Why "Neither Left Nor Right" Just Means Right Wing | Bonapartism 

"it's not left, it's not right, it's forward" that was basically my first ever take back when i got into politics. suffice to say, i've grown up a lot after that

I've noticed that Second Thought has integrated humor pretty well in his newest video while still being informative, not only does that make the left seem more approachable, but it makes the content better for longtime fans.

As a big fan of Hakim and The Deprogram who had never seen a single of your videos, I’m glad that this is the first I see. Over the past few months I’ve seen a few videos about bonapartism and it’s legacy (like the current French constitution) but they were all made by French RU-vidrs, it’s cool that you also talk about this stuff.

Definitions are hugely important when talking about politics, math and any other formal concept. So yes, I'm tremendously excited if someone provides them.

As a French lefty, thank you for drawing attention to Macron's nefarious politics. Because he seems more moderate compared to someone like Boris Johnson, many English-language outlets have been singing his praises over the last few years and it's been infuriating. They've ignored the insulting remarks about poor people, the forcing through the Assemblée Nationale of unpopular legislation, the police violence towards protestors, the systematic dismantling of public services and his controversial choices of ministers (like Darmanin, the former member of the far-right Action Française and suspected rapist who Macron put in charge of the police force). In fact, it is argued by many on the left in France that the Fifth Republic, our current Constitution since 1958, is very Bonapartist in nature, having been tailor-made for Charles de Gaulle. This argument is based notably on the hyperpersonalisation of power, the President being legally untouchable while in office (no impeachment mecanism exists, no matter how toothless) and the numerous tools at the President's disposal to force laws through the Assemblée Nationale, including the use of "ordonnances" and the even more controversial article 49.3 of the Constitution. Since 2002, when the presidential term was shortened from seven to five years, this has arguably gotten worse as the legislative elections are now aligned with the presidential one. The result is that the elected President almost always gets a majority and the Assemblée Nationale essentially has little power to counteract the Government. There is much discussion on the left about the need to end the Fifth Republic, and what a Sixth Republic could look like. Finally, while it's true that many French people and politicians have a Bonaparte boner, it's not the case of everyone. He's not much loved in the French Caribbean islands, where his reintroduction of slavery was...not popular. Also, while many were keen to celebrate the bicentenary of his death back in 2021, many of us were more concerned with honouring the 150th Anniversary of the Paris Commune of 1871. EDIT : somebody pointed out that there is indeed a mechanism by which the French Parliament can remove the President, so I was wrong on that point. I genuinely thought there wasn't so I'm sorry for getting that wrong. The system has, so far, never been used and it seems somewhat difficult to set in motion. I think the other points still stand, but I'm happy to have incorrect facts pointed out to me.

Short reminder to discuss wages with your coworkers It's protected in the US and doing it gets you more of the work you done back

Probably the best video of this channel so far. As a French guy it's arguably the first time I see a foreigner getting our political landscape right. Excellent!

Yang was the reverse. He had (economically) right-wing symbols, but left-wing politics. Neoliberal-sounding terms like "human-centered capitalism" was a way to cloak his support for Medicare for All and for UBI. He seemed friendly to markets but also had some real pro-economic democracy policies like a people's bank.

as a frenchman, seeing trump in napoleon's clothing gave me cancer

I personally love the longer definition part, it's really useful for further research and invites viewers to debate/reason outside this community, as well as breaking down buzz word abuse.

3:23 monos=single archo=I lead/rule, archon=leader/ruler the -y suffix is an English version of Greek -ia which means state or situation. So monarchia=the situation of having a single ruler. Similarly, anarchy is from anarchia, which means "the situation of lacking a ruler"

I'm so impressed. I'm French and this is the first video that I ever see that nails the current political situation in France, and explains clearly what Bonapartism is and why it's bad news! (just like having Macron, Le Pen, or Trump in power). In fact, the V Republic is coined in France as a 'monarchist republic' since all the powers are dangerously concentrated in the President hands as the French people have been discovering since Macron is in power...

