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.
This is propaganda, it's essentially the "your with us or against us" argument, political beliefs are often more complex than left vs right, and I'm kinda getting sick of this yang was a fascist, but not really bullshit
@@quatreraberbawinner2628 Dude as a former Andrew Yang supporter, who legit voted for him to be Democratic nominee, he’s pretty fascist. He didn’t start off that way for sure, and definitely not how he began. But I urge you to check out his New York mayor run and just see how he ran allllll the way to NeoLiberalism, saying terrible things such as pray for Israel from the disgusting Hamas terrorists (no acknowledgement of the Palestinian struggle against a totalitarian state) and he went on to applaud NYPD for cracking down on street vendors literally in the same week video came out of them destroying an old hispanic woman’s street cart and arresting her. He said a lot of other stupid shit, and i dont think any Yanger should support him after all he said.
@@humanp4th I knew about that shit, I have a lot of problems with yang post election, I think the political process changed him and he became disillusioned, I can't say for certain as I don't know him, I just think this video is pretty dishonest
"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
Yeah this was my based 10 year old take also. Then you see the real world, and it’s all so shit that it radicalizes you. I wouldn’t say I’m full socialist now, but definitely far left leaning
It's an Andrew Yang quote, but in no way is Yang right-wing. I love Second Thought, but this seems kinda sus. (I haven't finished the video yet, maybe there's context)
@@SonOfTheNorthe It depends how you define left v right-wing. As Marxists we define the right as anything that is pro-capitalist. Yang is definitely pro-capitalist. He just wants capitalism with a kinder face. A smarter capitalism that gives out a universal basic income (so that they can buy more stuff an d continue the capitalist cycle).
That's how you get elected though. Good luck trying to get elected without messaging about unity. But I don't really care about campaign slogans. As far as I've seen, all of Yang's policies are left wing, but pragmatic. Leftists are all about demonizing him though. Which is probably understandable, pragmatism had been co-op'ed for a long time by moderates as an excuse to not do anything. But 200+ years of capitalist rot can't be undone in a single day, a single bill. Reactionary leftists hate hearing that though.
@@eeediology9232 That's exactly the problem with the "left-right" model of politics is that it's so inconsistently defined that it does a terrible job of describing the real world. It evidently didn't even do the French revolution any good.
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.
@@Antje-Pikantje It’s certainly more rare for left wing leaders to claim to be non-partisan partially because far left wing leaders typically come to power in times of revolution where it is more politically advantageous to be anti-moderate. However, there is the example of Hugo Chávez who sometimes referred to his political ideology as “Chavismo” or the “Bolivarian Revolution.” He argued that his movement transcended traditional left-right distinctions and focused on the principles of social justice and anti-imperialism. However, my main point is about the accusation that anyone (not just politicians) who refuse to be lumped into a politically right or left category are by default right wing. From the perspective of someone sitting on the far left of the spectrum obviously a non-partisan would appear right wing because just by being in the center they’re farther to the right than you are. That being said, pooling everyone who’s not staunchly left wing into one big “right wing” adversary ignores the complexities of political persuasion and feeds into the tribalistic “us versus them” mentality. Moreover, if you consider everyone not in your immediate political persuasion to be an adversary you put yourself at an unnecessary disadvantage. You can’t reliably win elections democratically if you can’t appeal to moderates. Not here to convince anyone (I don’t expect to), just sharing my thoughts.
@@danielgibbs9846 I don't think claiming to be neither left nor right has something to do with being moderate, it's pretty much exclusively a figure of speech to disguise actual goals and ideology. It's a valid point to argue here there is no universal rule, no inevitably certainty but it's definitely a phenomenon one can see almost exclusively there where people are in fact more right wing. And that's measured by standards of a political average, not relative to a very left wing person.
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.
As a French person myself, great job, I wish I could pin this comment for everybody to see ! Franchement super, on ne pouvait pas mieux expliquer notre situation politique actuelle, je suis à 100% d'accord avec vous. Merci.
Polish people tend to have a positive view of Bonaparte too since he was seen as a liberator that freed us from foreign occupiers and allowed us to exist as the Duchy of Warsaw (albeit a puppet state, but it was better than having no recognised state whatsoever). Even the Polish national anthem name-drops Bonaparte with how he taught us to win battles. Fortunately I know the entire story.
One of the saddest things I've seen in france since moving here is that out of the 5 top candidates for presidency 4 are right wingers and two are towing the line between fascism and nationalism
@@mohamadraeesi9484 , fascism of Mussolini was corporatist (alliance between a police regime and the wealthiest 1% ) ... who's more corporatist than Macron ?? and for nationalist ideas Macron praised Pétain and Napoleon during official celebrations. The racists candidates are just decoys to make Macron looks good in comparison...and you are sadly right to see that the french Left is too stupid to get united or efficient ... et ça fait trop chier ;'(
Absolutely, and as always please be smart about it. A united work force has power but a single employee rocking the boat can and most likely will be retaliated against. Even if they can't fire you they can make your work life hell. Side note: HR is never on your side. Their job is to protect the business from the employee not the other way around.
Thankful (and proud) to have worked a union job (IBEW) for 35 years. Raised a family with vacations as well as excellent medical, dental, vision, and now pension. ORGANIZE and UNIONIZE !! Don’t believe capitalist, corporate, employer lies….. there is plenty of wealth to go around….. they just want it all ! Check out International Workers of the World ….. Workers do better when they work together !
Definitions are hugely important when talking about politics, math and any other formal concept. So yes, I'm tremendously excited if someone provides them.
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.
same. i honestly love when people provide definitions for what they're talking about. clears up any possible misconceptions or even provides a conception in the first place if there wasn't one prior)
Love the phrase "breaking down buzzword abuse". If you haven't already checked it out, there's a great podcast called Citations Needed that basically focuses on doing exactly this.
@AileDiablo I’m liking all these ideas of a capitalist market with more restrictions on the mega rich, but we probably wouldn’t exempt anyone from paying taxes due to religion or gender. separation of church and state and all that 😅 besides, any gazillionaire could just say they’re Muslim and get a major tax reduction. 2.5% u kidding me? The lowest tax bracket in the states is 10% Perhaps it’s the lower population and drastic difference in # of M/Billionaires or probably a whole number of social/cultural/economic influences so it’s kinda hard to translate what that would look like on a US scale Not to critique your cultures economic systems, but maybe a little bit 😁
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.
@@gliiitchedpersonally, I think he was. While he was classist (he gave for granted that only the rich should have the right to vote) he wasn't a dogmatic and had reasons for his belief, wich all ultimately converged on his hatred for reactionaries. For example, his motivation for the suffrage limitation was that the limited Parliament elected that way was largely voted by intellectuals and Middle bourgeoisie, and was thus relatively progressive (for the time), but the vast majority of the Italian (and piedmontese) population where illiterate farmers, that had little connection to the Italian unification ideal (fun fact: Pinocchio's "go to school" moral is so strong because when the story was written the Italian government was trying to reduce illiteracy and forge Italian identity in the masses through mandatory grades and stuff, but many farmers families tried to have their kids go to school as little as possible because they needed their help with farm job, so the writer tried to convince the public of the necessity of pushing for education) and would have much rather listened to the extremely reactionary, anti modernist and anti Italian papacy, wich was the greatest enemy of Italian unification alongside Austria.
@@gliiitched That may be, but I do not like him because of his unificationist ideas. One of the fathers of so-called Italian homeland wanted war with Austria to "make the Italians," this is the same logic that half a century later would lead the Kingdom of Italy to World War I. The necessity, whatever the cost, to "make the Italians"... we are in 2022 and many of us are far from such an impractical and indecent "final solution." Cavour on the cession of Venetia (Nov. 30, 1860): "Only from the newspapers do I learn that the British cabinet desires the cession by means of compensation and is working toward this end. So far no official step has been taken. And on my behalf I do not even desire it. I crave war with Austria for reasons of internal order; without this it will be more difficult for the North to merge with the South. I also believe that at the present time cession is not possible."
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.
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
@@prestigev6131 If it is of any consolation, we had a 30% communist party in the 80s in our parliament and, still, we did not manage to stop the liberalization process. Meh
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 RUclipsrs, it’s cool that you also talk about this stuff.
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.
@@zacheryeckard3051 it was a starting point, his plan was to make it able to be increased by voting. He also didn't want to abolish any welfare program. If you received more from existing assistance program his plan was to always allow you to keep them. He wanted to get the people on the edges of the system out of it. The people that made like 12 dollars too much and got cut off, had to survive for a month on not enough, only to apply back and be stuck in the same loop. He never once said 1000 a month is enough. It was always meant to be a floor to build on.
@@ianstambaugh6158 UBI can't replace all welfare structures, is the issue. It should serve as part of a broader welfare system. It's the flexible part, the one that can be shifted as the budget is needed.
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.
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.
Bismarck "introduced" universal health care because German factory workers where already organising common pots to do so for themselves and he was afraid that such structures would undermine the monarchy, so he created a welfare system that bound them to the monarchy een more. Basically he supported some left wing ideals in order to keep the status quo.
@Rob B Some politicians using semi Bonapartist rhetoric were pushed to the left by left-wing constituencies. Its nowhere near as good as a left-wing government, but sometimes you can hijack bonapartist parties from the left, and that allows the brainwashed to vote for you. For example, in the US, it might be possible to infiltrate the Republican party--- they are so divorced from policy, all you have to do is say "CRT! No Vax! Rigged!" and you're in, even if you are a socialist. The higher-ups won't approve, but you can just say "Elites! Build Wall!" and suddenly you win primaries. The primaries on the Republican side are democratic.
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.
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!
