@Quigle- Dorf Socialism should no more be blamed for Communism than Patriotism should be blamed for Fascism. Both Patriotism and Socialism are philosophies not political systems. Socialism and socialist institutions have existed in the US since our British colony days. The police department, fire department, and public schools are all institutions funded by taxes, regulated by the government, and freely used by the public. So too are public parking lots, public parks, public restrooms, public libraries, social security, the WIC program, the Food Stamp program, etc. Socialism presents the idea that the things needed to sustain life are not privileges to be bought and traded but rights. Just as we do not allow police officers to stand aside and watch as you are murdered in broad daylight or let a firefighter leave your family to burn to death because you can't pay them several thousand dollars we should not allow doctors to deny life saving medicines and treatments to do the same. People should have the things that allow them to keep living such as protection from harm, healthcare, education, food, and shelter at the bare minimum. And super rich corporations should not be allowed to harm or exploit the public just because it makes them money.
I know this video series is like 2 years old but I only found your channel a few months ago so I'm catching up. This series really made me think about the education I received growing up in Texas. Capitalism was always shown to be inherently good and right and I always took issue with the fact that it assumed people make decisions based on their own self interest. I remember being younger and thinking that lots of people do nice things because they're nice, but I didn't realize this was in contrast with the assumptions of our economy. As I got older I realized that even if that assumption were true, individuals would have to have as much information as was necessary to make informed decisions under capitalism. Knowing even just a little bit about our healthcare system, for example, led me to believe that not only the system fall short of informing consumers of the risks and benefits of making certain purchases within the system (price transparency is a big problem in healthcare in the US), but it seemed likely that that was a deliberate misdirection by those who benefit from capitalism. Over the past few years, I have been slowly coming to have more leftist and socialist opinions. It's been really great to find that there's this whole section of RU-vid that makes me think about ideas critically and encourages me to reflect on my own values. I appreciate all you guys do, especially providing historical context, new information, and hooking a girl up with downright sexy aesthetics (ContraPoints is my favorite in this regard, but I like Olly's aesthetic as well). Thank you for the entertainment and analysis! I hope to be about to support the work of more creators in the future!
I have a real problem with economics as a subject (I was a physics student. Science students often like to joke about the hierarchy of sciences. Each in this list apparently looks down on everyone below them and thinks everyone above them is some arrogant elitist. XD) In short it's something like Mathematics->Physics->chemistry->biology->psychology->economics->social sciences) Anyway, my problems with economics first of all is that it seems to behave a bit like a cult. If you EVER suggest or question anything from the mainstream orthodoxy, you get shunned. (this is in spite of the fact that, contrary to the goals of science in general, the main economic models have all the predictive power of a wet bowl of cement... And if the prediction happens to be wrong? oh, just come up with some post-hoc justification for the variation and pretend like it never happened. Just never, EVER question the validity of the model itself) Secondly, that mainstream model is built on this thing called 'rational self-interest'. This is the idea that everyone in an economic system takes the best possible solution that meets their own personal goals. In other words, everyone is completely selfish, 100% rational, and it would follow, would have to be working from perfect information about the entire system to actually make said rational decisions. Since I would say every single one of these assumptions is false, what kind of model is this? People are not always selfish. They do not act exclusively in their own best interests alone. They are not rational. Frequently decisions are made for many reasons that are very far removed from being rational And they definitely don't have perfect information. Many decisions in fact are made with almost no information at all about the wider implications of the decision... How anyone can think an economic system built on a broken model with a set of underlying assumptions that are almost self-evidently wrong could be a good idea, I do not know... But here we are...
You know that feeling when you drink tea watching videos on the couch and realise that the fall of capitalism is inevitable and sustainable socialism must rise or the world and humanity with it will see its end? Yeah me too.
@Richard Fox if you watch the videos, he explains that that is likely to happen becauseof capitalism and neoliberalism. And it is already happening with the rise of the alt right. A mixture of capitalism and socialism (social democracy - democratic socialism) would promote more liberty and quality of life than either system as we have seen in many modern societies around the world.
Be careful with your optimism. We have a lot of work to do. Just remember what Zizek said, "You're more likely to see the end of the world before capitalism."
@Richard Fox I encourage everyone to look at libertarian socialism or better said Anarchism. It implements socialistic ideas (anarcho syndicalism/anarcho communism) but without giving a totatilarian state.. Before you object to anything I urge you to read up on it first. There are some great theories out there. It'sjust another idea if you (like me once) realized that capitalism is unsustainable and killing/using humans but also fear some dictatorship. Anarchism is not only against the power/hierarchy of the moneterian system but against all power/hierarchy. Check out tochangeeverything .com for a quick intro :)
I really appreciate you mentioning Guatemala. I have a personal stake because that's where my family is from, but it's a genocidal conflict that goes nearly undiscussed.
Look up OperationPBsuccess, United Fruit Company, School of Americas, operation condor, I can go on and on. The US plundered, pillaged, and caused the death of millions under the farce of fighting communism
IMO same goes for Chile, in the name of fighting with communism they aided a fascist leaning dictator, who despite having toned down inflation also impoverished a big part of Chilean society and murdered around 3 thousand people.