Camillo Cavour, the Prime Minister of Piedmont that lead the whole process of Italian unification, was a liberal nobleman, and as you can imagine pretty opposed to communism, but his justification for being so were very interesting: He wrote he wasn't afraid of communists taking his wealth and privilege cause he didn't belive a communist government would ever work and last, but he was scared of it because he knew very well that most liberals would immediately support a reactionary dictatorship, in face of the risk of communist. Time will prove he was right on that, obviously with Fascism, but even in his life time, when the Second French Republic was proclaimed and a couple of years later Napoleon the III staged his coup and became Emperor, he said that that was exactly what he feared: The Liberals have sold freedom to the Reactionary out of fear of Socialism.

“Left-wing symbols, but right-wing politics.” America in a nutshell. Another great video, JT.

This video ignores a crucial line of thought. For many Americans, when they say they’re not “left or right”, they’re not necessarily trying to assert that they aren’t on either side of the political spectrum. They’re trying to assert that neither party has done a good job of serving the people, so they support neither one. They’re trying to achieve unity against the political establishment, because ultimately both the democratic AND republican political establishment are almost equally conservative. The sentiment behind Yang’s campaign was to highlight the fact that the abject failures of our government are bipartisan in nature. Frankly, I don’t know how anyone can disagree with that. I’m not pro Yang, and I tend to agree with Bernie on a lot more things than Yang. But if you honestly think the Democratic Party will ever give real progressives a chance, you’re confused.

Awesome content and explanation. Keep up the good work!

Andrew Yang was my first introduction to being passionate about politics. After that political cycle I kept learning and understand that I was actually just a leftist who didn't know what to look for in candidates

During Yangs presidential run he fought for our data rights and was very worried about the big corporations having all the power. He felt we should have more privacy involving our data and own our own. He felt we should have the option to be paid for it instead of how they get access to everything for free. They make tons of money off our data and we get nothing in return. That didn't sound like he was all for kissing the ring of corporations to me. He was also worried about technology and AI replacing our jobs at a faster rate and felt we would be between a rock and a hard place without a floor to stand on. That's the UBI. He talked about the midwest and how our jobs have been disappearing at an alarming rate. Trump blamed our job losses on illegal immigrants. There are much bigger differences between Trump and Yang than you claim here in your video.

Did you just call Napoleon COUNTER REVOLUTIONARY?? He was literally a Jacobin and best friends with ROBESPIERRE, he went to JAIL when the corrupt center right government took over. Napoleon's reforms were far left in his era and without them Europe would still be ruled by kings. Also several royalist coalitions of anti revolutionary nations were his enemy and almost all of France's wars in that era were started by other countries You can call Napoleon egotistical or self aggrandizing, but he was obsessed with Voltaire and enlightenment thought, he literally forced the pope to give him millions of francs of gold in his first military campaign, he enshrined greater rights for Jews and other groups, he collectivized church property You're literally just grasping straws to attack modern the center right and far right as if they are the same

I've recently found your channel and have been binging your content. I've loved them all, but I think that this is without a doubt one of the most interesting ones that I've seen. Trump and Yang as American Bonapartists is a take that I've never considered, but I makes so much sense I'm amazed that my friends from grad school and I (who all studied history and are leftists) never made the comparison.

"I have done the math. It's not left, it's not right, it's forward." Rita Verdonk said something similar in the Netherlands almost two decades back. "Ik ben niet links, ik ben niet rechts, ik ben recht door zee." She's definitely right wing. But she got it from someone else.

While in general, you are spot on, there is the example of Bismark, who was Bonapartist in tone, but passed left-wing reforms like universal health care in the late 19th century, all the while embracing extreme nationalism. There are other nationalist big-man leaders, like Nehru, Nasser, or Ben Gurion, who also adopted strongly socialist or strongly pro-worker policies in the 20th century. That those figures don't exist in the modern US shouldn't create historical amnesia, there was a 20th century, it did happen.