@@porsche911sbs In France the situation is getting worst, but we also need to take into consideration that a leftist party did 22% in the last presidential election. By left I mean the anticapitalist, antineoliberalism left. This is the best result the left had in 40 years. Young people are getting more and more drawn to these ideas, and educate themselves way more politically. That does not mean the far right won't be in power in a few years, but at least a real opposition is forming.
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 👏🏿
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.
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"
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
Ah yes, let the Euro-sceptic and conspiracy theorist run Europe's second largest and most competent military might. Won't go wrong whatsoever. The thing with this upcoming election is that there's no actual good candidate tbh. Every single one of them, including Macron, has severe flaws. Macro 's flaws is that he isn't that good at domestic policy, but excels are international policy. Some of other candidates are the opposite. Some are just bad at both (*cough* Zemour *cough*)
@@godminnette2 they are all bad but yes le pen or zemmour would be worse than macron and pecrasse too marginally. But it doesn’t really matter bc macron will probably beat them all in the second round. I too pray that melenchon can get to the second round.
@Jean Sanchez Why do you think you need to have a solid view as a whole to have a solid foreign policy and what do you mean by "solide view as a whole"?
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)
@@Kevin-cy2dr LOL not when you look at how much more they get paid over there. A surprising amount of places have it so anyone can work fresh in the door at McDonalds for $20/hr. That's a huge improvement compared to the US.
@AileDiablo Napoleon only made such remarks to gather influence with the Egyptians lol, he was an incredibly cynical man that played on the stupidity of others.
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...
@@oswaldm mmmmhhh... that's not quite the French people sentiment with the current political and socioeconomic crisis - there's a good reason for all the massive protests and riots since Macron is in power. Truly that one has run its course since it was established at the end of WWII as a way to prevent another Vichy nazi-collaborating government... People anger is brewing. It will explode if Macron continues to exercise such an authoritarian regime over the country. Him and his government are only holding up thanks to his police brutality and severely punishing dissidents.
@@oswaldmit's more stable because France have just better living conditions than the previous republic. We just cannot compare them. The only comparaison you could make is the beginning of the 5 and the end of the 4. Even there we can argue that the stabilisation came more because of the end of the war in Algerie(I don't know the word in english).
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).
@@JackTheAverage Yeah. So much death in so little time. People talk about the countless deaths caused by the free market economy over the past 500 or so years, but the scale of death caused by socialism is incredible. 100 million dead in only 50 years and it still is counting up
The Paris comune was against the third republic, do you not know your own history? Besides the left also conmemorated Napoleon, only a few brutes who abandoned their 2017 promises in exchange of ganging up with the former PS officials (Melenchon) were against. But Montebourg Kuzmanovich etc were all conmemorating Napoleon. As well as what remainst of the MDC (founded by Max Gallo)
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?
As for the Universal Basic Income, I would strongly doubt it's being pushed by people who care about your rights, wages, health or working conditions. Here in Belgium it's only being pushed by right-wing political parties for the simple reason that this way they can basically delete universal healthcare, the wellfare state and people living on their unemployment funds and replace it with "Universal Basic Income" which not only will amount to much less money than all those policies, it also means everytime you go to the hospital you'll have to pay a shit-load of money whereas right now we barely spend a dime (unlike in the US). The reason why those parties are pushing for it is because they haven't managed to create more job opportunities in the last 10 years than shitty, underpaid half-time jobs which no one wants because not only do the working conditions suck ass, but also because those jobs barely pay anything at all. Obviously, people didn't want those jobs, so now they're making it so that we don't even have the choice whether or not to apply to those jobs because their "universal income" (1000€ a month) isn't enough to live decently here, which means a life of rent, no kids, no spouse, no vacation, no little spending here and there every now and then, no ownership of anything, 1000 bucks a month is just enough to spend the rest of your days eating pasta with water for the rest of your life. So you're gonna have to take those shitty ass jobs instead of having a stable and growth-oriented carreer. And if you develop any kind of disease then congratulations, you're likely dead because universal healthcare is not a thing anymore and you barely make enough money to pay for a visit to the doctor. But hey, at least you have 1000 bucks a month don't you ? Hurray for basic universal income indeed. Point is.. If it sound too good to be true, that's probably because it is. N.B. : I know some people live on the streets and for those people this would be great, don't get me wrong. But this is not a win-win scenario. This is a "let's make everyone even poorer and blame them for it" scenario. There won't be less homeless, there'll just be more poor people.
Bailing out banks during every crisis and spending 800 billion dollars on military a year isn’t too good to be true though? All this shit is a lie and if you still believe in our system despite how much has been released since the dawn of the internet, you’re drunk off the kool aid. We literally have infinite money because of the Federal Reserve. But that infinite money is only for the interests of the ones who control the game.
I think Yang was repressed more because of his tax proposal. VAT means that taxes come from companies and not consumers (nominally) and it’s a lot harder to avoid for the wealthy.
Injustice isnt something that happens sometimes, but always and by everyone it is always simply the extend of the injustice that we talk about. Justice in itself is not worth striving for. And as such that statement is an ignorant one led by an ideology.
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!
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!
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.
No dummy, the Overton window in America is severely right, in fact if you don't really see democrats is right wings than you're simply politically illiterate
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
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.
@@Diego-zz1df Circumstances gave him that role. And despite being very discrete in his private life, he recognized that France only responds to strong men.
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.
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
@@carrieullrich5059 he was not a perfect man but no one really is, though I feel you can't make a fair criticism napoleon without noting the good things he did do and France was still far more progressive than it's neighbors at the time, if napoleon came to power today and did these things it would be extremely regressive, but for his time these things were the most progressive and France's neighbors still saw France as too revolutionary to exist even when napoleon made himself a monarch
@@Levittchen4G my point was just that the governments that came before napoleon were not that great and were constantly divided by factionalsim and were unable to govern effectively and napoleon was able to change all that
@@carrieullrich5059 Actually, you could see it as him achieving real progress in a harsh time. Exploiting some people is better than exploiting all people, especially when the rest of europe wants you removed
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.
@@AssBlasster Yang was genuinely concerned about material change and expanding democracy for the working class. It was all in service of capital, but at the time I was still valued capitalism, so that was the argument I needed to hear in order to start thinking about politics in material terms. Ben Shapiro also did an interview with Yang and seemed to like him, but was rightly convinced that the DNC would conspire against him. Ben Shapiro wants democrats to be more like Yang because he ultimately will fight to preserve capitalism while extending enough of an olive branch to workers to delay any kind of socialist revolution.
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…
@@TheGalaxyWings maybe but even during the revolutionary empire, Napoleon continued to write letters in support of Robespierre saying that he wasn’t the master of the reign of terror but just a scapegoat used by the thermidoriens (the real masters of the reign of terror)
@@TheGalaxyWings the thermidoriens were seen as moderates but they were actually also jacobins… the jacobins club was still removed because half of the jacobins were allied with Danton and the other half with Robespierre… but the 2 leaders of the jacobins were dead so the jacobin’s club was removed
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.
left: people should have the power. people should have basic needs met. right:the powerful should have more power. needs should only be met if you are useful to those in power. see? easy. saying you are neither is weird, since there is no middle ground on those. take voting: the left wants it to be mandatory holiday and voting should be easy. the right wants it to be hard to vote, and some people shouldn't have the right to vote. what is the middle ground there?
@@briannelson27 I'm not calling for middle ground. I'm just saying that the idea of "left" and "right" is very simplistic and inaccurate. I just feel like categorizing ourselves on this very simplistic spectrum is highly pro-establishment/system and prevents us from really thinking outside the box. The left-right spectrum only really holds water in a society of class divisions, and as such, abolishing class divisions would render the left-right spectrum meaningless. All I'm saying is that the left-right spectrum is inaccurate, simplistic, restrictive, and pro-establishment. As such, I eschew calling myself or anyone a leftist or rightist in favor of simply "pro-system" and "anti-system". As an anarcho-communist, I am very much in the anti-system camp.
@@briannelson27 "Pro-system" and "anti-system" would be more like it. This is because even some on "the left" (e.g. social democrats, democratic socialists, Marxist-Leninists) are actually pro-system. Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists believe in using the established political process and also want to reduce the power of the elite just stopping short of eliminating class divisions completely. Marxist-Leninists, however, have often just simply recreated the same state apparatus that existed under the previous regime. In many cases, social democrats, democratic socialists, and Marxist-Leninists have cooperated with some on the right. So, in short, the pro-system camp is comprised of "the right", which is to say, conservatives, liberals, and fascists, who want things to stay the way they are or to turn back the clock as well as those on "the left" who support traditional electoral politics and simply believe in redistributing some wealth to the masses, which just so happens to make it so that the possibility of a revolution aimed at abolishing class divisions completely is mitigated. Meanwhile, the anti-system camp is comprised of revolutionaries who want to abolish the state and capitalism entirely, such as, but not limited to, anarchists.
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
This video is such a gross oversimplification, I think. There are clearly people who are tired of the standard left right divide. They might want to support lgbt+ community (left), support more social program (left), more law and order (right), more protectionist for global trades against China (neutral), more secured border (right), incentivize entrepreneurship (right) etc.... or focus on some partisan neutral issue like automation. It is reasonable for those people to say they are neither left or right, and they are far from bonapartism. When you have an oversimplify model like "neither left nor right = bonapartism", you will get very unreliable result from model (like falsely calling Andrew Young or Sam Harris as right wing). Just because {there are some political figures who claims they are neither left nor right and happened to be bonapartist and right wing} doesn't mean this is the only option. Okay... nevermind... I think it got it. This youtuber is essentially a hardcore lefties who think anything right of a full socialism is "right wing" and bad.
