing an invitation to speak because you disagree with them.
That reminded me of Billboard Chris; standing and holding a sign didn't end up super well for him. Pretty sad.
It's crazy to hear a person arguing that you shouldn't allow free speech for a nebulous group that you just kind of get to define however you want...
If suppression of speech is allowed it will always be abused.
The issue is cyclic and historical. Those interested should check "A Critique of Pure Tolerance" the 1965 book by philosopher Robert Paul Wolff, sociologist Barrington Moore Jr., and philosopher Herbert Marcuse.
Seemingly can't figure out the difference between an opponent and an enemy. Opponents are to be defeated, enemies are to be destroyed. Our failure to distinguish the two will be our downfall
An opponent is a person who is simply in opposition to you or your position. They need to be engaged with and talked to through discourse and most importantly in good faith. An opponent does not necessarily mean you harm or even have any bad feelings towards you at all. A friend can be an opponent. An enemy by definition bears you I'll will and is motivated by negative emotion to cause you harm, and may not always be reasoned with or deserve discourse. An opponent and an enemy are poles apart...not even in the same ball park of adversary.
The difference between the two isn't as clear cut as it might appear, if it was that easy nations wouldn't rise and fall.
The problem with fascism - it was an ordered, organized intimidation of political enemies to promote a clear ideology. The problem with the modern left - it is a chaotic, unorderly intimidation of political enemies to promote a vague and severely confused ideology.
This guys dangerous
Great job interviewing. Not sure about your guests definitions though 🤔
This guy seems like hes slept for the last 20 years.
Two thoughts...1. When ideology, rhetoric and talking points are rooted in racism and "power-over" philosophy...they should not be allowed to go about their spreading of such filth easily. This is my opinion. BUT 2. It could be easily argued that by allowing at least some of this stuff to be on open platforms, we could potentially use it as a way to interface with this stuff and correct people instead of driving them into the clandestine underbelly of the web. Shine light on it and disinfect so to speak.
I am not sure #2 would hold up though, it has been my experience that once people lock into this crap, they are stuck there for as long as they want, no matter how much you reason with them.
Our education systems have to teach people to use actual critical thinking properly. It's interesting how the higher someone's education level is, the less likely they are to be far right or fascists... I wonder why
using bacterial metaphors for human beings is a dark road to go down, friend.
@@notloki3377 lmao what
@@Sahtoovi think about it, you're putting somebody else on the other end of a binary opposition and then attributing to them the aspects of the worst possible parasites. It completely removes the possibility for dialogue.
@@notloki3377 What dialogue? I doubt that the people whose ideologies are pretty much based around oppressing minorities don't care about dialogue. You are doing the extremely centrist move of "we must have a civilized talk with them". Tell me, how did we defeat fascism in ww2? Spoiler: it was not with polite conversation.
After watching the video and reading a lot of the comments, it seems quite clear that 1) there needs to be clearly criteria for what is fascism and 2) we need a term form Left-wing Authoritarianism like we do for Right-wing Authoritarianism (aka Fascism). We could go the easy route and use the same format that the term Fascism got with its origins being from the fascisti word associated with Mussolini's party and so we could use Bolshevikism due to the bolshevik word associated with Lenin's party.
'No Free Speech for Communists' would be an equally valuable book.
De-platforming is a strategy of the weak and ambivalent and ultimately hurts anti-fascists. De-platforming has a number of negative consequences:
1) It reinforces the idea that people are *afraid* of certain ideas being heard, which is very different than people *disagreeing* with the ideas
2) It eliminates opportunities for ant-fascists to hone their rhetorical chops; the conservative movement has been refining its messaging and strategy for DECADES; this is why conservatives (and I mean real conservatives like Buckley, Friedman, George Will - not Shapiro, Cruz, etc) often wipe the floor with liberals in public debates (the only competent liberals I think I've ever seen are Hitchens, Harris, and Alex)
3) It allows bad and dangerous ideas (dangerous not because they could be heard, but rather dangerous because they already exist in the minds of many) to go unchallenged in the public sphere. This is an argument that Jordan Peterson actually makes, and I agree with it wholeheartedly - the only way to defeat a bad idea is not to de-platform it but rather to tear it to shreds.