Yeah, this is the closest I've ever seen non Guatemalans get to mentioning Efrain Ríos-Montt and the Mayan genocide (turns out the Contras and El Mozote were far from the worst thing the Reagan administration did in Central America)
@@SosaelCapo no, the US was fighting communism, just like were when they did the Holocaust. But anticommunism only begins with the Marxists, but it never ends there. It targets other socialist tendencies, non socialist left tendencies, even left liberals. Then just marginalized groups who might serve to benefit from a more left way of organizing society. Why did LBJ take out Sukarno and replace him with Suharto? Why invade Vietnam or Korea or do Operation Cyclone? You've created a false dichotomy between material interests and ideological interests, but anticommunism _is_ in the American ruling class' best interest. Anticommunism is reaction, a counter-revolution motivated by the threat of rising worker power, which is in direct contrast to, and threatens the power of, the bourgeoisie. German industrialists frightened by the German workers' growing power (like that time they ended WWI with a general strike) backed Hitler. And the reason NATO even exists, why all the imperial powers banded together was because of the Soviet Union which, despite its many flaws, was the greatest challenge to capital in history (incidentally, that's what the Holocaust was really about)
And yet America which has had the 1st amendment in place for over 200 years has never been taken over by Nazis. Reality disagrees with you. All of the nations which are the most authoritarian and fascist with terrible human rights records all have the most strict laws on freedom of speech, and yet all of the most liberal countries are run by moderates. You literally need to ignore reality for your argument to work.
*[VERY LONG COMMENT]* What I find quite interesting is how, at least in the US, pretty much everyone left of Ayn Rand knows that neoliberalism/capitalism is hot fucking garbage they just don't realize that what they're describing is capitalism and that socialist policies could be potentially viable solutions. Like it's a very common phrase in America that 'money is the root of all evil' and most of the country agrees that neoliberal politicians that serve the interest of the ruling class (the "elite" i.e the rich and powerful who benefit from capitalism most) don't really serve the interests of the average person. The problem is that nationalist and anti-left-wing propaganda and sentiment is deeply ingrained in American culture. We were practically founded on a hatred of taxes (and also mostly racism and genocide, but hush we don't talk about that), and most of the second half of the 20th century was spent in the cold war in which we used communism as an enemy to excuse fighting proxy wars to protect our business interests. People get that capitalism sucks, but they've been taught to venerate the word capitalism without understanding what it is (thinking the problem is greed, as if the two are even remotely separable), and demonize the very idea of being critical of capitalism, as if it's inherently anti- american to be anti-capitalist. This leaves a lot of Americans stuck, because they can't even entertain the idea of a policy left of what the Democratic party trots out every four years, but they also don't like what's being offered by either party. So they either vote begrudgingly for one party or the other based on other issues (typically social issues, with a willful ignorance to how the economics influence the social), or they end up being turned to the other alternatives to liberalism, which are right-wing ideologies (which is also being implicitly propped up by liberalism as you said). In this way, not only does liberalism push to the right ideologically due to free speech absolutism and a link to capitalism, but also through how it shapes culture. Because its link to capitalism necessitates the rise of cultural ideals that prop up capitalism, anyone who isn't a part of the ruling class and thus a beneficiary of capitalism, is liable to be pushed to fascism since socialism isn't seen as an option. This is specifically a phenomenon of the oft-described 'white working class', as minorities often are more willing to push left because the racially/ethnically motivated oppression they face leads them to develop different attitudes toward the culture of the ruling ethnic class. Nationalism and patriotism are far less attractive when the nation in question has been oppressing you on account of your skin color for generations. As a person who leans further to the left than pretty much any of the people I interact with in my personal life, most of whom are liberals and moderates, watching this has been equal parts fascinating, frustrating, and terrifying. sidenote Im writing this at very late at night so if this reads as rambly and incoherent I apologize but I hope that the points I am attempting to describe are at the very least decipherable. *tl;dr Americans do understand that capitalism is bad, they just don't know that what they think is bad is called capitalism, and that the solutions could be socialism. Liberalism has created the cultural conditions for this to be the case.*
I mean in all honestly I haven't read any frankfurt school stuff so im not sure if that's a 'haha let's make a joke at the Rationals™ expense" or if it's genuine but thanks either way I suppose haha
As an American who avoided politics for many years, I've spent the last few coming to grips with the current situation and its underpinnings. I grew up in the Cold War when antagonism toward socialism/communism (and thus the obvious superiority of capitalism) was just as natural as breathing, but I am living evidence that those deeply-ingrained patterns can be broken. I have watched the country become ever more adamant in its support of capitalism even while corporate malfeasance has achieved new heights (Enron, 2008 crash, etc), all while the left lost all sense of direction and careened to the right thanks in part to corporate money in politics. But I am pretty sure I'm the exception, and we exceptions are few indeed. I'm not sure I'm completely anti-capitalist, but at the very least if capitalism must remain it must be very tightly restrained, especially as pertains to its influence in politics. But when it comes to thinking about alternatives, the cure is often as bad as the disease. Socialism tends toward tyranny, as you pointed out, and I'm starting to think it's unsustainable in the medium to long run besides, which leaves.. Anarchism? In some ways, becoming anti-capitalist was the easy part. :/