@@bohanxu6125oh you started off so well, A for effort but F for the landing. You can't be raised in a left-right divide and separate yourself from that kind of thinking, the video is to remind you that anyone who is "above left and right" is definitely lying and PROBABLY right, because the right are more likely to say it than the left. But you hit the nail on the head, it is possible to favour right and left policies, but that's a Centerist, sadly America (and sadly Britain) doesn't have those. Anyone who says they are "above left and right" is claiming center and so may not be in line with particular policies you agree with, Centerists can be pro-law and order or pro-preemptive youth programs or both but the title doesn't tell you that.
I typically identified my politics as left, but it is this type of sentiment that has pushed me away from the left. If I feel alienated by the left, and if grew up heavily disliking the right then where does that land me? Frankly, I see this argument as being very similar to the right always complaining about the liberal media, “they are out there, and they’re trying to pretend they are something they are not in order to trick us” Or maybe, just maybe they are just trying to be as honest as possible in a landscape dominated by a false dichotomy of Left and Right. I mean, I describe myself as incredibly centrist, nonpartisan or moderate and I’d say from my bias perspective it’d be a huge reach to describe me as Right. I haven’t see any political take that has struck me as sincere in a very long time. I kinda pity people who can somehow stand to believe in any of this stuff
@@gumbilicious1 in short you are center left, longer form you are left but have a different opinion on the right than other people on the left, which is perfectly fine because this slider is only measuring one thing that captures a common group of opinions that are usually, but not always, shared by people who identify as Left.
@@bohanxu6125 These political compass examples aren’t exactly 100% left-wing or 100% right-wing. It varies on political history on each region/country and its current political climate. ‘Law and Order’ is a good example of this, currently in France LFI is quite anti-cops because of recurring unpunished police brutally. However it doesn’t mean they campaign to defund the police. LFI politicians often explain police brutally is due to systemic defunding of public infrastructure leading to a lack of training and low hiring requirements. As long as you’re fit and can follow gross orders, after a few months of training you could to get an opportunity to beat up protestors. Following the June riots, the historical French communist party has been campaigning for law and order, not to make the state more powerful, but to ensure the safety of the workers. It’s a Labour Party, it makes sense they don’t like when the country is a chaotic mess. ‘Law and order’ isn’t antonymic to the Left-Wing, it’s just that the loudest Left parties have abandoned this topic and left it to the Right.
"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?
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.
True. And let’s not forget, Europe as a whole didn’t really like the idea of the French Republic. That’s why they went to war as soon as the first republic was established. Napoleon was necessary to keep the country afloat. Did he make mistakes? Absolutely, but he was what France needed.
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.
same thing with Erdogan who shelled Kurd cities and genocided them, and violently cracked down on opposition, he is much much worse, except nobody gave a single fuck because he is aligned with NATO
Victor Orban is a "dictator"? Jesus modern millennial leftist fevirously throwing words without meaning, but will claim Lenin was no dictator, ignore, Stalin, and just have boner for Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, and totally ignore failed socialist states such as the U.S.S.R., Communist China, North Korea, if you want to live your socialist utopian fantasy go to China, North Korea and the many socialist failed states.
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.
They're really not. You might've forgotten but I really wanted to be excited about Yang but his "UBI will fix everything" magic bullet approach made it impossible. Healthcare reform? Nah, how about UBI instead? Unionization? Nah, here's a check. Removing money from politics? Uh, look, money! What was that about politics again? The video didn't do him any disservice. He handed out just enough breadcrumbs to make people like you happy enough and not look at the things he takes away from you with his other hand.
@@vdinh143 also he wanted to essentially rid or drastically reduce corruption by giving every American a $100 flat campaign budget to allocate to a political campaign
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.
UBI being opioid for the masses is hardly a fresh perspective, being the standard line for Big Government advocates touting minimum wage, welfare state, and federal job guarantee whole rationale of Sanders wing rejecting Yang, besides his name, is that welfare moms would get less than 1K while everyone else get 1K instead of real direct stimulus (pandemic cheques were only ~3% of pandemic relief), we got "relief programs" that keep the bankers and corporations at the government food trough and nobody were screwed over more than the Sanders welfare moms, funny enough
It's quite surprising french politics, especially those after the revolution, are not more teach... It's litteraly where the meaning of left wing and right wing was created. And the first people revolution that set the tone for what people mean by revolution nowaday, especially socialist. It's always interesting to learn. Now, I'd say french one are at least talked about, there is politics from the rest of the world that would be very informative aswell, learning from politics around the world is the best way to understand the politics at home.
@@ledernierutopiste I went to school in Canada and we're taught about the French revolution but most of what we learned is the same information you'd find in a 40 minute Netflix documentary. It's very shallow.
@@ledernierutopiste endless colonial conflict in Africa and intractable social protest disruptions at home? yet another neoliberal example of what not to do I'd argue
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
Given the surge of Jimmy Dore type right populist grifting that's emerged in recent years, I'm glad that you made this video. Caleb Maupin and his ilk come to mind when I think of modern day agitators and / or precursors to modern neo fascism.
"Just because somebody uses revolutionary symbols, that does not make them a friend of the people." Immediately Jimmy Dore popped up in my mind with that line. Glad it's not just me.
What about Russell Brand? These two guys always give me a similar feeling. It is true that they can sometimes take an anti-imperialist position similar to that of left-wingers, but their starting point is simply anti-establishment.
@@americancommunist6076 That means that if your group ever comes to power that ingrained distrust will inevitably lead to the oppression of those groups you distrust creating yet another oppressive totalitarian state.
This video is very misinformed, and it mostly stems from the way democracy is wrongly defined. Democracy is public rule. Its practice varies a lot, but that does not change its definition. Most nations around the world have representative democracies (like US, or my country Norway) where you elect representatives whose job is to represent your vote in political matters. A country like Switzerland has more of a direct democracy, where everyone represent their own vote in political matters.
Also, I would advice the author to explain the process of his conclusions better, because some of the conclusions he drew in this video where by all my knowledge wrong, and the thought behind them were poorly explained if at all.
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.
They actually embraced the free market. Those who do the best and isn’t illegal should be listened to. Should’ve restricted bankers because they’d just print money instead.
"I could make the minimum wage higher, invest massively in education, healthcare and infrastructure, reduce significantly our military "might" and stop all foreign agressions, economically and militarily, oooooooooooooooooor I could take this 500k $ and get myself a nice chalet in the north...."
One minor point: Napoleon actually did not like *_La Marseilles_* and replaced it as the national anthem with a song titled *_Veillons au salut de l'Empire_* ("Let Us Secure the Salvation of the Empire").
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.
Napoleon I sent thousands of troops to re-establish slavery in Haiti in order to protect the money of people like his wife, who's family owned slave plantations, and to fuel his dreams of conquests in the Americas. I have no sympathy for him.
@@elizabethsilk7160 I agree that we should have no sympathy for Napoleon, in fact we should probably have no sympathy for any historical figure since "the traditions of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living". It is also important to note that Napoleon himself regretted the Leclerc expedition, which was definitely his greatest fault. With that being said my main point is if you consider the historical context of the Napoleonic period, Napoleon to me seems like the best of the options. The English, Spanish, Austrian, Prussian, and Russian empires were all just as brutal in terms of imperialism, but they all lacked the revolutionary potential of the constitutions that Napoleon brought with him.
if you believe than Napoleon have no reddeiming qualities, than the thermidorians were right winger, than you call Austria and Prussia oppressive as it is Russia, and it was Napoleon whom started a war against Prussia first to conquer the HRE, Spain and Portugal, then you have zero credibility and you are a Napoleon apologistic.
Exactly.. Yang has so many policies that would eventually fix our system and give us a true democracy..ubi was just a foundation... America won't be a socialist country anything soon.. We have to start somewhere
This would explain things. The whole golden middle fallacy of centrism/neither-left-nor-right where people just smugly say that both sides are misguided and think they understood it all. But it explains another thing very well. Which is linked to both the reason why you had to explain definitions and where this golden middle fallacy comes from. It explains why people are kept ignorant about the political terminology, especially what left-wing and right-wing mean. I see a lot of people bashing the left-wing to appear moderate despite their ideas being essentially left-wing. Maybe I am wrong there but it makes sense.
Nice try, but centrism is ideally about the slow and progressive implementation of what would otherwise be extremist ideas to leave room for backtracking if things didn't go right. Use your head next time, extremist.
@@Ironsuaba Centrism is about being open to BOTH left and right wing ideas as long as they're potentially beneficial. I suggest you learn the basics of political science before trying to argue, lol.
@@JsJdv so, basically, centrism is having none of your own ideas on how you'd like the country to work and instead just supporting whatever sounds good? Great. Sounds like a good strategy... to keep things the same. Which is conservatism, which is right-wing.
Pretty much everyone in the comments seems to have completely forgotten that centrism is a right wing ideology. To resist changes from the left and to slowly implement changes from the right
Socialism by definition desires the polar opposite of what the capitalists want. Left wing then desired the opposite of the right wing on the ownership question and any derivatives that can come out of that. There’s clear boundary and anything else falls in either of the two. The concept of “Neither right or left wing” is just impossible logically.
That's useless reductionism. Socialism is a coherent system in its own right, not the logical opposite of another system. The capitalists want to avoid a nuclear war that destroys the world; does socialism therefore desire that? Left and Right are convenient buckets to summarize the dominant political theories of the day. The "opposite" of either one is an incoherent mess.
@@drno87 For one thing, I don't know for a fact that the capitalist class doesn't desire nuclear war. And second, even if they don't want one that isn't the same thing as them likely believing that it is inevitable.
Socialism on its own is not political which makes your point incorrect. Socialism is not something a politician can just snap into existence, socialism is a sociological arrangement that determines how labor is handled and the ownership of what is produced. In other words, it is any system where private property is absent.