In short: de-platforming is the strategy employed by people who know they are going to lose in a public debate, but have so little faith in their ability to fight back, they scream "the other people are too bad and dangerous to be heard!" rather than "I feel powerless to stop them."
Any incitement of hate, discrimination or violence violates human rights, so fella needs to learn some basic shit.
And he doesn't know what fascism is, either.
I agree with your sentiment but human rights are non existent wether you look at it from a pragmatic angle or a philosophical one.
@@KT-pv3kl Doesn't matter about your false dilemma. Human Rights exist...and they're inalienable with or without your apparent dilemma, so...
@K T I don't know why we assume humans have rights to begin with; it just seems like a thing we all agree exists without justification. This is an issue I particularly have with the left and the right: they both think they have the moral high ground, thus dehumanizing the other without being truly genuine in their arguments. So what do you think? Eager to see your point of view
where did we receive these supposed rights from? It's more like a presumption .
@@abbasfadhil1715I wouldn't even say that we all agree on them. that's another lie that is propagated from the people who claim human rights exist and it's conveniently the same people who have been defining what those human rights are and how other humans have to abide by them.
the original justification was that they were somehow "natural" rights which is clearly not true as nature doesn't give a crap about any rights and neither do any other animals.
If you asked a north Korean , a neo nazi and a tribesman from the Namib desert wether they all agreed on human rights I'd bet money on the fact that they would in fact not agree on them as many of our western pseudo intellectuals presume.
This man fails in his assessment of Fascism and who is and isn't fascism. This presupposes that fascists are violent from the get go and don't escalate violence once they reach power. It also presupposes that fascist in power can simply undo the democratic protections woven into the fabric of a society without consent and expect to remain in power. In both cases the Nazi's are the prime examples. They didn't instigate widespread violence until they attained political power and they didn't disband the Reichstag outside the political mechanism of German politics of the time. The Nazi's were still fascist well before either Kristallnacht or even The Enabling Act
Intellectual fascism is where people are so sure of their opinions that they believe they have the right to quash those of others. They believe this because they’ve not learned one of lifes most fundamental lessons: That life is a process of re-evaluating your opinions as your wisdom and experience increases. The immaturity of this position also fails to understand repeated lessons of history, and how the motive to direct and skew the debate, is always intended to be self-serving.
Fascism is not authoritarianism. Suppressing other voices, terrible as that may be, is not fascism. Political theory has very specific definitions for fascism.
@@radioactivedetective6876 Ok, so if a right wing government comes to power, decides to strip away gay pride online, bans pro-lgbt content everywhere (from government offices, malls, youtube, tiktok, media), are they fascist? No element of palingenetic ultranationalism, zero political violence against the opposition. I bet you would call that fascism. It's just that when a leftist bougie intellectual wants to ban speech, that's fine.
On Trump, it is a weak argument to say don't deplatform him because it's not possible (as opposed to on principle). Just go on principles that fascists should be de-platformed, and make the case as to whether he should be or not.
This is possibly the most credible person on the globe when it comes to Fascism:
"How is fascism defined? Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York told Live Science that fascism is "a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques."
According to Paxton, fascism uses such propaganda to promote:
-anti-liberalism, rejecting individual rights, civil liberties, free enterprise and democracy
-anti-socialism, rejecting economic principles based on socialist frameworks
-exclusion of certain groups, often through violence
-nationalism that seeks to expand the nation's influence and power"
Source: Live Science; What is Fascism?
_"-anti-socia lism, rejecting economic principles based on soci alist frameworks"_
This is where Paxton has no clue what he is talking about. Fasci sm was a soc ialist ideology based on national syndi calism. They never rejected social ism, they rejected mar xism.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. Define socialism.
@@hanansheikh5016 : an economic system where the collective (such as workers, guilds, the government etc.) own/control the buildings and tools that make goods and services like farms and factories. This can be achieved through decentralized and direct worker-ownership, or through centralized state-ownership/control of the means of production.
or simply, the collective ownership or control of the means of production, distribution and exchange of goods.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. in history when the people handed over all the things to those already in power... it never went well. It doesn't matter what pretty horrid label you give it... it still ends in Northe Korea or NaZi camps...