Steve Pittman Same here (as a Canadian) and it's amazing how fast I came up to speed once I became interested. This points towards something that will be a game changer, the internet and freedom of information and communication that will enable the individual. I actually see the problem as being a two- parter: there's the intrinsic nature of the human, which isn't a set level but on a scale of more or less, of wanting, desire, greed or whatever we name it, the fundamental condition that these systems take advantage of. This nature is tied to the physical body health in a way that isn't really understood yet. Change the health and change the intensity or nature of the wanting, and this removes some of the power of the political systems. The processed food industry is a key player in this. It's all about an aware, educated and healthy individual making their own decisions. The second part is the economic system which places most people at a disadvantage. Fix this and take away the power of centralized banks etc, the money lenders. The eco village seems to be a good model that uses group buying power to acquire and make available affordable land, and from there it's easy to lower the cost of living. This lowered cost of living means less income is needed and would reduce the amount of tax collected, which in turn reduces the size of government. Like you, I don't have a huge problem with capitalism, except that it tends to destroy the environment in it's current form, and I think large corporations are easier to regulate than individuals. An example is the melting down of broken electronics to get the gold etc, something carried out by individuals that large companies wouldn't get away with, not without scrubbers on the smokestacks.
So (if I'm getting this right) Liberalism establishes capitalism and enables fascist thought to be normalized. And then, when a major economic crisis (caused by capitalism) hits and capitalism becomes threathened and put into decay, fascism emerges as a last effort to preserv capitalism and prevent the working class from taking power by missleading it. Therefore Liberalism is (uncounsiously) helping fascists and fascism.
Ehhhh not so much.The majority view prior to Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was Mercantilism, which is a specific kind of capitalism centered on a merchant class and imports/exports. This view widely governed economic policy during the time that John Locke was writing. It was on the basis of John Locke's reasoning that Adam Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations, which clarified the individualist model and gave birth to industrial capitalism (and eventually modern advanced capitalism). So it wasn't that liberalism was created to justify capitalism. Liberalism was created independently of capitalism, but was born from the same source: individualism. This mistake explains another mistake Ollie makes later in the video: that crises in liberal countries always lead to fascism. The Great Depression in the United States led to the New Deal, which created massive social programs designed to mitigate the citizens' suffering. This reversed itself after the war as the opportunity to grow from the devastation of Europe and Asia exploded and people found they could make more money through private enterprise, but it shows that liberalism is compatible with many socialized approaches to economics. This would probably be my greatest criticism of this video; liberalism is NOT intrinsically linked to capitalism, and this undermines virtually all of Ollie's criticisms of it. It's also untrue that liberalism makes exceptions to its ideology as a matter of course, primarily because this criticism is not exclusive to liberalism. This is true of all systems; selfish people will violate their principles for wealth/power/etc. regardless of what ideology they subscribe to. This is the exact reason why the Killing Fields happened in Cambodia; The source is ignorance and dogmatism, and applies unilaterally to all ideologies.
@@thaynedye1292 Which is something I realized on paper pretty much all ideologies are a good idea. Yet apply people whom are fearful, greedy, apathetic, controlling, etc and etc. Then you get something perverted into what you see today. Capitalism works yet then you see people cut corners constantly for profits so instead of spending dollars they're spending dimes and making millions. Socialism works yet when the government is untrustworthy due to them being human. SO now programs that are supposed to help people "don't have funding" which is an outright lie since you can see them wanting people to slip up so they can kick people out instead of investing the money they do have in helping more people. Then with how our minds work negativity affects us more than positivity. So ideologies wonder why people who see it as bad will never want to deal with it which also creates apathy and distrust.
@@thaynedye1292 Yes, liberalism IS linked to capitalism. You cannot be a Liberal, without capitalism. Otherwise you would be some flavour of socialist. And it leads to Fascism, because when things go wrong, the rich have two choices: Fascism or Socialism. Which of these lets them keep their money? Yeah.
@@ExeErdna What makes fascism a good idea? What makes you think capitalism works when people don't cut corners? Cutting Corners is the point. Its a method to increase profits.
K Man, right, because people don't stand in bread lines, but they starve to death in the more capitalist countries like the US, Britain, Canada, Switzerland and Hong Kong... 🙄 "burnies..." Learn how to spell, you tool.