@@brentbowman5574 Socialism and capitalism are completely incompatible with each other. One puts control of the means of production in the hands of private owners who exploit the labor of others for personal profit. And the other puts control over the means of production in the hands of the workers who actually perform the labor. As ideologies they have diametrically opposed goals and cannot coexist.
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.
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.
"Violently beating down protestors and abusing executive powers to force through legislation" are not inherently right-wing behaviour. They are simply authoritarian, antidemocraric, abusive behaviours. Unless you also believe that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and Kim Il-Sung were also right-wing?
The problem is, saying "It's simply authoritarian behaviour". Simplifies the problem, as many centrists like and allows to steer the conversation away from the root structural causes of authoritarianism and it focuses on the superficial ones. Authoritarianism is inherently right wing, the reasons left wing dictators default to it is rooted in that *among* a combination of other things that don't necessarily interlap with how right wing politics works. For example as mentioned on the video, the politics of the left are different from the right and forcing the equivalency ignores the historic development of each one.
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
@@crimsonghost4107 It's not deception. The real world *is* far more complicated than this broken left-right model of politics suggests to be of any real use other than constantly painting false dichotomies and having people apply it to places that don't belong, like people labeling nuclear energy as "right wing" or "left wing", which is fucking absurd. The problem is some people take that realization and just add more confusion rather than genuinely fixing problems this outdated model from the French revolution had. It doesn't mean it wasn't broken to begin with.
@@crimsonghost4107 The left will rather say Yang is FaScIsT than see that he had a political strategy to get people in the center and right on board with m4all, basic income and more social programs.
@@LakanBanwa In a broad sense, it's not really outdated at all. We have two classes in society with broadly two different economic outlooks. The Ruling classes politics and the people's politics. Many people unknowingly support the ruling class's politics but that doesn't make the model outdated, it actually supports it because we know if you support the status quo ruling class's ideology you're called right-wing, if you don't you're called left-wing.
@@calebr7199 Not everyone operates on or even knows that definition of "left" or "right", that's the whole problem is that it's not a universally consistent definition and highly depends e.g. what country you're talking about. Btw why call your definition "left" or "right" when I could have just as easily been more specific and talked about what the ruling class' specific ideology is there vs. the people's politics, like if the ruling class in one country are autocrats/supporters, or supporters of the current ruling theocracy/the theocrats, vs. the democrats or the secularists respectively. Less confusion this way, especially if you have to redefine the terms "left" and "right" in the way you defined it anyways for every given context, it's far better to just address the context directly instead of operating on word salad/buzzword logic.
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)
the awarenes of not "having it all figured out" is exact thing that keeps you from posting stupid videos to an audience of 1 mil 😂 congratulations you are most probably smarter than him
I think what Yang did was call attention to problems and offer some solutions. I would have liked to have seem what a Yang administration would have fought for, I don't think he is right wing, but I do question his willingness to stand up to power structures. We do need less antagonizing in our politics. Bernie was by far the best candidate in that race, but Yang's ideas, perspective and solutions in some cases went further and in some cases didn't go far enough. Universal Healthcare. I don't know if it's fair to compare him with Trump, who was running on Charisma and true Bonapartism.
The leftists threw out an incredible candidate, Yang, just because he wasn’t left wing enough. He was the only candidate in recent history that consistently listed out steps and solutions for issues he cared about, and provided easy access to learn on his site. This kind of leftist self destructive behavior will consistently lead to their downfall, cement their POV as an “underdog”, and recruit more leftist leaning victimhood supporters, and just feed an endless cycle of these people. It’s sad and even sadder to think about what we could accomplish as humans if they stopped being so petulant. Sad
@@dylanmerediths Great point he did not fit traditional left leaning stances, but his solutions would have certainly moved us forward. I just did not like his not supporting, Bernie after he dropped out who honestly had inspired him and had the most over lap, I can imagine what his energy and endorsement could have for that campaign, also he did not endorse Tulsi after she adopted UBI and he said he would support any candidate who did . Also we saw a different Yang when he ran in NY, all of the changes makes me wonder if he can unsure the pressure and remain true to his stated beliefs.
Yo Yang is defo not Right-wing he is a Bernie Bro and has some policies more progressive than Bernie. He even admitted multiple times that he is just good at speaking in a way that appeals to classical libertarians and conservatives. Human centred capitalism is just a way of making social democracy sound more appealing to the right. So really he is reverse bonapartist in a way. hahah. Second Thought must of just skimmed one article and not actually researched Yang much at all. ;) Yang Gang 2024 lol
@@ribos2762 Example Bernie wants a Federal job guarantee , Yang wanted to reexamine the work paradigm and fight for a guaranteed income and actually allow society to benefit from the advances of our amazing productivity and the coming advancements of automation
Reminds me of how the nazis called themselves national "socialists". Pretty much the same thing, altho instead it was right wing extremists pretending to me on the left. Excellent video as usual. Keep up the good work.
@@bleu2680 good point, although I see them as left of center, but that is arbitrary. The woke media describes them as "far right", but that cannot withstand scrutiny.
Except they were socialist, originally socialism wasn't exclusively left wing, it was simply a new form of economic model, one that you could slap any form of political thought to that wasn't in love with the capitalist model. It's when the Marxists captured socialism in the early 20th century that it became associated with left wing ideology. But by then many right wing ideological movements had already incorporated socialism into their proscribed world-views. This is why the Nazis having socialist in their name is so incongruous now, because it's not left wing, but it's still very much socialist, the primary difference being that Marxist Socialism seeks to socialise the working class, but National Socialism seeks to socialise the Aryan race. It's the economic model they're in general agreement with, but not their world-views, which are incompatible. What we, and future generations, need to remember is that just because a word has certain connotations now doesn't mean it has always had them, so that in different time periods familiar words can have radically different meanings & uses that aren't applicable today, and likewise our current usages aren't applicable to historical periods before their transformation into what we understand today.
@J I wish people could cope, rather than the false narratives both sides perpetuate. The Nazis were not left wing. The Nazis were socialist. Socialism was never, and still is not, the exclusive reserve of "The (Marxist) Left". Socialism and Marxism are not synonyms. Social Democracy is a good example, it can incorporate a lot of socialist economic theories without adopting Marxism tenets. But it seems no one's interested keeping definitions consistent when there's political points to score.
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.
What you just did is called a strawman argument. You spent half the video characterizing Napoleon and then jumped to the conclusion that because he's not a communist he's therefore a neo-liberal fascists using Napoleon propaganda tactics. I like a bunch of your videos but this is a really bad take filled with logical fallacies and a lack of understanding of Yang's more than 100 policies. Additionally, I'm concerned that you may not see there is a spectrum of allies. Not everyone who doesn't perfectly align with your ideologies is 100% against you. I would caution you against this kind of vanguardism.
I'm someone who is neither left-wing nor right-wing myself. I live in rural Alabama, and my very religious, very conservative family insists I'm a liberal, while my bohemian New Yorker friend calls me conservative. On the internet, the communists call me a rightoid fascist and the neo-nazi's call me a jew-sympathizing communist. I'm pro-choice, pro-feminist, pro-immigration, a fan of critical-race theory, and yet I'm also pro gun, pro military, and think we shouldn't be so quick to discount the value of tradition. I believe in the nationalization of some industries, a public choice in others, and complete privatization in still others. I believe capitalists are necessary as a class, but don't think they deserve the size of the piece of the pie they're getting. I believe in Unions, business associations, and consumer advocacy groups alike. I think we shouldn't be quite so attached to democratic processes and voting, but am quite attached to rule of law and political plurality. I think us having vastly different opinions of the way the world works and should be run points to the idea that none of us really know (I know I certainly don't) and it would be irresponsible to fully commit to one or the other with abandon. The world exists in a delicate balance that _functions_ dammit- even if we don't like the _way_ it works or the consequences of it working the way it does, the consequences of installing something that doesn't function correctly are always more dire. But that doesn't mean no one is right about _anything_ at all- it doesn't mean we should never change anything ever, it just means we shouldn't immediately discard everything that works and immediately implement something we perceive as more progressive. The Western World strangles local African businesses in their cribs through sheer charity- good intentions do not good policy make. Everyone is the same to me, stuck inside echo chambers like pods from the matrix. Red pill? Blue pill? Morpheus was a fictional character, he never offered truth of any kind. No one that presents some dichotomy between 'real-life' and 'fantasy' does. All we have are interpretations of the facts, and those interpretations are under constant revision. Even if it turns out that say the communists are right, in a hundred years would they still be right? I doubt it. Some other movement will pop up with an even _better_ solution, because that's what people do- they improve on things. But I guarantee you people would ignore them, because whether or not x ideology is right, they would never leave their precious chamber. But still, some of us never found an echo chamber. Some of us are just out here drifting, rejected by every community, by every political theory. You dare say I'm right-wing when the right-wingers won't invite me to the Christmas party? They dare suggest I'm just a closet left-winger when the left-wingers ban me from their communities? What else is left for me then? Should I just not have opinions at all? If you can make me out to be that thing you don't respect, then you can rationalize dehumanizing me, silencing me, and disenfranchising me. Because no matter what ideology you support or side you're on, that's always easier than holding yourself and others to an equal standard. After all, that runs the chance of you actually being _wrong_
@Good Sorrow. I appreciate the compliment, truly- but unfortunately I can't give you even a bit of advice. I have absolutely no formal training or education past my junior year of highschool- though I did manage to get my GED almost immediately after I dropped out. I never stopped learning though. It was never the knowledge that served as my barrier, but the rejection of my peers. I was even framed for an act of domestic terrorism if you can imagine it. It was the last in a long line of injustices that turned out to be the last straw for me. They still faulted me for 'giving up' as it were. Only later would I realize they had never been interested in my education- only whether I would contribute to the metric of graduates, and therefore their funding, or to the metric of dropouts. In the end I was yet another child dragged through the system without care for consequence. 'No child left behind' indeed. I digress. More to the point, for a very long time- all my life in fact, I was desperate to be heard. I told myself that I just needed to explain myself better. That if I could just find the words to inform others of my plight they would know what to do. They would help. Night after night I pleaded with friends, family, and teachers alike, making my case- to no effect. They always said they were listening. They always lied. To answer you're question as to why... If I had to make a guess, I would say that's why. For over two decades I attempted with full effort to communicate the sum of my soul to those around me. Ironic, that it was only after I had long surpassed them in communication skills that I realized my error. They never understood, because they simply never cared to listen.