Becoming a social scientist dosen't requires that much intelligence or honesty it seems.
Failing at enacting fascism doesn't mean you're not a fascist. All it means is that you suck at it.
I am disappointed that they didn't adress communism in USSR. It used violence (for example gulags) and it didn't allow any opposition. On the other hand, it fought against fascism and nazism. So does it fall into 'fascist' category or not?
i think you're looking at the political comapss in the wrong way. fascism is not the definition of extreme-authorian, its an ideology that leans towards it. USSR falls under stalinism. both of them are extreme-authorian, but different in ideology. so no, it doesn't fall under the same category
29:00 Renton literally just finished saying that any argument in favour of free speech must be "mirrored", i.e. applied to both left and right, and that this is the only way to make a principled argument. And then responds to a question of the left potentially becoming "fascisitic" and requiring censorship like right-wing political violence with "Well I would never advocate the no-platforming of leftist views". Total dodge, total hypocrisy. It indicates that the thesis of his book is not being made on a principled basis, by his own definitions. He keeps using words like "mistake" when it comes to Leftists violating principles and behaving unethically. The kiddy gloves are on for leftists, but the gloves come off for the right. Stalinism was every bit as evil as Nazism and Fascism. Never treat the left as in any way more fundamentally benign than the right. They are not. We have already seen both the Left and the Right behaving in equally violent and immoral ways in the same country: it happened in Weimar Germany. Both the left and the right used tactics or terror and violence to try and wage a political war.
It's very frustrating to see, as he is otherwise a very moderate and palatable leftist. But the absence of principle, the favouring of purely consequentialist ethics, and mostly pragmatic reasoning makes it impossible for me to accept his thesis as someone who is not on his team. It's a parochial argument, when it ought to be universal in its terms.
Cuthulu swims, but he always swims left.
Its been a long time since ive heard that.
Has Yarvin done anything new recently?
Renton seems to make a lot of excuses to not label Trump a fascist but he seems to ignore the fact that the reason Trump's administration wasn't outright fascist was because he was surrounded by people who kept talking him down from doing fascist things or just not carrying out his orders. If not for all these external restraints, there would be no doubt that Trump is fascist. By all accounts, his first instinct in every situation lands firmly in that area. Luckily for all of us, the man lacks the intelligence and leadership skills to bring his wishes to fruition. He may be the de facto leader of a fascist uprising but it will take others to make it happen which leaves us with an opening to take it down before it takes over.
So we can't call a fascist a fascist until it's too late?
or until it is accurate
Watch the vid
@@rkdeshdeepak4131 It has been accurate for quite some time. We shouldn't have to wait until The Night of Long Knives repeats itself. We have the power of historical reference. Any educated person can see where this is going.
Those who do not learn from history are damned to repeat it. And those who do learn from history are damned to watch the world fail again and again, for they are so grossly out-numbered.
@@DrumWild there is no we here. Fascism has certain defintition, one should use the term when it fills the definition.
_I mean..._ you can call anyone a fascist if you 🫵 *want to* .
I think David Renton is rather narrow with his definition of fascism and what it means to be fascist, you can be ideologically minded as a fascist and be unable to kill your political enemies, even if they want to do so. I understand his point that it applies to a political figurehead who would go to that extent but some fascist simply hide their identities, simple as. Perhaps this meaning is only applicable to his no platforming argument, in which it is not a general defintion of being a fascist.
This might be a controversial question, but... What about the equally far left, or other groups, they can be equally violent in their opposition. When free speech is denied to anyone, it's potentially denied to everyone. I am not talking in the "shouting fire in a theatre" free speech here. I don't know the answer to this question but it seems to be a very slippery slope. The real problem is that where the line is drawn can be a very arbitrary, and those drawing that line are like anyone susceptible to getting it wrong. It might start off with banning free speech for fascists but then there's the possibility that it's extended for an other group deemed equally bad. Then if two groups are OK then why not 3, or 4 or 44. Where does it stop?