I especially appreciate that Ollie links these issues with liberalism back to capitalism. It's important because those systems are so linked that to talk about one is to talk about the other. One thing that I've sort of been mulling over in my head as of late is that, while individual freedom is important, is it the best thing to have ideologically enforced? Seeing as how liberalism/capitalism works, as well as what Durkheim said that the individualism born from capitalism does, perhaps rapid 'progress' actually works against the individual insofar as it destroys spaces in which they can be part of a group, be that church, family, or even work. After all, a system that values the exploration of others and individual liberty above all else is a bit incompatible with any sort of traditional, community based ritual. Just some thoughts anyway.
I have to admit, I honestly thought Liberalism **was** actually what it pretended to be. Yikes! This is a pretty important message to spread. Thank you.
I would not believe everything you see on youtube haha. Please, don't just take this guys word for it. Come to your own conclusions based on this guy's opinion and other thinkers... Jordon Peterson maybe lol
tragically hilarious that I'm paying 9 grand a year at uni and yet get much better education for free here, really need to start using patreon :/ anyways thank you this series was a masterpiece x
I've always considered myself a liberal, although over the past year or two I've been trying to find a solution to the problems you list. I think the biggest step liberals have to make, is to truly commit to the universality of the rights we love, and make sure that as much as possible exceptions are not made. Anywhere. Secondly we have to acknowledge that, increasing access to these rights is the domain of the left much more so than that of the right, and to embrace that there is a certain amount of left wing policy that has to be enacted to achieve these goals. Thirdly we have to really acknowledge the problems with capitalism, and that the only real solutions to them, for now at least are being proposed by left wing thought. This doesn't necessarily mean that we should all drink vodka and call each other comrades, but that we should at least look to these policies to address specific problems, and see what happens from there. And importantly be honest in our assessment of the economic problems that we face, rather than relying on dogma driven policy. Lastly it's important to acknowledge that freedom is to a certain extent, inherently paradoxical. In the sense the it's a balancing scale. If you don't give everyone freedom equally then you end up with the 'some pigs are more free than others' scenario. And that some ideologies exists to undermine freedom, and it's important not to give those ideologies room to grow, by being aggressive in how you challenge their hypocrisies.
Liberalism can not exist without capitalism and capitalism will wipe out humanity in the next century if we don't radically change our society. Liberal capitalists will always choose fascism over even democratic socialism when they feel their existence is threatened. Liberalism has to be abandoned.
Hey bro, just watching your video for like the 10th time again. Wanted to let you know that between this series and the "alt right playbook" my militantly centrist friend is sliding hard left and even starting to question me less when I freak out over someone's dogwhistles. Keep up the good fight, comrade.
Fantastic video. You give me hope for the future. Imagine if ideas an concepts like these were taught in school? Maybe one day they will and our ancestors will look back at capitalism the same way we look at feudalism. One can dream *sigh
I replayed the comrade part a couple of times. LOL. Damn. Who knew? I studied business (although I only ever really ran a business with myself as the only employee). I'm also in a country where communists are currently being hunted down. Am I a comrade now? Can I be a comrade now? :O
It’s a give and take you know? If you ever do run a business, consider a worker co-op or something like it. Talk to your fellow employees about unionizing. Godspeed comrade 🤝
Thanks for finally coming out as a comrade my heart is happy, also i love how u went straight to the nazis since that seems to be the label that scares liberals the most, i once talked to a Liberal with a capital L who tried pushing nazis as part of the left !!!! Almost had a heart attack lol Love from saudi ❤️
I watched this series of videos because I'd started wondering about the connection between the problems of capitalism and liberalism. At least, I kept having conversations with socialists who talk down liberalism, and I was wondering what there was to that. So thanks for explaining! ...comrade.
But it wasn't critiqued. He just says its wrong and offers no argument at all. This guy is a total sophist. Here is a complete debunking of Anarcho socialism / Anarcho syndicalism mises.org/library/chomskys-economics
DogBoy77 Mises literally was the head of the chamber of commerce under a fascist dictator in Austria. U just made his argument that liberals are okay with fascism for him...
Adrian Rivero hey fuckface, did you read the article? No? then go to hell as it's clear you aren't here to learn and/or enlighten others. also mises fled europe to escape hitler. god you are fucking stupid.
Thank you for this series. This clarified a lot of things for me as a recovering american liberal who grew up under the assumption that "liberal" just meant, as you say, anyone to the left of Sauron (though tbh that's a bit hard on Sauron considering our current regime). These recent years/months/weeks have sped up my (and if twitter is any indication, many, many people like me) political education by light years and I'm having to fill in the massive gaps in my vocabulary that came from being raised to assume politics and economics were unrelated fields. Unrelated, I've just discovered that "comrade" whispered silkily to camera is my kink.
Before I watched this series if someone asked me if I was a classical liberal, I would have said yes. Now I feel as our friend Kant did when he said, "... Have my philosophical constructs thrown into question; ...Check. You have done an excellent job here. I would be lying if I said you had not given me much to think about. Perhaps a decade of silence is in order. Silence, and thought."