There is nothing wrong with being non-partisan. Political parties pedal an illusion to their voters. It’s very important that everyone thinks for themselves, even if they disagree with you.
The problem is not to be non-partisan. The problem is when you clearly make a political project with right-wing reform and pretend is not partisan when in fact it's wrong.
As Lacan said: "The ones who don't fall into illusion are completely wrong" That describes the "centrist" thing, "centrists" are just despicable right wingers.
@@theshermantanker7043 It exemplifies the problem with a lot of modern day populist left wing movement. I’d like for them to be more effective because let’s face it they’re not, they make a lot of noise but never any legislation. ‘Otherising’ moderates and non-partisans like this video tries to do is a primary problem with many of these movements. Claiming moderates and non-partisans don’t even exist is even more bizarre because although the USA is particularly divided, if you look at the demographic graphs for political views it clearly still follows the normal distribution. There are FAR more moderates and non-partisans than there are hard left wingers and hard right wingers. Any movement that alienates the majority of voters is doomed to fail.
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.
Then what would "actual centrism" look like? Is it a moderate stance on ALL issues or left leaning on certain issues and right leaning in others? Because someone in the far right will tell me that any moderate candidate nowadays is essentially on the left.
It's worth remembering that on a global political spectrum both economically and politically the US's parties are both far right parties. As for actual centrism, in practice it behaves in an identical fashion to the less than jokingly named ratchet effect. Cherry picking non-structural issues (Social niceties/culture war/idpol works) towards the left while making structural compromises towards the right (public-private partnerships, dissolution of the commons, expansion/militarization of police forces,) leading straight back into an entrenched aristocracy with a slightly different naming convention than the last round. There's a comic on compromise that does it well, on one hill you have civil rights, on the other you have genocide. The middle ground is intermittent murder, which is still working towards the hill of genocide but at a slower pace.
In my opinion, a centrist should be closer to a social democrat. While social democrats are considered 'left leaning', they still prefer markets for most things. They are just humane enough to understand that some things like education, healthcare, housing, etc. are so essential to humans that they cannot be trusted to the markets. But then again in a country with both the rich and the poor, both oppressors and the oppressed, the rich oppressors will always have more power. If you are centrist, you are just letting the stronger side win.
yanis varoufakis made this same point in a ted talk, that the ancient greeks wouldn't even recognise what we've got as democracy (because they had direct democracy)
The problem is; for the “left” to accomplish anything meaningful it will have to organize and be more coherent, something that can only be accomplished by adopting practices that are typically attributed to the “right”.
That was how Fascism formed. Multiple marxist scholars looked at the devastation of the first world war and thought if there was ever a time for a global class uprising, this is it. Instead what they saw was the poor and oppressed siding more with their national identity rather than any global class consciousness. That is when Giovanni Gentile using his Hegelian background decided to create a collective around the state. All individuals belong to the state, and in return the state and the people within will thrive. So all industry would work towards one goal, and if any refused they would be removed and replaced by those who would work towards the goals of the state. Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, the Italians were weak militarily. Hitler decided to use a very similar governing style, yet he was also completely mad, believing in the jewish conspiracy to such levels that he was willing to sacrifice strategy to follow through with his extermination plans. The Germans became the leader of the movement due to military strength rather than full adherence to the ideology. Or it could have been considered the pinnacle of the ideology, it became the goal of the state to eradicate the Jewish population. So since this was the goal of the state, all industry must work towards this goal by the definition of Fascism.
@@Plainsburner nevertheless if the “Left” does not organize establish some well defined goals then come up with a plan on how to achieve said goals it will never amount to anything.
@@Plainsburner Then get rid of the nation, the state, the centralized power of an outdated gathering of regions and cultures. It's simple. See the USA, France, Russia? Break them into smaller countries based on culture. States, regions. It's simple.
@@ununun9995 In times of peace that would be the optimal solution, much less bloated administration leaving the locals who know their region best to dictate policy. Yet in times of strife it would leave a disunited front ripe for conquest from within and without.
7:09 not only the right wing are authoritarians, and neither is every right winger an authoritarian. Otherwise he'd never get revoted. Authoritarianism is a political and social behavior that is separated from one's views on political issues.
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.
As a french I can assume that when in history class we learn about Bonaparte, nobody tell us that conquer Europe is a bad things. A lot of people are very proud of this part of our history even if that's at some point equals to Nazism. On the left we don't like him but on the right they are proud of what he did . That's all for me I hope that my English is understandable
C'est bien tu as bien appris la propagande anglo-saxonne qui consiste à te faire gentiment oublié qui défendait la monarchie et qui répondait le code civil, les droits de l'homme et les idéaux nationnalistes (c'est-à-dire qui prônent la création d'états-nation, je ne parle pas du nationalisme moderne).L'Empire était toujours la 1ère république et était dans la continuité de la révolution. Le régime était autoritaire, mais sans commune mesure avec l'intégralité des monarchies européennes. Il ne faut pas se tromper de camp, les réactionnaires de l'époque c'était les monarques européens. Ensuite il ne faut pas oublier non plus que la majorité des guerres menées par l'Empire étaient défensives. Enfin les deux empire ne sont pas comparables, puisque le second empire s'inscrivait lui dans une logique réactionnaire pour son époque. Bref cette vidéo est plus idéologique qu'informative et n'a aucune rigueur historique.
Ah oui répandre les idéaux republicains face au monarchie européenne qui nous ont déclaré la guerre 5 fois en 15 ans 😂. Bien sur mais c'est du n'importe quoi ce que tu dis.
@@juliendurand1178j'avoue gros BG Napoléon surtout la partie où il envahit l'Europe et cause des millions de morts. Le frérot a tué la démocratie BTW il l'a pas sauvé. Je veux bien pas être calé en histoire mais il a quand même été élu pendant une république, puis il a décidé qu'il serait l'empereur tout seul sans aucune démocratie et partage du pouvoir. J'imagine que ça choquait aussi a l'époque vu la réaction de Victor Hugo ? Bref non Napoléon n'est pas quelq'un dont on doit être fière
Of course this is so typical. To the left, the The third position is right wing, and to the right, it is left wing. This is nothing new, however binary politics is currently the biggest issue we face. In order to solve every other problem we have, we have to get rid of partisanship and identity politics.
I come from a place that has never developped this "left vs right" narrative that is very common, and I find that learning about American politics is so alienating. It's as if people lived in these echochambers where their side holds all virtues, while the other side is guilty of sabotage and evil. There's no more place for rational discussions. No place for negociation, no place to disagree. This video for example doesn't even try to analyse the political situation in France when Napoleon took power. France was unstable internally, people where being executed for the most random reasons, the population was terrified, the country was being invaded by external powers. Was he a tyrant? Yes, but he was supported by the revolution, and he was seen as an essential figure to the stability of the revolutionary cause. It's like people want the bread, and the bread's money without realizing that there are many sacrifices to a successfull revolution.
@@Phantom_DD I mean, sure, in some cases, but some people genuinely don't like the labels, don't like society in general, are anarchists, would prefer living in the woods in a cabin by themselves if they could, etc.
Why are you apolitical? because you don't believe politics can accomplish anything? or because you don't believe politics ought to accomplish anything? Can you explain how the results of your stance are any different than the results of being conservative?
Ngl my autistic ass just finds it so incredibly tiring, i guess in technicallity i am not apolitical, since i have a very strong belief in indipendence (Faroe Islands from Denmark) but it just really fries my brain. I am probably more so to the left-Center full indipendence now compared to when this was like two years ago lol, when i didnt even have the right to vote, think i just chose to not think about politics before i could actually vote.
@@ZeroShaneBob living in the woods in a cabin does sound conservative. Also, to be apolitical means to be complacent with how things are and the direction things are going, which is indirectly a support of the status quo which is not progressive but conservative. Not liking labels also sounds like not wanting to get attached to stigma of one's choices
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 heavily and vehemently oppose capitalism, lobbying, and ultranationalism and I classify myself as somewhere in the middle because of lots of things I also disagree with on the left. I think your statement about “saying you’re in the middle, is just being right winged” is quite an oversimplification. It’s not so black and white. Beliefs are free flowing and different between each and every individual. Everyone knows there is a political spectrum, thats why we were refer to things as “left” and “right”. To say there is no middle to that spectrum of left and right, is like saying there is only Los Angeles to New York city, and nothing in between. Kinda silly.
I like your videos but disagree on this one. During the early 1800s Napoleon was considered a liberal, and he brought the ideas of the revolution to other areas in europe, which led to the end of serfdom in central europe. For the time he was a radical.
I liked the video. Andrew Yang was my first introduction into being passionate about politics. I really think his UBI would help millions of Americas. Why should we keep supporting these welfare systems when they actually trap us (if you make too much, you don’t qualify, if you make too little you qualify but can exceed it or you wont). Also scarcity mindset, that living pay check to pay check, makes us crazier. I believe this is way to redistribute income and give people at least something to pass to there kids, that’s how you really build wealth
indeed, but Second Thought won't give actual solutions a second thought channel is great for pointing out issues, but anything that harnesses consumerism for societal benefit sends Marxist acolytes into mental paroxysm
Agreed. UBI would make the lives of average Americans better but to your point about scarcity mindset, our current version of capitalism preys on those in that mindset. The system practically demands it in order to work. That's why we don't yet have UBI in the US but we are shifting as a people away from neo liberalism and toward socialism so I'm hopeful.