How can you write an essay about Bonapartism, Macron and Le Pen without talking about the general de Gaulle, the founder of gaullo-bonapartism and of the Vth Republic ? A Republic which was precisely designed to have a strong president plebiscited by the people ruling over the regime of political parties who had ruined France with its constant instability during the IIIrd and the IVth Republic and led to the rise of nazism, the occupation of France and the disastrous Algerian war, war that brought de Gaulle to power. France isn't just (often) ruled by bonapartists, it is a gaullo-bonapartist state with a gaullo-bonapartist constitution. So, you're lacking a very important piece of information to analyse french politics in the Vth Republic : gaullo-bonapartism, the ideology founded by the general de Gaulle to finally synthesise the french (many) monarchies, empires and republics into the ultimate french regime, a compilation of all its history, a stable regime which would definitely end the endless stream of civil war and political turmoil the french had endured over centuries. In gaullo-bonapartism (or just gaullism) ideology, the idea comes from a particular lecture of french history. In short, back in the middle ages at the court of the french king you had different factions, with different lands, historical and cultural ties whatever, and the king was supposed to be above the factions and rule with as much central power as he could hold but always working neutrally with all factions for the greater good of the kingdom. Historically everytime the king was weak the factions were plotting against each others and pushing the country toward civil war. In gaullo-bonapartism, you have the same idea but with the political parties and the president who is supposed to be above the vile and conniving political parties but still work with them for the greater good of the Republic, just like the fair king saint-louis did for the Kingdom. But if the president is weak, the government can't work, political violence rises and in any case we can't prepare against the next German invasion. In bonapartism, constitutional AND feudal monarchies always create factionalism and the factions are always waiting for a weak king to start a civil war. So the monarchy needs a strong emperor to rule over the factions for glory and power of France. In gaullo-bonapartism, parlementary AND oligarchic republics always create factionalism and the factions are always waiting for a weak president to start political instability which sometimes leads to civil war, sometimes to foreign occupation, to the rise of political violence in any case. So, the Republic needs a strong president to rule over the factions for the glory and power of France.

I really enjoy the analysis. You do a great job with that, and it is why I started watching in the first place. But I have noticed a stark increase in humor and you having fun with it recently, and I appreciate that too. Keep up the good work.

I've never gotten here so early. I def appreciate this channel, makes sharing the concepts I believe with my friends a lot earlier without losing my patience 👏🏿

Dude i should have found your video three weeks ago. We needed that

As far as Yang goes, I was under the impression that Universal Basic Income would provide the working class with a better BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement) and therefore give them better bargaining power when it comes to wages, hours, working conditions, et cetera, because they'd be more capable of walking away from any deal below their standards. I leave out benefits from that list because Yang's platforms also include portable benefits and Medicare for all, which would help people not be tied by their health to one employer. Both of those policies would also improve people's BATNA. Am I missing something? Also, the idea that Yang's platform was so beneficial for the wealthy oligarchs contradicts my observations of the news media collectively inhibiting his airtime far more than they did for other candidates during the 2020 campaigns. It seems like they'd want to keep him in the public eye if he was looking to solidify their jobs. I think that Yang probably genuinely does want to reconcile the left and right wings' values and has the people's needs at heart, rather than just using empty rhetoric to fortify existing power structures. For that exact reason, the existing power structures had an incentive to make sure he stayed as obscure as possible. Does that make sense?

Can’t wait for the screeching “enlightened Centrists” 😂

as a french i'd love to see you do more videos about our politics to have the perspective of a non-european socialist, which would be especially interesting considering we have a presidential election happening in a few weeks, which will be very important because the three right-wing candidates are absolute monsters, zemmour is a straight-up fascist, macron wants to become france's reagan or thatcher and let the poor die, and the leftist candidate melenchon is the only one on that side of the spectrum capable of going in the second round, it'll be wild but i hope mélenchon wins, if anyone otherwise wins the country will have another rough & shitty 5 years

This take is literally “if you’re not with me, you are my enemy” in irl politics.