There are a number of questions that need answering.
Who gets to decided?
Is there a right of appeal?
How does this person get the position of deciding?
How do you get rid of this person when they are manifestly wrong?
At the 10 minute mark David's description could apply to the far left too. The political system in Russia and China could easily be categorised in this way.
The most important voices are the ones we disagree with.
It is important for both parties, for education but more importantly to keep them in the public domain and not in hiding where they will become more extreme in their views.
An hour in, no true Scotsmen
This is the guy who spied on a fellow barristers (Allison Bailey) phone calls at work and then reported her to her bosses at Garden Court Chambers for being transphobic. All because she expressed concern people were insisting lesbians like her had to agree & accept people born male who claimed they were women and lesbian into their groups & dating pool. How do I know? Allison took GC Chambers to court and this guys behaviour was brought up in the evidence. His behaviour sounds a bit stasi like to me.
a society in which one isn`t allowed to define what a woman is, isn`t far away being fascist.
Rather vapid book, this dude is definitely a lawyer. Enjoyed the discussion but this guy just doesn't seem trustworthy. If we had a project together, I'd watch my tongue closely.
could you address why, 26 episodes in, you have not had any women as guests?
Are you assuming prior guests’ gender identities?
clearly because he is sexist and loves to discriminate against females!
on that note hwo do you know that none of his 26 guests identify as women ? did they mention their pronouns and prefferences or are you simply assuming their genders ? that's not very progressive of you if I may say so...
one needs a really specific mindset and agenda to even ask an unimportant question like this, wow just wow
This is a serious and mature podcast
Don't need to.
According to his definition of fascism the Bolsheviks were fascist. I don't disagree with this but then why even use such a confusing term?
Alex, how are you coping with the mental health issues? I hope u are feeling better. Do take care and reach out to your loved ones whenever u feel like talking. You are so special, surely your frieds and family will be eager to be there with you in whatever capacity u need them. You don't need to do this alone. And don't hesitate to seek medical help. It is tough, but certainly u'l beat this.
i'm still scratching my head as to where all these fascist are? i'll go along with the premis but where are these people who should be de-platformed?
I disagree. I don’t think fascism is qualified by physical violence. Why wait to until there is violence in the mix to label the tendency? I do not wish to wait until I am in the midst of violent suppression to label correctly the policies that brought me to that awful situation. Why fear identifying it for what it is before violence is surrounding us? By then it will be too late.
David gives me real Hope Not Hate vibes.
I think extreme leftists should not be allowed a platform, I'll redefine this as we go along.
Very interesting seeing Alex, who has a mind of a philosopher, grapple with the deeply political mind of David.
It was painful and disappointing. But credits to Alex for his patience and persistence.
fascinating. thanks for these discussions
"Other harmful and hateful ideologies" like....islam
Which is also why Trump is not a racist when he realizes that people that were indoctrinated into a religion that is fundamentally not compatible with the liberal values of our western societs and commit statistically more crimes because of it, may not be the best in our liberal western countries.
No free speech for communists and I get to decide what is and who is a communist, how about that
In the context of this discussion I'll warrant you could substitute almost every instance of the word fascism with the word socialism and it would be difficult to detect incoherence were you to be unaware of the switch. For this reason I find this man's premise uncompelling and betrays the fact that this man has chosen a side (probably in adolescence) and is not very introspective about it.
Yep
He did not choose a side it was chosen for him in his university indoctrination.
I want you to define socialism for me
Are fascism and socialism comparable to you? You could also replace it with liberalism, centrism etcetc. Are liberalism and centrism inherently harmful and hateful? Are they ideologies that actively try to oppress minorities? I don't think they are. Socialism isn't really even an ideology, it's an economic system.
Define socialism
I want to agree with David's overall conclusion, but the narrowness of his criteria for deplatforming benefits the fascists themselves. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but he came across as dismissive of the power that large social media platforms have to funnel certain people in the direction of fascism if left unchecked. Maybe this is a bad analogy, but it's like allowing a tumor to grow in your body but not removing it until it becomes cancerous and metastisizes.