@@HeidiThompson7 younger Americans are desperate enough to consider anything, but socialism has its own mechanisms for enforcing the scarcity mindset to maintain state control, with the "cadre" controlling resource allocation, Federal Job Guarantees being the ultimate end game that's why Sanders Socialists loath UBI, as an enabler of individual free will and entrepreneurship
You simplify a lot to evoke emotion and perceive a story an example would be 9:20. How could Napoleon III of reinstated slavery when it was banned in France since 1848? I'm interested to hear if anyone can let me know about a slave revolt that happened in France after 1848 as I am unaware of any - most likely you have over-exaggerated and this is just storytelling bull shit. If anything the French intervention in Mexico and coronation of Maximilian as emperor there lead to a shorter work day, no more child labour, higher wages and a better standard of living. Give a fair comparison next time please rather than brainwash the ignorant like both the right and the left do because thats a dangerous weapon.
Feel free to read through the many sources in the description. Also, liking your own comment doesn’t give you any more legitimacy. Don’t think I didn’t see that 😉
@@SecondThought Oh I know I do that all the time and no it isn't to give the comment more legitimacy as this video is months old and I didn't expect to get much of a response. Anyway could you actually reply to some of my questions while I read through your sources - thanks 👍
@@SecondThought bro you source Wikipedia twice and your first source is very anti napoleon, please try to use *non biased* and to not use *top level* sources when making a video, this looks like your just pushing a political view.
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.
When you universally refer to something as progress, you are appealing to someone. Someone who has defined what progress is. Who exactly is that person, and can they be trusted? No mere human can be trusted with the defining of progress, because there will always be a conflict of interests if a vulnerable human being defines progress. That’s what God was invented/discovered for. Or perhaps progress just means “ideas we haven’t tried yet”. The correct word for that is experimentation. Either way you look at it, under any real scrutiny, the idea of “progressivism” falls flat on it’s face. Especially considering the fact that progressive people tend to believe in moral relativism. How can there be a morally objective definition of a virtue without a God?
Another well done piece. I think that you hit on democracy's fatal flaw, that it takes the attention, understanding, and continued effort of all citizens to make it work. The unappealing fact is that the overwhelming majority of people everywhere just don't want to bother. They are completely happy being told what to think and what to do by someone else. In fact, most of us prefer it. It's like the people at work who will spend more time and effort to avoid doing their job, than doing the job would take to do.
The problem isn't that people like to be told what to do but that *they are told what they WANT to hear.* They want to be told that it isn't in part their fault, that they don't have to change, that it's "them" whoever that is that's the main problem. Because the path of least resistance is preferable to having to actually fight long and hard to obtain freedom. It is why revolution is needed, people have to fundamentally change their lives and realize their collective power, face the reality that they don't need someone at the top of some bullsh*t hierarchy telling them what to do. They need to realize that politics doesn't start nor end with an individual, it branches out to all of us. To be clear I'm not talking about individual responsibility as being the cure to our issues, far from it nor do I mean there isn't those that are a major source of those many problems i.e. corporations and their insane influence on society. No what I mean is people need to learn that it isn't about them individually, the obstacles are societal, *a collective problem requires a collective solution.* Specifiaclly we live under capitalism which maintains an injust system and encourages selfish behavior because being kind is more risky than being cruel. Part of the problem is that you are asking people to choose to be upset, to acknowledge there even are problems, It is hard to want to be unhappy. *People would rather believe in a sweat lie than face a harsh reality, because that means no difficult questions have to be ask, questions they fear they already know the answer to.*
@@navilluscire2567 you're not taking it far enough, people are told what they want to hear because online information is structured in "channels" and "social" media rewards engagement which means building echo chambers the solution is simple, creating a new type of Constructive Media where information is designed around perspective clusters, so that people could easily see all facets of any issue without being mentally stressed out that's what the Meldd framework is designed to do
@@GalacticNovaOverlord nothing about this channel is good faith. it's a populist channel, and like all populists he spins us a narrative that makes him look amazing and his opponents look horrendous. which it seems you've bought into
I don't understand how Yang's 2020 policies of Universal basic income, Value added tax, and Medicare for all should be considered "100 % Right wing policies". Maybe it's because I'm from the United States, but my understanding is that European countries are considered more "to the left" than the United States. Those countries typically have higher taxes on corporations and State run Healthcare systems. Which I believe are considered left wing policies, correct? So how does this make Yang "right wing"? Because he's not strictly anti-capitalist? By that logic, Bernie Sanders and AOC would be considered right-wing as well because the green new deal and federal jobs guarantee policies they advocated for were not anti-capitalist in how they were written or presented. Yang's "Not left, not right, but forward" slogan was used to make him stand out in a field of 30+ democratic candidates. Not because he's some closet Bonapartist. It was political marketing. It's the same reason he had to brand UBI as a "freedom Divided". Because anything with "Freedom" in it automatically sounds better to us simple-minded Americans. Likewise, distancing yourself from both the right and the left in America is also very appealing to a large number of voters here because many of us know that neither party cares about the working class.
Any of you who’ve historically laughed at the “you’re either with us or against us” modality, and yet are convinced by this.. Congrats, you’re not as smart as you think you are. I wonder what other idiotic positions can be repackaged with more sophisticated sophistry to get the “intellectuals” onboard. 🧐
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.
Good thing we're seeing the left engage in humor more often
This is propaganda, it's essentially the "your with us or against us" argument, political beliefs are often more complex than left vs right, and I'm kinda getting sick of this yang was a fascist, but not really bullshit
@@quatreraberbawinner2628 Dude as a former Andrew Yang supporter, who legit voted for him to be Democratic nominee, he’s pretty fascist. He didn’t start off that way for sure, and definitely not how he began. But I urge you to check out his New York mayor run and just see how he ran allllll the way to NeoLiberalism, saying terrible things such as pray for Israel from the disgusting Hamas terrorists (no acknowledgement of the Palestinian struggle against a totalitarian state) and he went on to applaud NYPD for cracking down on street vendors literally in the same week video came out of them destroying an old hispanic woman’s street cart and arresting her. He said a lot of other stupid shit, and i dont think any Yanger should support him after all he said.
@@half9o wtf r u trying to say? This was so hard to read or understand
@@humanp4th I knew about that shit, I have a lot of problems with yang post election, I think the political process changed him and he became disillusioned, I can't say for certain as I don't know him, I just think this video is pretty dishonest
"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
Yeah this was my based 10 year old take also. Then you see the real world, and it’s all so shit that it radicalizes you. I wouldn’t say I’m full socialist now, but definitely far left leaning
It's an Andrew Yang quote, but in no way is Yang right-wing.
I love Second Thought, but this seems kinda sus.
(I haven't finished the video yet, maybe there's context)
@@SonOfTheNorthe It depends how you define left v right-wing. As Marxists we define the right as anything that is pro-capitalist. Yang is definitely pro-capitalist. He just wants capitalism with a kinder face. A smarter capitalism that gives out a universal basic income (so that they can buy more stuff an
d continue the capitalist cycle).
That's how you get elected though. Good luck trying to get elected without messaging about unity. But I don't really care about campaign slogans. As far as I've seen, all of Yang's policies are left wing, but pragmatic. Leftists are all about demonizing him though. Which is probably understandable, pragmatism had been co-op'ed for a long time by moderates as an excuse to not do anything. But 200+ years of capitalist rot can't be undone in a single day, a single bill. Reactionary leftists hate hearing that though.
@@eeediology9232 That's exactly the problem with the "left-right" model of politics is that it's so inconsistently defined that it does a terrible job of describing the real world. It evidently didn't even do the French revolution any good.
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.
So name one please, that's not right wing but claims to be neither left nor right. Thanks.
@@Antje-Pikantje It’s certainly more rare for left wing leaders to claim to be non-partisan partially because far left wing leaders typically come to power in times of revolution where it is more politically advantageous to be anti-moderate.
However, there is the example of Hugo Chávez who sometimes referred to his political ideology as “Chavismo” or the “Bolivarian Revolution.” He argued that his movement transcended traditional left-right distinctions and focused on the principles of social justice and anti-imperialism.
However, my main point is about the accusation that anyone (not just politicians) who refuse to be lumped into a politically right or left category are by default right wing.
From the perspective of someone sitting on the far left of the spectrum obviously a non-partisan would appear right wing because just by being in the center they’re farther to the right than you are. That being said, pooling everyone who’s not staunchly left wing into one big “right wing” adversary ignores the complexities of political persuasion and feeds into the tribalistic “us versus them” mentality.
Moreover, if you consider everyone not in your immediate political persuasion to be an adversary you put yourself at an unnecessary disadvantage. You can’t reliably win elections democratically if you can’t appeal to moderates.
Not here to convince anyone (I don’t expect to), just sharing my thoughts.
@@danielgibbs9846 I don't think claiming to be neither left nor right has something to do with being moderate, it's pretty much exclusively a figure of speech to disguise actual goals and ideology.
It's a valid point to argue here there is no universal rule, no inevitably certainty but it's definitely a phenomenon one can see almost exclusively there where people are in fact more right wing. And that's measured by standards of a political average, not relative to a very left wing person.
There are people who are neither left nor right, but have unique policy postions that not recognizable to either side.
@@CoreyANeal2000 Can you one such position?
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.
As a French person myself, great job, I wish I could pin this comment for everybody to see !
Franchement super, on ne pouvait pas mieux expliquer notre situation politique actuelle, je suis à 100% d'accord avec vous.