T. H. Caro I would still call myself a Liberal after watching this series. Many of the points Ollie brings up are kind of weak. To start out in earlier episodes and to an extent in this one he presents many arguments which are simply genetic fallacies( easy term to google ). His most important critiques of capitalism also rely on a subscription to the labour theory of value which put very bluntly completely ignores demand when determining value- people wants and desires do not matter under this theory. Since this theory is obviously false, the critiques based on it are as well. His practical point about liberalisms tendency to slide to the right is probably his best point, and I see it not as a damaging blow to liberalism but as a valid warning that liberalism can be turned against itself if we aren't careful. It bothers me that Ollie often cuts these genetic fallacies when speaking on political topics and is much clearer and more rigorous on stuff like metaphysics and ethics. If I said communism was evil because Stalin and Lenin committed atrocities I would be just as wrong as Ollie is now, critiquing how certain individuals who calls themselves by a particular name acted is not the same thing as actually critiquing the ideology itself. This whole series felt like more of an attack against a very specific form of liberalism- neoliberalism. Even if Ollie didn't explicitly state this most of his attacks focused on the extreme views neoliberals hold to not those more moderate views many liberals hold to. Anyways I hope your having a great day :)
The labour theory of value doesn't ignore supply and demand, it states that these determine price, and that price follows a cycle of revolving around the actual (labour-calculated) value of a commodity, as supply and demand vary. Basically, it makes a distinction between perceived value and real value which other theories of value determination do not.
Lév and it is for exactly that reason that it is wrong. It ignores what supply and demand really are, marginal benefit and cost curves. It is claiming that value has nothing to do with desires and wants and this is simply false. What many critics of capitalism fail to recognize is that the reason profit exists and that the wage rate is normally below that of the value of the goods is that the entrepreneur is providing a valuable service and should be compensated for that. This narrative that the capitalist fat cats are just hording all the profit to themselves, while being a good commentary on inequality, fails to recognize that the workers are also profiting through a wage rate. If the entrepreneur hadn't set up the factory or invested the capital the workers could not have done their job( hopefully creating a product valued higher that the inputs used to create it ) and would have had no money.
Keith: "It is claiming that value has nothing to do with desires and wants and this is simply false." No, it is not. I already explained that. It makes a distinction between real value and perceived value. You are talking about perceived value. The LTV calculates, under commodity production or capitalism, equilibrium prices which are equivalent to "real value." "If the entrepreneur hadn't set up the factory or invested the capital the workers could not have done their job( hopefully creating a product valued higher that the inputs used to create it ) and would have had no money." Demonstrably false. Worker cooperatives exist and workers are more productive in them than in privately owned enterprises. Unfortunately, worker coops have trouble competing in a capitalistic economy because they tend to use their profits in benefits for working conditions rather than expending, which is necessary in capitalism (as explained by Marx in Wage Labour and Capital as well as by other economists). History has showed that, it is true, capitalism is great for industrialization. However, in a industrialized, post-scarcity society, it simply is not good enough. It is massively inefficient (billions of tons of food wasted while many starve, hundreds of empty houses with many homeless, manufacturing in the third world and shipped to be sold in the first world, wasting fuel and other ressources), exploitative (in a macro sense with the exploitation of the third world and in a micro sense by the exploitation caused by the boss-employee, bourgeois-proletariat dynamic through surplus extraction) and immensely harmful to the environnement as profits are put before health and need. Finally, it is a major cause of alienation and unhappiness. It is time for change.
rekou1 rekou1 ya sure no problem. When he spoke of enclosure, or his version of enclosure which is surprisingly a very hotly debated topic, in Britain before the industrial revolution and treated this as somehow an argument against liberalism as an idea. Or when he spoke of lockes horrible exceptions and treated this flawed and perverted form of liberalism as somehow a blow to the idea itself. If I did the same thing for communism I would be just as wrong and people would be right in pointing that out.
For me, this video was the tipping point that helped me realize that I’m not a liberal, and started me down the path to becoming a socialist. Thank you for all that you do!
I have to say a huge thank you to you Oliver. I used to use the phrase "I'm a liberal" and one or two of my university friends would constantly admonish me for it in a rather insulting, aggressive manner giving me no reason other than I guess be tired of it to admit I was not a liberal. But after watching your series I completely understand now why I was misinformed concerning my ideology.
Lenin posited that imperialism is highest stage of capitalism. And he was right. But now, we must contend with neo-feudalism, the twilight stage of capitalism (which is the actual final destination of neoliberalism)
Lenin was wrong, as usual. Imperialism has nothing to do with Capitalism. That is a government problem, not an economic problem to begin with. Also the highest state of Capitalism is Laissez-fair.
I've yet to meet someone calling themselves a "neoliberal" (except to piss off socialists) - but I've met plenty of liberals who want a strong welfare state, and who are concerned about income inequality. Liberalism alive and developing - we still need an ideology with a principled opposition to the government taking away people's freedom - and it makes sense to call that liberalism.
I dunno about anyone calling themselves neoliberal, but I could name a few world leaders who spoke and enacted policy as if they were clearly neoliberal (Reagan and Thatcher are tied for #1 on that list.) If liberalism is capable of evolving to meet the needs of the modern world, then it needs to also include a strong defense against insane inequality and corporate power. This would obviate the need for a strong welfare state.