Also Napoleon the 3rd’s alimentary reforms and building up of agriculture fundamentally improved food security in France and Europe functionally ending famines, endemic in france. Something many other European nations did not achieve for over 50 years.

Your analysis of Bonapartism is spot on, and consistent with Marx. Also great content as always. However, it should probably be noted that Napoleon I himself was pretty complex and also had progressive instincts; he continued to chip away at the power of the aristocracy, gave opportunities to commoners, and introduced things like public education. He was also hated by the royal families and aristocrats of Europe.

I like that you've cranked up the humor in this video, it's really funny and well done. Good video all around, too.

It’s a matter of perspective. In the same way people say that Bernie is the only leftist candidate in America. That all other democrats are really right wing. That shows me your Overton window. If you are so left to see moderates as deeply right wing. You have to recognize your biases and your extremist beliefs.

Claiming to be neither left-wing nor right-wing doesn’t automatically make someone right-wing. It’s important to recognize that political beliefs and affiliations can be complex and nuanced. Some individuals may genuinely hold centrist or independent views that do not align strongly with either the left or the right. While there are certainly historical examples (as you described) of authoritarian-right leaders using this rhetoric in bad faith, its a bit simplistic and tribalistic to think of this as a universal rule, especially for ordinary people outside of political inner circles. In general, political leaders often use rhetoric and labels that align with their objectives, and the distinction between left and right can be fluid in practice.

I love that you still say to dislike if we don’t like it even though we don’t see them anymore. It’s cool to see the evolution of the platform with the consistency of your sign off

The Deprogrammed podcast is HILARIOUS, it’s just what we need to get brain-rot neoliberals to consider “radical” concepts Keep it coming, JT! ✊

The lean into overt humour works well, that hierarchy of needs joke had me rolling

... Are you saying, quote Orwell: "He who is not with me is against me."

As a french i would like to thank you for highliting the corruption of our politicians,our republic is also very centralized in the hands of one leader,we are a free country in name only,it seems that our ruling class is willling to turn us into the US (meaning no public policies to speak of,free market for all,and let the poor in misery)

I always look forward to these on my Fridays.

When I clicked in I expected something else, but after watching I realized it was what I exactly expected. If you are in the extreme left, everyone in the middle is on your right, period.

Really love listening to the deprogramme! You lads are awesome

Jesus, apparently hanging out with Yugopnik and Hakim has turned you from a very respectable fact-based youtuber that occasionally made a smirk-worthy funny, to a one that now makes me belly-laugh on a regular basis. The occasional light-heartness and humor is very much welcome in these times and I think it will get more people interested in the important things you are presenting. Keep up the good work!

Last year was a great litmus test for the left/right divide, here in France. While the Right was remembering the death of Napoléon I, the first was commemorating the Paris Commune, the first ever attempted communist revolution (against Napoléon III, appropriately enough).

So if im apolitical im really im conservative? damn cant believe i became a conservative.

Thank you, I was so confused about this at first. Politics isn’t extreme left and right where I live, there isn’t that big of a difference so being in the middle always just meant we see cool with most things, I’ve got a pretty left country-

Thank you for making this video, JT! As a Latin American leftist (Argentinian, to be more specific) the concept of Bonapartism, which I'd never heard of before, was the final piece of the puzzle for me to correctly grasp Peronism; I feel like this is a very important topic for any Argentinian who wants to understand their history. Thanks again!

When did Yang suggest deregulation and cutting the social safety net? I listened to many of Yang's speeches in 2020, and that was not a part of his campaign

I still feel like you failed to explain why not identifying your politics as left or right wing makes you automatically right wing. My opinions vary depending on the issue which is why the question "are you left or right leaning?" is a difficult one for me to answer.

"If your not with me, then your my enemy"

If you wanna make a video about him, the best, recent, democratic-republican, "neither left nor right" french leader with a messiah complex who ruled by plebiscite is Charles De Gaulle. To me he's a good example of bonapartism within the framework of liberal democracies.