Merci.
Polish people tend to have a positive view of Bonaparte too since he was seen as a liberator that freed us from foreign occupiers and allowed us to exist as the Duchy of Warsaw (albeit a puppet state, but it was better than having no recognised state whatsoever).
Even the Polish national anthem name-drops Bonaparte with how he taught us to win battles.
Fortunately I know the entire story.
One of the saddest things I've seen in france since moving here is that out of the 5 top candidates for presidency 4 are right wingers and two are towing the line between fascism and nationalism
@@mohamadraeesi9484 , fascism of Mussolini was corporatist (alliance between a police regime and the wealthiest 1% ) ... who's more corporatist than Macron ?? and for nationalist ideas Macron praised Pétain and Napoleon during official celebrations. The racists candidates are just decoys to make Macron looks good in comparison...and you are sadly right to see that the french Left is too stupid to get united or efficient ... et ça fait trop chier ;'(
traitors everywhere it seems.
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
When bargaining together
The benefits and pay get better
Absolutely, and as always please be smart about it. A united work force has power but a single employee rocking the boat can and most likely will be retaliated against. Even if they can't fire you they can make your work life hell.
Side note: HR is never on your side. Their job is to protect the business from the employee not the other way around.
Thankful (and proud) to have worked a union job (IBEW) for 35 years. Raised a family with vacations as well as excellent medical, dental, vision, and now pension. ORGANIZE and UNIONIZE !! Don’t believe capitalist, corporate, employer lies….. there is plenty of wealth to go around….. they just want it all ! Check out International Workers of the World ….. Workers do better when they work together !
Its weird to me that in Usa unions are sometimes looked like its bad thing. In Finland we have unions in allmoust every job you can imagine.
@@zanzabeast7110 Now everyone sing along
Industry rule number four-thousand-and-eighty;
HR people are shady
Definitions are hugely important when talking about politics, math and any other formal concept.
So yes, I'm tremendously excited if someone provides them.
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.
I was watching this first thing in the morning and laughed out loud at that edit about us craving definitions. So quirky
same. i honestly love when people provide definitions for what they're talking about. clears up any possible misconceptions or even provides a conception in the first place if there wasn't one prior)
Love the phrase "breaking down buzzword abuse". If you haven't already checked it out, there's a great podcast called Citations Needed that basically focuses on doing exactly this.
@AileDiablo I’m liking all these ideas of a capitalist market with more restrictions on the mega rich, but we probably wouldn’t exempt anyone from paying taxes due to religion or gender. separation of church and state and all that 😅 besides, any gazillionaire could just say they’re Muslim and get a major tax reduction.
2.5% u kidding me? The lowest tax bracket in the states is 10%
Perhaps it’s the lower population and drastic difference in # of M/Billionaires or probably a whole number of social/cultural/economic influences so it’s kinda hard to translate what that would look like on a US scale
Not to critique your cultures economic systems, but maybe a little bit 😁
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.
most based liberal? (also he looked like peter griffin, which is pretty based too)
@@gliiitchedpersonally, I think he was. While he was classist (he gave for granted that only the rich should have the right to vote) he wasn't a dogmatic and had reasons for his belief, wich all ultimately converged on his hatred for reactionaries. For example, his motivation for the suffrage limitation was that the limited Parliament elected that way was largely voted by intellectuals and Middle bourgeoisie, and was thus relatively progressive (for the time), but the vast majority of the Italian (and piedmontese) population where illiterate farmers, that had little connection to the Italian unification ideal (fun fact: Pinocchio's "go to school" moral is so strong because when the story was written the Italian government was trying to reduce illiteracy and forge Italian identity in the masses through mandatory grades and stuff, but many farmers families tried to have their kids go to school as little as possible because they needed their help with farm job, so the writer tried to convince the public of the necessity of pushing for education) and would have much rather listened to the extremely reactionary, anti modernist and anti Italian papacy, wich was the greatest enemy of Italian unification alongside Austria.
@@gliiitched That may be, but I do not like him because of his unificationist ideas. One of the fathers of so-called Italian homeland wanted war with Austria to "make the Italians," this is the same logic that half a century later would lead the Kingdom of Italy to World War I. The necessity, whatever the cost, to "make the Italians"... we are in 2022 and many of us are far from such an impractical and indecent "final solution."
Cavour on the cession of Venetia (Nov. 30, 1860): "Only from the newspapers do I learn that the British cabinet desires the cession by means of compensation and is working toward this end. So far no official step has been taken. And on my behalf I do not even desire it. I crave war with Austria for reasons of internal order; without this it will be more difficult for the North to merge with the South. I also believe that at the present time cession is not possible."
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.
Thank you. We despise both parties because the establishment has proven to care more about themselves than their constituents.
democrats aren't fucking left wing
Yes, but the problem is the democrats are not left wing, not even by U.S. standards.
If you are in for 'real progressives' then why are you not describing yourself as left?
Are the democrates a left wing party? I thought both parties were right wing
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
Yeah basically the same here for me when I was 17 and 18.
As a former member of the #YangGang I can tell you that Yang is not real.
"a leftist who didn't know what to look for in candidates" strikes me as a fine way to characterize the majority of the voting age population.
@@jeffengel2607 there’s literally no left wing party in the USA and this is the result. I was the same way
@@prestigev6131 If it is of any consolation, we had a 30% communist party in the 80s in our parliament and, still, we did not manage to stop the liberalization process. Meh
“Left-wing symbols, but right-wing politics.”
America in a nutshell.
Another great video, JT.
oh yes the fascist simbols and eagles are the left symbols
@@the_travelingbreeze he won't
@@SgtKaneGunlock Yes, true. It was worth a try.
It’s more like China and old Russia
@@astralflick Yeah, like How China calls themselves "The People's Republic of China."
Is it *really* for the people?
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 RUclipsrs, it’s cool that you also talk about this stuff.
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.
Yah...this video is garbage.
Yang's UBI was too low and he wanted to erase basically every other form of welfare. It was a net loss for the poor.
@@zacheryeckard3051 it was a starting point, his plan was to make it able to be increased by voting. He also didn't want to abolish any welfare program. If you received more from existing assistance program his plan was to always allow you to keep them. He wanted to get the people on the edges of the system out of it. The people that made like 12 dollars too much and got cut off, had to survive for a month on not enough, only to apply back and be stuck in the same loop. He never once said 1000 a month is enough. It was always meant to be a floor to build on.
@@zacheryeckard3051 That is an argument that people have made. What amount would make it worth it to support UBI?
@@ianstambaugh6158 UBI can't replace all welfare structures, is the issue. It should serve as part of a broader welfare system. It's the flexible part, the one that can be shifted as the budget is needed.
as a frenchman, seeing trump in napoleon's clothing gave me cancer
The whole video gave me cancer
Can you "gift" it to all the Nazis and similar groups out there?
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.
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.
@Rob B Bonapart achieved reforms that benefitted people at large
Bismarck "introduced" universal health care because German factory workers where already organising common pots to do so for themselves and he was afraid that such structures would undermine the monarchy, so he created a welfare system that bound them to the monarchy een more.
Basically he supported some left wing ideals in order to keep the status quo.
@@Kamfrenchie
He was especially supportive of the funeral industry. He got them millions of clients.
@Rob B Some politicians using semi Bonapartist rhetoric were pushed to the left by left-wing constituencies. Its nowhere near as good as a left-wing government, but sometimes you can hijack bonapartist parties from the left, and that allows the brainwashed to vote for you. For example, in the US, it might be possible to infiltrate the Republican party--- they are so divorced from policy, all you have to do is say "CRT! No Vax! Rigged!" and you're in, even if you are a socialist. The higher-ups won't approve, but you can just say "Elites! Build Wall!" and suddenly you win primaries. The primaries on the Republican side are democratic.
Nehru wasn't a socialist, he was just a dictator, who uses Gandhi ideology to not look like one.
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.
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!
Moronic leftist drivel
is there any hope for the left in Europe?
Maybe, working on it
@@porsche911sbs In France the situation is getting worst, but we also need to take into consideration that a leftist party did 22% in the last presidential election. By left I mean the anticapitalist, antineoliberalism left. This is the best result the left had in 40 years. Young people are getting more and more drawn to these ideas, and educate themselves way more politically. That does not mean the far right won't be in power in a few years, but at least a real opposition is forming.
@@porsche911sbshope not
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 👏🏿
Same
Ditto, dah-ling 😉
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.
oh thats nice to hear
Excellent point, one must analyse leaders and their politics in relation to their time and the social structures they encountered.
Twice he abandoned armies of common people, in Egypt and in Russia.
I mean that means nothing. he was an opportunist and just didn't want to be overthrown lmao.
And was an absolute monarch who waged war on Europe
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"
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
As much as you might dislike Macron, Pecresse, Zemmour, and le Pen are all so much worse in different ways it's not a fair comparison.
Ah yes, let the Euro-sceptic and conspiracy theorist run Europe's second largest and most competent military might. Won't go wrong whatsoever.
The thing with this upcoming election is that there's no actual good candidate tbh. Every single one of them, including Macron, has severe flaws.
Macro 's flaws is that he isn't that good at domestic policy, but excels are international policy. Some of other candidates are the opposite. Some are just bad at both (*cough* Zemour *cough*)
@@godminnette2 they are all bad but yes le pen or zemmour would be worse than macron and pecrasse too marginally. But it doesn’t really matter bc macron will probably beat them all in the second round. I too pray that melenchon can get to the second round.
@Jean Sanchez Why do you think you need to have a solid view as a whole to have a solid foreign policy and what do you mean by "solide view as a whole"?
Look guys, it's a french. get em!
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)
@@Kevin-cy2dr Not really.