Good analysis, thank you Ollie. I cracked up when you used "comrade", as well as saying "problemi kapitalisma" in Russian, and playing Russian anthem in the background. :) nice touches. I understand you support socialism, and as a survivor of communism (USSR-kind), I have to ask: what do you think went wrong with the Russia's attempt at socialism? Do you rate it as a complete failure or as a partial failure? What would you have done differently if you were building another attempt at socialism?
Vlada Pechenaya I am not an expert, but one of the big problems at the very beginning was the fact that Russia was basically a feudal society before the Revolution.
I feel this video would be far more persuasive to people who are genuinely politically opposed to you if you suggested arguments as to why sliding right is in fact such a philosophically negative thing. Rather than just arguing that liberalism leans right and assuming that everyone will just agree that is a flaw in the ideology.
When he's talking about people sliding right, he is specifically talking about people moving towards fascism. If people don't already think that's a problem, they're probably not going to be convinced by anything Ollie says in a 10 minute video.
Another Irrational Moron if fascism is an appealing ideology to slide towards, why wouldn't it be a problem for the alternatives to Liberalism as well.
K Man if that's the case, I'm holding firm to my Liberal ideals. Free speech and being able to criticize are some of my biggest ideals. You might find people to be idiots and want them to shut up but what if the shoe was on the other foot? I rather show someone that they are wrong than stifle the conversation.
This was literally followed by the example of the rise of fascism and Nazism. Did you just hear "slide to the right" and turn the video off in a fluster?
I absolutely love your videos, so interesting and informative. Your personality shines through all that you say. Keep up the great work. You are awesome !
If you actually achieved full "anarchism," it would end in injustice, robbery, and tribal warfare. There would be no governmental structures to prevent some people from taking what other people have produced by deception or force of arms. The only way to "punish" for attacks after the fact would be to get a gang together and declare war on the gang of the people you think are guilty. The tribal quasi-anarchy that typically prevailed in the pre-Columbian Americas had lots of tribal attacks, raids and wars. Once Europeans arrived, American Indians attacked each other even more: www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780195071986.001.0001/acref-9780195071986-e-0618 Where there was relative peace between tribes was when the tribes formed confederacies with governmental organizations, like the Iroquois League: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iroquois#Iroquois_Confederacy
I....don't understand how Anarchism could even be an option. An=no, arch= rule, ism=belief. How could you believe that no-one should rule??? How will disabled people get any help? Anarchism seems to me to just be neoliberalism's true goal: complete deregulation, no accountability, no care... It will just be social darwinism. And if it is like some other options within anarchism, it's not true to its definition, it's just a form of social democracy in some interesting variation.
daddyleon Anarchism means no hierarchy. Everyone is equally working together, typically done by democracy. It is the abolishment of all unjustified hierarchy. And there have been successful cases where Anarchism has worked.
Solace Yes. In the end that’s why he was shot, he saw that the economy was one of the biggest factors in racism, poor whites needed someone below them. In a system with stability for all people wouldn’t have to devolve to tribalism because there would be enough work and money to go around, giving a chance for the races to work side by side and know each as people. The burning of Black Wallstreet, Salvery the holocaust many major and minor tragedies come down to economic instability.
Our FBI sure thought he was. In one of his letters he described himself as most socialistic than capitalistic. He also got his political start, as most civil rights leaders did, in labor politics. He was certainly socialist adjacent.
He was, though it took him years of being beaten up from the leftists and Black-nationalists for being the hand-maiden to the Dem party establishment while then being ignored and eventually not only abandoned by the Dem party - but it fact was viciously attacked including the ramping up of hoover's FBI operation to take him down. This wasn't until 67 and 68, when he made the ultimate no-no by coming out publicly condemning the Vietnam war as being purely about colonialism/imperialism! That was when the secret service detail which had actually been watching over King for years and years by that point, were immediately called off, (and by the way - this happened just months before he was assassinated, what a coincidence right?) SCLC, under King's leadership, stated that it would have to call for a “radical redistribution of wealth and power.” On several occasions, King even told his aides that the US needed a democratic socialism that would guarantee jobs and income for all.
I think you may be cherry-picking examples regarding liberalism's tendency to shift right. Keynesian economics developed out of the liberal tradition, and its advocacy for occasional government intervention in markets is incredibly antithetical to Neoliberalism's hands off approach. Social/Welfare Liberalism is also a broad view, popular in the US at least, that supports market economies but with certain measures and regulation intended to work towards economic and social justice for those hard pressed persons in a nation. That's a liberal tradition that pretty much started with Franklin Delano Roosevelt during the Great Depression in the United States, one embraced by many on the Left today. And I think it's arguable that liberal values helped pave the way for the development of the social democracies in Europe, though certainly a great deal was due to the work of socialist movements (and in no way does the former point undermine that). Liberal conceptions of free expression and the consent of the governed are vital to many social advocacy movements like those of the democratic socialists. I currently consider myself some form of democratic socialist, and I'd rather fight for my political vision in a liberal society than any other if I had a choice. In short, I think liberalism can go either way regarding laissez-faire market oriented capitalism and more mixed economies. Just because recent history shows liberalism to be dominated by Neoliberal thinking doesn't mean the entire ideology is subsumed by it or that it's the inevitable end point of the ideology.