Although Napoleon did make himself emperor it is important to note that the government's that came before him we fare from perfect. Robespierre launched a reign of terror against the French people, with his anti religious extremism and killed anyone who disagreed with the revolution, later on he created a cult of personality and alienated himself from other members of the revolution. When Robespierre was executed a new government took power called the directory who were an incompetent oligarchy who were racked with corruption, it is also important to note that France was being attacked by other countries who wanted to see the revolution fail. Napoleon had already proven to be a competent general and when he came to power he was able to push back against the other European monarchies, but even when he was governing normally he still upheld the ideas of the revolution, sure he did abolish women's suffrage and made slavery a thing again he allowed freedom of religion, abolished hereditary privilege and equality before the law for all men, he is also noted for his fair treatment of Jewish people in a time of widespread antisemitism, he created a new centralised banking system with tax reform and the introduction of a welfare system, and created a new centralised legal code that is still the basis of law in various modern countries. And in the places he conquered he further spread the ideas of the revolution and propelled forward the ideas of unity which would later lead to the German and Italian unification. So ultimately I do not think you should say Napoleon was a completely reactionary figure because of what he did and what happened after his reign

I'm addicted to your videos and cannot express how I agree with you - so much. Not about the facts you share. More what you've outlined in how to go about changing things for the better.

Once upon a time I was in sales. There was a popular idea in the trainings I went to. A successful salesperson “believes” in the product. Not pretends to believe, wants to believe, or even has factual cause to believe. No. Just simply believes. I often wondered why that was such a key part of sales. Then looking at religion, political ideologies, and conspiracy theories I was able to finally wrap my head around it. The reason it takes blind belief to sell an idea you have no evidence for is it promotes cognitive dissonance. It requires it, and conditions the mind to operate in a state of dissonance while being supported by a popular narrative that reinforces the original belief. Yang believes the narrative he’s selling. He has no reason to question his dissonance as his beliefs smack into walls of factual resistance. He isn’t a top hat wearing villain with an evil plot. He’s a technocrat believer who at his core feels he has the secret answers.

Fun fact : Napoleon was a left wing jacobin during the republic and even a friend of Robespierre’s brother… for his radical ideas and because he was part of the jacobin club, Napoleon was imprisoned by the thermidoriens after the fall of Robespierre for his support of Robespierre during the reign of terror but he was liberated only because he was already known as a good commander during the republic… he commanded the execution of the monarchists even after they had surrendered during the republic when he was in charge of raiding Toulon…

It's amazing to see and realize how many people are built not to think for themselves and just follow the crowd and don't ask questions. Thank you for your analysis, I now understand the politics here in Canada just a bit better

Another banger. Great job, especially the distinction between "populists" and "bonapartists" is desparately needed.

My understanding was that Yang wanted to use market dynamics (decentralized self regulation) for problems - not "give it to the Market" as in "let money decide it" Basically the premise that if decentralization of decisions and power is the goal market dynamics will be approach to do so. We just tend to conflate "the Market" with "market dynamics" and "free markets" (which usually skew unless regulated) with "balanced markets"

Social Democracy was essentially thought to be ideally third alternative ("neither left, nor right") ... so are Social Democrats Right-wing?

The US government lives by The Golden Rule: Those who have the gold make the rules.

“ If you remain neutral during an injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor “- Desmond Tutu

Is Second Thought for democracy or against capitalism? Democratic socialists sometimes have to decide how much democracy that doesn't agree with their socialist agenda they are willing to tolerate. Sometimes democracy produces undesirable results, as do all economic models, including socialism, that are vulnerable to corruption, favoratism, and failures.

I was excited for the more definitions. It made my day

Though I agree with your statement that neither left nor right just means right, I have to say the historical analysis of Napoleon here is too limited. Napoleon's (the 1st) coup took place after the French revolution's left was essentially defeated by a right wing coup within the republic (the thermidorean reaction and then the directory). Napoleon the first then was a shift further to the center. It should also be remembered that the wars Napoleon engaged in were either against the most conservative oppressive monarchies the world has ever known (Austria, Russia, Prussia) and also England, the ur-Capatalist state at the time with a much worse record with regards to imperialism. Does this make Napoleon the 1st a leftist or someone to be admired? Probably not. But in context he was probably the best shot the French revolution had left to radically change the world for the better after all the Jacobins died or were exiled. Napoleon the third, on the other hand, has no redeeming qualities.