Everytime the interviwer presses this guy on his double standards, he just reshifts the focus of the conversation. Wack. Hold him to account, man come on
David's responses here make it seem like he doesn't actually want to confront interlocutors in a serious way. Your pushing him on his stance and where he draws the line for no-platforming was a great opportunity for him to argue why fascism is particularly special but it was a miss. I am not moved whatsoever against a liberal use of no-platforming by his statements here. Perhaps his writings do a better job of bearing on the actual controversy but this discussion was quite disappointing. I really enjoyed you pushing him on his stance but he did a poor job of responding.
Jeez this comment section is cringe to read, the lot of y’all don’t understand what you’re taking about with your “go woke go broke” drivel. Have you even watched the video yet?
I havent seen a single comment like that. Looks like you just want to push an agenda by presenting all "right wingers" as irrational.
@@NKiwi2903
Get over yourself
@@NKiwi2903 I like how you put right wingers in quotation marks even though that person never used those words.
I don't even know why right wingers even watch this channel. You'd think they would learn something from it, seeing as how they do, or at least appear to. I suspect these trolls just use the comments section because it's one place they're guaranteed to see engagement. 90% of right wingers comments I see, and I see a ton, are either asinine or completely juvenile. I just hope they truly are juveniles and that they'll keep watching and grow out of it.
@@LukeMcGuireoides Thats your opinion. I watched the video and this Guy could not even define fascism.
I May even be on his side If he had a clear and accurate definition of fascism.
Unn dude, Trump would have totally jalied his opponents if he knew others would go along. Just because he could not do it does not mean he wouldn't do it.
What did Trump do about marijuana use or abortions exactly? Nothing. He's a leftist.
Can I borrow your crystal ball for a bit?
You totally would be into child trafficking if you had the opportunity. Just because you haven't doesn't mean you wouldn't if the right opportunity presented itself.
@Nitais Servant Nah, not worth it.
@Matt D Trump is trash, but your argument was worse.
"I'm not talking about Trump". Which part of the definition of Fascism does Trump NOT fit? If not Trump then who are you talking about?
The modern definition that academics make use of is pretty retarded.
Mr. Renton sounded familiar, but I was confusing him with Mark Renton
I disagree with a huge amount of Alex's positions but have found him excellent at drilling below examples to find principles that can be well defended. This interview didn't seem to me to achieve this and while I don't put too much blame on Alex as he did make several pushes toward this but the guest seemed to continously resort to examples, conflating accepted examples with hypotheticals. Scale of violence is the only principle I managed to pull out. This is further weakened by examples where say Trump is fascist adjacent so the principle is... potential fascism which is large scale violence on a small scale should be restricted too?
So Communism, which produced 2 Dictators, both of whom were each independently responsible for more deaths than Hitler, (putting him into 3rd place for dictators' death tolls) that's fine?
If silencing & violence is a concern - shouldn't be a concern that goes beyond who/what ideology, is doing the silencing & violence?
Numbers relating to deaths under communism are both grossly inflated and also deeply misrepresented. For instance, a lot of people died in the USSR during Stalin's leadership as a result of a massive Nazi invasion.All the horror stories about him are part of Nazi Germany’s “Big Lie” (Goebbels himself admitted to exaggerating and propagandizing the Katyn massacre). I recommend reading some of Grover Furr’s work on Stalin to help unlearn some of these lies and put things in better historical context.
Marxist-Leninists emphasize critical support for people and organizations that have furthered the cause of communism. That being said, none of us will honestly claim that Stalin was perfect. He was, however, a good man and a great comrade who’s most responsible for the defeat of Nazi Germany. He deserves to be recognized for his many accomplishments, and his works are absolutely worth a read. Stalin didn’t kill many people. People inflate the statistic by talking about world war 2 deaths on the Eastern front and somehow blame them all on him, even tying Nazi deaths to him like it’s a bad thing.