Social/Welfare Liberalism is also a broad view, popular in the US at least, that supports market economies but with certain measures and regulation intended to work towards economic and social justice for those hard pressed persons in a nation. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The U.S. gives lip service to the idea that it "supports" social welfare for the nation's hard pressed, while simultaneously cutting that support to shreds. We are now at the point of having a bare bones social welfare structure left, and what is left is not enough to help anyone to have "economic and social justice". You can barely survive and are demonized and dehumanized at every turn for requiring assistance of any sort. The pathetic social welfare that remains will undoubtedly be completely removed within the coming decade or so.
It sounds like liberalism has the potential to be a good thing if it cut outs its exceptions for freedom and takes a more left approach to determining what is harmful to people.
I am a liberal (former socialist) myself, and I must say that I love this series. At times I definitely felt like you attacked liberalism on what it had been used to justify instead of it's principles, and at others I was sad to see you didn't mention important liberal philosophy's answers to a lot of the problems you presented (such as John Rawls' ideas about Justice) and my only other critique of this series is that in this episode you seem to strawman liberalism by ignoring behavioral economics, a feild of economics which is currently making some of the biggest strides and just had a breakthrough which won it a nobel prize in economics. I love your channel so much, in fact you have changed my outlook on life forever, I would love to hear what your personal political convictions are in a future video! Thank you so much for Philosoohy Tube!
This series kind of implies that Neoliberalism is the only modern incarnation of liberal thought. I think it could have been pretty interesting to discuss Social Liberalism, which provides to solutions to some of the problems created by Neoliberalism
Actually that would interest me as well, in a not-ironically-decrying-marxist-influences but rather wondering-what-you-think-about-past-communist-economic-failures-and-their-tendency-to-slide-into-tyranny sort of way. I would probably frame it in a broader sense, rather than make a micro episode on communism specifically (to avoid devolving in a simplistic "gulag bad" type of analysis). I'm not sure how. But hey I'm not the philosopher here! I just feel like I don't know enough about that and would like to see your perspective.
He already did a series on Marx. It wasn't as scathing as these videos though. But I should point out that this video wasn't a critique of capitalism per se, just how liberalism is intertwined with capitalism. Even so, I think Olly's biases are evident. I'm not saying he shouldn't have biases, just that he should be able to leave them at the door.
A really good series, and this is why I think you channel might be the best youtube phil. channel. You explain easily difficult concepts and long arguments, while not dumbing it down and keeping in touch with the academic debate! Great great great
charlie lock A lot of people have *_"pecked"_* at Olly's arguments, he's just ignoring them😂 this channel has become a faith-based initiative for communism.
K Man *_No you haven't._* Aside from that, *_Gary Edwards_* would like a word with Olly not to mention *_Hagbard Celine_* has made a 2 year old video series criticizing Olly on race as a technology. But..No response no reply. *_This channel is a church and it's parishioners required daily affirmations on the moral infallibility of Marxist Communism._* but he is entertaining I'll give him that much.
Brilliant series! This connection of ideologies rationalizing the need for an "enemy" is something that, as a decent human being, I want to rail against, but all I have to do is see the debates about Confederate statutes (among many topics) here in the US to see how easy it is for a community to find an enemy -- enemies who are are citizens of the same nation! Same about self rationalization for food or medicine; most of us don't see the amount of work put into lobbying for activities that are, usually in the long run, are bad for us. For example, why, exactly, would _any_ company be willing to pump toxic waste material into a river? Because profit overrides long term thought. Flint, MI, *still* has foul water, something that would be easy to fix! I could go on. There is no ideology that is "the best" because all ideologies start with a flawed premise: that humans as a collective can actually understand the principals of said ideology and execute it flawlessly. Only constantly questioning, adapting and thinking about long term benefits and risks will sustain an ideology, and it won't be the same it was when first proposed.
Olly, I've watched almsot all of your videos over the last few months, and while i don't agree with everything, you certainly have make me challenge my own assumtions about captialism. I would still consider myself pro-free market in most cases, but now i can see where a lot fo it fails.
@Ronald Reagan I don;t know whats funnier: That you commented this on my comment That you clearly don;t understand what any of the words you used mean That the video you are commenting on literally define the terms but you still don't understand them Or the straight up, unapologetic slippery slope fallacy. A comedy of errors, to be sure.
Ollie have you read "Sapiens... a history of humanity" by noah yuval harari? it's a book that I implore people to read if only for the historical lense it views society through. It changed the way I think about the world and I'd like to hear your take on it.