I read the title and though it was directed at the average person who may feel like they neither belong on the right or left, and it came off as somewhat coercive. But I've watched quite a few Second Thought videos by now and don't recall them being blatantly manipulative so I clicked anyway, and I'm glad I did. I never knew about this "Bonapartism", which was not mentioned in any of the many videos and classes I had that touched on politics and political ideology. Very eye-opening video, and the point about UBI being a form of giving up on real change in favour of what is more or less mass hush-money is a fresh perspective on what recently became a very popular idea.

Thank you for this I want this to spread

L M A O. Rejection of bipartisanism does not mean I want a friggin' king lol. To me, "neither left nor right" means I want a great many viable parties where power is not concentrated in two places like it currently is. And where on Earth did you get the idea that Yang wants to deregulate corporations? You don't know the first thing about Yang if this is really what you think his views and goals are.

Just loved it! Thanks for your work, it's so important to have these conversations and you just make them way easier to understand and talk. Thanks from a little southern of your country and solidarity to all!

I love the sarcastic humor you've added at the beginning of the first few episodes. Perfect way to disarm me before dropping another truth bomb. Plus I'll always thumbs-up vintage Simpsons clips.

If you submitted this as an essay to a poli Sci professor you'd be laughed out of the building. So bad lol

I hear all the sarcasm in the definitions action. But boy did I enjoy that.

In the Netherlands "I'm neither left nor right, I'm straightforward" is usually associated with a former politician called Rita Verdonk. For a while she was kinda the Margaret Thatcher of our country, but she never got to be prime minister. She pretty much got out-competed by other far right politicians.

The thing I find most annoying in politics is the insistence on supporting "our guy". No one is ever held to account because they're on "our side" and unity is more important than policy. Or alternatively they're on the "other side", and holding them accountable would harm "bipartisan cooperation". I don't give two shits what colour pin you wear. Or what letter comes after your name on C-SPAN. I care whether you're voting in the interests of the public who you are supposed to represent. I strongly believe that the current form of political parties as largely static and overarching entities is primarily a way of ensuring elite control over the political process, by allowing wealthy donors to essentially handpick candidates that are "in the best interests of the party" - like what the Democrats did in 2016 with Hillary Clinton. Bernie was the more popular candidate, but he was a threat to elite power, so he was removed via the super-delegates. I have no problem with caucuses of like-minded politicians, or politicians self-identifying with a particular political label that generally matches their policy positions. This can be helpful for voters trying to identify a candidate they likely agree with, without having to trawl through their entire voting history, and it can also be a way of driving wider compromise and potentially faster decision making, due to it being easier to listen to and compromise between 2 or 3 positions than 538. The issue comes when a) the position of such a group becomes essentially fixed and new members are expected to conform without question, b) when maintaining a unique and opposing position becomes more important than ensuring that the position is a beneficial one, and c) when political parties reach a state of carefully manufactured equilibrium - a.k.a. deadlock - that ensures the maintenance of a status quo. This is exactly the position the US is in right now. In the US, the Democrats have the public vote, the House, and the Presidency, but because the Senate is in deadlock with the deciding votes of Manchin and Sinema paid off in brib- I mean "political donations", and the Supreme Court is firmly conservative - despite ostensibly being an apolitical judicial body - it means that any decisions made by the Democrats are either blocked in the Senate, undercut by the Supreme Court, with only the most toothless bills making it through, to be retracted by the next Republican President, whose election is basically inevitable despite a decreasing share of the popular vote, due to gerrymandering, and the weighting of the Electoral College towards rural, conservative areas. I just want a world where people consider WHAT their politicians vote for, rather than simply which team they're on. This isn't football, or a game of power for the sake of power. This affects our actual lives.