They also talk about gulags, the gulags was just a normal prison system like anywhere else in the world. During the second world war, most of the resources went towards the war, taking away from the prisoners in those systems, not only that but if you look at a map of the gulag system, where they are placed, when most of the deaths occurred in the system, you would also realize that over 70-90% of the deaths occurred under Nazi occupation of those prisons (this is just off the top of my head so might not be 100% correct). After world war two the people in this prison system had 8 hour work days, and even received a wage for their work. Heres a CIA report on the Gulags which paints them as the prison system they are
Now if we are talking about famines, to my knowledge Stalin cannot control the weather, and thats a major reason why most of the famines occurred.
It is curious that we seldom see authoritarian communists being denounced when it's the case that this group is responsible for far more death and misery than even Hitler.
👏👏👏
I think he sort of talked about this. Those would be examples of things that have sort of started on the left but in the end they were just fascist. So no they wouldn't be fine.
Communism produced two dictators? And they are "independently" responsible for more deaths than Hitler? Not really.
There is a direct causal connection from fascism to violence and the suppression of people.
What is the causal connection from communist ideology to dictators?
Well, his definition of fascism perfectly matches the far left
Ideological incoherence is a feature of fascism, not a bug. DT lacked the political power to persecute political opponents, it's not like he was clutching pearls at the thought. It's safe to say he was a proto-fascist, especially considering the legal persecution of political opponents the GOP went through with this week in Nashville.
He is a populist, a supremacist, ultranationalist, based his pitch on reviving the mythical golden past (MAGA), politics based on blaming out-group for national decadence - pretty much ticks all the boxes. As u day, it is just that he couldn't consolidate power.
No, you just don't understand it. Alternatively, you're being dishonest.
@@TeikonGom So are you going to tell me where I went wrong, or just level empty accusations?
@@biologicalengineoflove6851 Reducing fascism to political persecution renders the term useless since it therefore can be applied to all tyrannical regimes in history, and we already have a lot of words for those kinds of systems. Fascism is a political ideology, not a method.
@@TeikonGom Political ideologies and methods are not mutually exclusive, on the contrary, all political ideologies _are_ methods for determining political power structures. Fascism is a political ideology which serves as a method to consolidate authoritarian power, just like democracy is a political ideology which serves as a method to limit authoritarian power. We can easily trace the history of nationalist and monarchist authoritarianism through the lens of modern fascism, the absolute power of a monarch differs only in trappings from the power of a fascist dictator. This is where ideas like monarcho-fascism come from.
This is why fascism is not reduced to political persecution, but political persecution is identified as one hallmark of fascism. Rather than obscuring it to meaninglessness, this recognizes the hallmark specifically. So anytime political persecution is used to consolidate authoritarian power, it could be considered "doing a fascism." On the other hand, having democratic safeguards in place to protect democracy from malignant, bad-faith actors (who would corrupt and warp the democratic process for their own ends without such safeguards), is not described as political persecution (except disingenuously by them), and more accurately called justice.
Respectfully, I do not think that word (fascism) means what he thinks it means. Fascism is not defined by the willingness to engage in violence against one's political enemies even though this may occur. Fascism is a specific type of ethno-cultural nationalism which is often, but need not always be, totalitarian in its promulgation of its ideals.
have you ANY example of this that did NOT involve violence against the "outsiders" ? Any?
@@RoninTF2011violence occurs in a lot of scenarios that aren't fascism.
@@SineN0mine3 the point ==..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................==> you
this is the kind of guy
that would have enforced Nazi orders in a heart beat
You should only be punished for your speech if it's incitement to crime.
Donald Trump definitely flirted with fascist ideas and praised fascists leaders, and I think an unrestrained Donald Trump without a staff of sane people holding him back would have indeed gone down that route eventually. This is the man who asked "Why do we have nukes if we aren't going to use them."
The Quran is a guide book for behaviour for Muslims - that and the example of Mohamed’s behaviour. The Quran states that a man has licence to strike his wife for persistent insubordination (4:34) THAT is the promotion of violence. How is that therefore not fascistic in tone? Yet does the author object to the Quran being promoted in thousands of mosques in Britain? It’s safe to say he doesn’t, so there is a hypocrisy there and it reveals the flimsiness of his position.