I think what comes next will be Social Democracy. Think about it in Hegelian terms: Liberalism is the thesis, Marxism is the Antithesis, Liberalism thought it won but as we can see with the rising popularity of Social Democracy among Millennials, particulary Bernie Sanders almost being the Democrats' choice for the white house, it's not all that black and white. Liberalism and Marxism fought, and Social Democracy was formed; a Synthesis that has the best elements of both.
Hello, another example of neoliberalism turning to the right is the imposed dictatorships along south america to """fight""" the communism while exploiting the richness of the land. Can you make a video about that? Excelent videos btw. Greetings from Argentina.
I am a little confused by how you separate the Right and capitalism, implying that right is more connected with fasсism. Maybe you meant authoritarian instead of Right?
You forgot another problem with liberalism or neoliberalism, although you did kind of touch on it briefly. It's a "one size fits all" philosophy. It assumes that everyone is capable of being the next President of the United States or the next Elon Musk, but that's about as far away from reality as you can possibly get. And, for me, that's its BIGGEST problem.
I enjoyed your serie. But would like to point out that the use of the Soviet national anthem is hypocritical, since you apose facism. The problem with fascism is that is the same as with communism which is that they create a totalitarian, authoritarian state. So although liberalism is not perfect by any means what is the alternative? How do we protect human rights and freedoms without using many liberal principles? (Im genuinely curious of your opinions).
Heya man! I know exactly what you mean because I have also been in your position I think before: I knew that Capitalism had some flaws, but I really just didn't know what else there was for us to have instead. If you'd like to hear some alternatives, I would recommend perhaps a video by the youtube channel "empire flies" I think called something like "Marxism 101 with Richard Wolff" - Richard Wolff is himself an economist, and he has looked into some ideas such as Worker's Cooperatives, which is sort of a combination of Socialism - the ownership of productions (so like factories, the equipment in the factories and the resources needed to produce goods in the factory) being owned by the people who actually do the creation of the goods. And it also combines the ideas of a market based economy. He has his own channel as well, and also another channel where he gives weekly shows every Monday on the economy. There is a good one on there called "socialism's past and future" or something like that which puts forward an idea of what can be beyond liberalism. As well as those, there is a Channel called "Hakim" and he has done some work that might be quite surprising, he takes a more Leninist approach (his icon is of Lenin) - which I personally disagree with, but you could always check him out anyhow - from a more libertarian, anarchist point of view, there is one channel called "Non-Compete" who has done a video series on how an anarchist society may be organised. And another channel which is also anti-authoritarian is one called "the radical reviewer" who summarises books mostly by radical thinkers who have proposed new ways for how society can be structured beyond capitalism. I hope these help you out, and good luck in your search... comrade? ;)
The professors at my university did a Milgrim type exercise on us as part of our studies - it taught me an awful lot and gave me chills when I realised what we were dealing with. We were doing a module on rocket science - it was an exercise in finding unknowns. All we were given were a few rocket parts and some basic information. Our task was to reverse engineer what we were given in order to establish the unknowns - the unknowns were the pay load and trjectory (it could have been a rocket used for sending a satellite into space for all we knew). It became apparent though, that no matter how many calculations and research into rocket science we did, there was just not enough information for us to go on - we told our professors this and got an inckling they were messing with us, so we thought it might be a bit of a red herring and the exercise was more about thinking outside the box than rocket science. But not matter what questions we asked them, they always gave information that kepted us short of what we needed. It was then we noticed this small little mark on one of the rocket pieces - it kind of looked like a swastika but we couldn't be sure and the lecturers wouldn't tell us anything. In the end, no amount of rocket science was going to give us the answer. The only answer lay in going to the library and looking at rockets used by the Nazis during WW2 - that was the only way we were going to know the payload (which was a bomb) and the trjectory (Britain from the coast of Europe). We actually had pieces of V-2 rocket in our hands and we didn't suspect a thing becuase we hadn't thought anything about the intention of the rocket itself - because we had no orders about payload and trajectory (this of course tells you a lot about Wernher von Braun who designed the V-2 rockets for the Nazi - there was no way he was oblivious at all to what he was doing).
Wow I understand so much now. I'm from the Netherlands and last week Forum for Democracy won really big in the elections. A right wing fascist party that came out of nowhere. It goes to show that sadly the world is still shifting and shifting to the right more and more.
They came out of "nowhere"? Nothing comes from nowhere. Remember that. They were probably funded/helped by America in some way. This is the direction that America wants every country to go, and they believe that they are the "leaders of the free world" and have the "right" to control every other nation from behind the curtain. Look into your nation's situation deeper, you'll probably find American ties.
Hmmm - not sure this is your best video - I agree with a lot of its points, but the structure feels a bit off - I personally would have started with the more abstract stuff rather than going straight to the Nazis (would probs have saved them for last) and I feel some of the stuff like discussions of food could have been full episodes in themselves. So I'd give this vid a 6/10. - but please keep up the good work!
visnevskiscom my problem isn't with dumbing things down, it's with structuring the video in a way that feels awkward - plenty of Ollie's other videos handle this better