I think there is a misconception about the left-right political compass. It came from the french revolution where the right was the Ancien regime, the monarchy and conservative order, whereas the left was the republic meaning liberalism and capitalism. According to french marxist philosopher Jean-Claude Michéa, both the current left and right are both capitalists, two faces of the same coin. One pushing for economic liberalism and the other cultural and social Liberalism. Both push the agenda of capitalism. Marxism, socialism and communism exist outside the left-right spectrum… there were created in a completely different era and socio-political situation. But it’s nice to remember that the left was originally driving force of capitalism, not the right. Politics is so confusing, and everybody pretends like they understand… (I don’t think I fully understand still very confusing to me)

Hey @secondthought , you have no link to "deprogram" below the video. Also, you don't enunciate it well, and I had to look at the video to find the text as a small part of the graphic. Are you trying to avoid promoting it secretly, so as not to be persecuted? Also, I'd be interested to hear about if you're raking in money & what that means/how it can be incorporated into socialism?

The Deprogram has quickly become my favorite podcast. Y'all have fantastic chemistry and your discussions are always funny and nuanced at the same time. I know that has nothing to do with the video, really, I just thought I'd say something.

This is an amazing perspective. Thank you!

"Mann, dis suchen!!" at @11:11 killed me

I'll always tough that "bonapartism" was from the nephew Napoleon III Bonaparte who was president of the republic and emperor of France in the second half of the XIX century.

Can't even imagine any politics outside right/left? It's that lack of imagination that will kill us all.

When you were talking about Napoleon I and how he cut back on the progress made by French revolution, I think you forgot to mention that the first French republic that preceded Napoleon's empire was also awful. During the reign of Maximilien Robespierre, people were literally send to the guillotine (had their heads cut of), if they disagreed with the revolution. Also you called Napoleon xenophobic, because he went to war with all of Europe, but the revolutionary government before him did the same thing.

I think there are two types of the whole "neither left nor right" thing: a) Third Way type, where you create a political force (a party in parliamentary system) that is supposed to be alternative to real or perceived two biggest political camps (the left and the right), and most often that alternative happens to be centrist/liberal (or fascist, since fascism was the OG third way in the 30s). Of course, the third way can also be leftist if the two big guys are liberals and conservatives but then it doesn't fall into the "neither left nor right" category cause then you actually want to say "hey, I'm leftist, while they are just two different shades of rightism". b) non-partisan type (I would place Napoleon I here), where you want to be a unifying political force outside of parliamentary disputes. This could be a monarch (you know all those monarchy advocates, who say "wow, this cool enlightened ruler stays above all the parliamentary squabbles and keeps our nation united" type shit), a military or a authoritarian ruler. And here being neither left or right is true in a way that you are not aligned with any political party or movement, which of course doesn't mean you don't have political beliefs or agenda (well I guess there's also "I don't care about ideology, I just want money and power, which is kinda apolitical, at least at its motivations), you can still be right wing or straight up reactionary. But I don't think that's always the case (unless you think every type of non-collective governance is rightist, but I think there's more to that) - look at Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, who by no means was a socialist revolutionary but did fight off religious and foreign imperialist exploitation and embraced statism. I wouldn't say he was Bonapartist leader aiming at securing interest of capitalist class. That's why I think Marxist theory is a bit simplistic there - it's not always capitalist exploiting working class (tho it is common in our times), it's just someone abusing power. There should be equal distribution of power, where no company, state, person or class can get so much power they can use it against anyone else. That's why I'm for collective ownership of companies and greatly expanding democracy beyond the ballot box.

"We must move forward, not backward. Upward, not forward, and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom". How is this quote the most pertinent analysis of modern Western politics?