Though I get the thrust of what he’s trying to promote, it seems HE gets to decide what behaviour constitutes fascism.
Tommy Robinson initially reacted to the odious demonstration by Jihadi types in Luton protesting British troops marching through town. The British troops who defend the freedoms THEY ENJOY living in Britain. I’d say pretty well ALL British found the Jihadi fascistic (I choose to describe it as fascistic given the nature of the superstitious ideology they promote) demeanour something that rightly deserved push back. I wonder whether the author objected to Tommy Robinson addressing the Oxford Student Union? What about his behaviour at that address reflected fascistic demeanour?
Anti-war demonstrations are not only legal, but necessary. The soldiers who returned were not personally to blame for the governments' mistakes, but 'we were only following orders' isn't exactly a great excuse.
The British troops weren't there defending anyone's freedoms, they were lied to and as a result, thousands of innocent people are dead. That's what the muslim community were protesting. If you are genuinely invested in protecting freedom, you shuold support holding governments and by extension their armies, to account.
@@hareecionelson5875 I believe it was British involvement in Iraq which the jihadis were protesting. That involvement led to the emancipation of the Shia and Kurdish communities. Without that involvement those communities would still be under the boot of Saddam and the Sunnis. Much of the unrest and killings that followed - most of the death’s over the period the troops were in situ - was from Muslim gang militias acting to protect and expand their own terfs.
Those troops, on whom the Muslims metaphorically spat, protect - with their lives - the residents of Britain, including the provocative scum that were involved in those protests.
Sounds like someone needs to know about the paradox of tolerance. And stochastic terrorism.
The part where Alex asks if there were some conspiracy against the right to silence their speech on social media platforms, the guest doesn't even bother to consider the hypothetical. Why is he so disingenuous about his beliefs?
Oh looking forward to listening to this, why do I have to adult right now and put off listening until later…?🤷🏻♀️
Oh. I AM an adult!?
Drat.
Anyway and jokes aside, gonna be interesting. Thanks Alex
No, you aren't an adult if you are looking forward to listening to why it is okay to deny free speech to right wing people based on their political affiliation. Note that this isn't an argument to deplatform extremists. It's purely a claim that politically right wing people shouldn't be given a chance to speak. Nobody else is involved here. Not even left wing fascists - and if you don't think they exist, the World Economic Forum's fusion of private and public interests in the attempt to serve the global good is pure fascism coming from the left. Their final solution just involves putting people in pods and feeding them insects until they die rather than putting them in work camps until they die. Hopefully you were wanting to see arguments *against* the deplatforming of ordinary civilians who think unapproved thoughts.
If you're gonna draw the line of free speech just right before fascism, well then you might as well move it even further, right? That's the problem. It's a slippery slope. And that's why some principles, like free speech, need to be he'd fast.
I think a better title would be "Censorship for Fascists". Free Speech deals with the government. The platforms are owned by individuals, not the government. No one has the right to use another individual's property without their permission.
and yet the government does exactly that on a regular basis...
Kudos, and Alex took a bad turn inviting this man on and basically acquiescing to his fascist enabling. This man is either a moron or a bad faith actor.
"Oh, so we just gotta create your means of comunication and then let them be run by someone else? Neat."
*proceeds to fund Silicon Valley*
That argument is as bad faith as bad faith gets.
@@Zer0Spinn It's about property rights. You don't have a right to someone else's property.
Also, I don't use any social media outside of TH-cam. I think social media is a scourge on society.
the problem arises when the privately owned platforms collude with the government to censor people, like what happened in the last three years
That felt like Renton was separating fascism from all its defining characteristics except the violence, then saying anyone who engages in such is a fascist. Hence, he can't think of left-wing groups enacting the same violence because they would, by definition, not be left-wing anymore.
I do understand that his book is meant to be more like a guide to effective deplatforming, rather than reasoning why fascists are the only group who should face as such. It was alarming however that the "perfect" version of no platforming a fascist would result in "complete public support for you doing anything you like against them".
I could not discern any underlying principle in Renton's position, only that he really disapproves of fascists and so supports their deplatforming.