The far-rights are few in number, but the moderates and "neither left nor right" crowds are numerous. They may not support the far-right directly, but they're enablers. That's why they sometimes hampered the left-wing movement more than the far-right in a quasi-democratic framework. It's also worth mentioning the now-defunct Centre Party of the Netherlands, its slogan is translated to English as "Not right-wing, not left-wing," but their ideology is unambiguously far-right. The "neither left nor right" rhetoric is easy for politically illiterate people to digest, and the far-right knew how to exploit this, because average voters won't support outright far-right ideologies, but if they can be pulled easily because they're already on the centerline.

I first saw Andrew Yang on Joe Rogan and was seriously intrigued. Yang broke my individualist Ben Shabibo/Jordan Peterson fanboy brain juuuuusst enough that I'd start to take leftist ideas more seriously. After the New Hampshire primary when all the moderates started dropping out and throwing their weight behind Biden I was primed for radicalization. Then 2020 happened and now I'm a proud socialist.

The rhetoric of of Yang is correctly stated as being slightly on the right of American politics. HOWEVER, his actual policies are insanely reformist and progressive, which are the definitions of left that most people use, not just socialism. When arguing someone dialectically and using different definition, you’re not going to change any minds.

The problem you have though, is that you haven't shown the alternative is better. We don't actually know if socialism is better than capitalism since every socialist nation has failed, or integrated capitalism when they were failing. All you've done is associate Yang with some historical figures because he likes to talk about "it's not left, or right". This is like saying Britain didn't like the Nazis, so you are also a supporter of Monarchy if you don't like Nazis. It's a silly take.

The funny/sad thing is, I’m pretty sure that if Macron had the exact same policies but wasn’t aligned on the US, most media would label him as a dictator à la Putin or Orban (also prime examples of Bonapartism). Instead he’s treated as a young and hip liberal president, like a French Obama. What makes the Bonapartists’ job easier, though, is that it’s very hard to agree on a solid, common definition of what constitutes the "left" and the "right", or even "progressive" and "conservative". The main leftwing candidate in the upcoming presidential election, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, is more or less a social-democrat but even he is reluctant to use words like "left" or "socialist" in his speeches (even if he considers himself leftwing), because he knows fully well that people also associate them with stuff like the Socialist Party and François Hollande, who have claimed to be on the left while implementing rightwing policies.

Hey Second Thought, great video as always! Can you do a video on how the US is a plutocracy?

"i dont like those ideas so they must be conservative" basically this video

Great video!!

Even as an anarchist, I really don't like the whole left-right political spectrum for a couple of reasons. First, the terms "leftist" and "left-wing" is a very vague way of defining a broad range of movements that often have little in common. Second, I feel like the terms "left" and "right" is very pro-establishment, because it has always existed in the context of a capitalist class society, which means that if we transcended class divisions, the entire idea of "left" and "right" would become redundant. Sure, I'm willing to use it for convenience, but I do believe we should move beyond the confines of the left-right spectrum in the long run if we want to think outside the box.

There have been cases were the neither left nor right idea has been a way for left wing policies to get done in places very hostile to the mere idea of the left wing (in a lot of places in south America if you mention left to a lot of people they instantly get triggered and start making about Venezuela), but that's been pretty rare compared to the right wing use of the tactic

You are also forgetting why Napoleon is and was loved, sure he didnt bring democracy but he insalled an meritocracy, where other power hired to top positions only the nobility, Napoleon was determined to have the best of the best, he was sure to bring proper justice, the monarchy always sided with the nobility and the republic was a mess or chopping heads because you werent revolutionary inoff

It is very difficult to pinpoint which concept you understood the least. Whether is the concepts of democracy and monarchy, the concept of left and right, fascism or authoritarianism.

Twirling towards freedom!

love you dude. so proud of what you, hakim, and, yugopnik have started as well. keep up the amazing work

My criticism is that democracy is not relegated only to the left wing. It is also a right wing concept in America.. as Democratic Party has alienated libertarians

7:10 I think a bigger reason that politicians often falsely claim bipartisanship is because they know that rightism turns off lefties and leftism turns off righties. So they will claim their leftism or rightism is neither right nor left but simply the right path forward for the country, rather than acknowledging which ideology is at the root of the proposal they're making.