@@Kevin-cy2dr LOL not when you look at how much more they get paid over there. A surprising amount of places have it so anyone can work fresh in the door at McDonalds for $20/hr. That's a huge improvement compared to the US.
@AileDiablo Source on Napoleon dying as a Muslim?
@@Kevin-cy2dr No, it really isnt.
@AileDiablo Napoleon only made such remarks to gather influence with the Egyptians lol, he was an incredibly cynical man that played on the stupidity of others.
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...
@@oswaldm mmmmhhh... that's not quite the French people sentiment with the current political and socioeconomic crisis - there's a good reason for all the massive protests and riots since Macron is in power. Truly that one has run its course since it was established at the end of WWII as a way to prevent another Vichy nazi-collaborating government... People anger is brewing. It will explode if Macron continues to exercise such an authoritarian regime over the country. Him and his government are only holding up thanks to his police brutality and severely punishing dissidents.
@@oswaldmit's more stable because France have just better living conditions than the previous republic. We just cannot compare them. The only comparaison you could make is the beginning of the 5 and the end of the 4. Even there we can argue that the stabilisation came more because of the end of the war in Algerie(I don't know the word in english).
@@tobias7143Algeria
@@tobias7143Algeria
Et ça va faire très très mal avec Marine qui arrive dans pas longtemps 😢 j’ai sincèrement très peur
I always look forward to these on my Fridays.
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).
Thank God that failed right
@@JackTheAverage look at France today dog ...
@@yomamawanmadikku9094 on par with "look at venuzuala today"
@@JackTheAverage Yeah. So much death in so little time. People talk about the countless deaths caused by the free market economy over the past 500 or so years, but the scale of death caused by socialism is incredible. 100 million dead in only 50 years and it still is counting up
The Paris comune was against the third republic, do you not know your own history?
Besides the left also conmemorated Napoleon, only a few brutes who abandoned their 2017 promises in exchange of ganging up with the former PS officials (Melenchon) were against. But Montebourg Kuzmanovich etc were all conmemorating Napoleon. As well as what remainst of the MDC (founded by Max Gallo)
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?
As for the Universal Basic Income, I would strongly doubt it's being pushed by people who care about your rights, wages, health or working conditions. Here in Belgium it's only being pushed by right-wing political parties for the simple reason that this way they can basically delete universal healthcare, the wellfare state and people living on their unemployment funds and replace it with "Universal Basic Income" which not only will amount to much less money than all those policies, it also means everytime you go to the hospital you'll have to pay a shit-load of money whereas right now we barely spend a dime (unlike in the US). The reason why those parties are pushing for it is because they haven't managed to create more job opportunities in the last 10 years than shitty, underpaid half-time jobs which no one wants because not only do the working conditions suck ass, but also because those jobs barely pay anything at all. Obviously, people didn't want those jobs, so now they're making it so that we don't even have the choice whether or not to apply to those jobs because their "universal income" (1000€ a month) isn't enough to live decently here, which means a life of rent, no kids, no spouse, no vacation, no little spending here and there every now and then, no ownership of anything, 1000 bucks a month is just enough to spend the rest of your days eating pasta with water for the rest of your life. So you're gonna have to take those shitty ass jobs instead of having a stable and growth-oriented carreer. And if you develop any kind of disease then congratulations, you're likely dead because universal healthcare is not a thing anymore and you barely make enough money to pay for a visit to the doctor. But hey, at least you have 1000 bucks a month don't you ? Hurray for basic universal income indeed.
Point is.. If it sound too good to be true, that's probably because it is.
N.B. : I know some people live on the streets and for those people this would be great, don't get me wrong. But this is not a win-win scenario. This is a "let's make everyone even poorer and blame them for it" scenario. There won't be less homeless, there'll just be more poor people.
Bailing out banks during every crisis and spending 800 billion dollars on military a year isn’t too good to be true though? All this shit is a lie and if you still believe in our system despite how much has been released since the dawn of the internet, you’re drunk off the kool aid. We literally have infinite money because of the Federal Reserve. But that infinite money is only for the interests of the ones who control the game.
Yeah i don't get why this video is anti yang.
I think Yang was repressed more because of his tax proposal. VAT means that taxes come from companies and not consumers (nominally) and it’s a lot harder to avoid for the wealthy.
Why are left wing comments always so long and pretentious?
“ If you remain neutral during an injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor “- Desmond Tutu
What if two sides do injustice to each other?
@@zyanego3170 then you try to circumvent the injustice
@@myronidasvestarossa and how the fuck do you do that in this day and age
Injustice isnt something that happens sometimes, but always and by everyone it is always simply the extend of the injustice that we talk about.
Justice in itself is not worth striving for. And as such that statement is an ignorant one led by an ideology.
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!
You had me in the first half, ngl
m.ruclips.net/video/0IYAuP772EI/видео.html
You gotta love the irony in the fact that Bonapartism is xenophobic considering that Napoleon himself wasn’t even French; he was Corsican.
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!
Man, your currency got depreciated while you were writing this. 😂 Peronismo has converted Argentina a shit hole like Venezuela
Te tomo buscar un video yankee para darte cuenta que la ideologia que literalmente tiene el nombre del tipo es personalista, brillante
Pd: viva Peron
leftism really working out for Argentina
@@Clausewitz-jl8cl no hace falta ser maleducado pibe
Aguante Milei.
The Deprogrammed podcast is HILARIOUS, it’s just what we need to get brain-rot neoliberals to consider “radical” concepts
Keep it coming, JT! ✊
yeaa
Lol tf is this
@@mikey_gc8 fnaf lore
Does it stream off apple?
Yes, Tacos, for everyone. Bongs, not bombs. Free the nipple. Abolish slut shaming or something.
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.
No dummy, the Overton window in America is severely right, in fact if you don't really see democrats is right wings than you're simply politically illiterate
Uno reverse
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
You need a far-leftist ear to catch it.
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.
"With a messiah complex" is a huge mischaracterization, at best...
@@Milothatch17 The guy thought he was France, as in the entire country, so yeah, his ego stretched beyond his nation's borders.
@@Diego-zz1df Circumstances gave him that role. And despite being very discrete in his private life, he recognized that France only responds to strong men.
Lefties are so weak that you see strong prominent leaders as baddies, lmao
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.
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
So just exploiting some people is good enough for you?
Because you're not the exploited one. 🙄
@@carrieullrich5059 he was not a perfect man but no one really is, though I feel you can't make a fair criticism napoleon without noting the good things he did do and France was still far more progressive than it's neighbors at the time, if napoleon came to power today and did these things it would be extremely regressive, but for his time these things were the most progressive and France's neighbors still saw France as too revolutionary to exist even when napoleon made himself a monarch
We're not talking about Robespierre lol.
@@Levittchen4G my point was just that the governments that came before napoleon were not that great and were constantly divided by factionalsim and were unable to govern effectively and napoleon was able to change all that
@@carrieullrich5059 Actually, you could see it as him achieving real progress in a harsh time. Exploiting some people is better than exploiting all people, especially when the rest of europe wants you removed
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.
It's always crazy to hear a former Shapiro fan switch over to leftist youtubers so quick.
@@AssBlasster Yang was genuinely concerned about material change and expanding democracy for the working class. It was all in service of capital, but at the time I was still valued capitalism, so that was the argument I needed to hear in order to start thinking about politics in material terms. Ben Shapiro also did an interview with Yang and seemed to like him, but was rightly convinced that the DNC would conspire against him. Ben Shapiro wants democrats to be more like Yang because he ultimately will fight to preserve capitalism while extending enough of an olive branch to workers to delay any kind of socialist revolution.
what a journey!!
Whoaaa
@@revolutionaryape7568 I was the opposite, went from full unemployed socialist to an employed supporter of capitalism.
"If your not with me, then your my enemy"
That is what I thought, too. That is basically what this video is saying.
Can’t wait for the screeching “enlightened Centrists” 😂
There are already multiple of them in the comments 🙄
@@therealronniej There, one of them.
@@randomthings1293 Let them come. Boost the engagement. The idiotic , feeble minded nitwits are too weak to realize that.
Rent free, am I right?
🤓
I like that you've cranked up the humor in this video, it's really funny and well done. Good video all around, too.
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…
His relationship with the Robespierre family was more opportunistic than anything
@@TheGalaxyWings maybe but even during the revolutionary empire, Napoleon continued to write letters in support of Robespierre saying that he wasn’t the master of the reign of terror but just a scapegoat used by the thermidoriens (the real masters of the reign of terror)
@@TheGalaxyWings the thermidoriens were seen as moderates but they were actually also jacobins… the jacobins club was still removed because half of the jacobins were allied with Danton and the other half with Robespierre… but the 2 leaders of the jacobins were dead so the jacobin’s club was removed
I believe you have the most realistic grasp on this topic, can you recommend some good books on Napoleon I and the French Revolution? Thanks.
@@AllenFrederick Napoleon: A Life
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.
a.k.a. two wings of the same capitalist bird.
left: people should have the power. people should have basic needs met. right:the powerful should have more power. needs should only be met if you are useful to those in power. see? easy. saying you are neither is weird, since there is no middle ground on those. take voting: the left wants it to be mandatory holiday and voting should be easy. the right wants it to be hard to vote, and some people shouldn't have the right to vote. what is the middle ground there?
@@briannelson27 I'm not calling for middle ground. I'm just saying that the idea of "left" and "right" is very simplistic and inaccurate. I just feel like categorizing ourselves on this very simplistic spectrum is highly pro-establishment/system and prevents us from really thinking outside the box. The left-right spectrum only really holds water in a society of class divisions, and as such, abolishing class divisions would render the left-right spectrum meaningless. All I'm saying is that the left-right spectrum is inaccurate, simplistic, restrictive, and pro-establishment. As such, I eschew calling myself or anyone a leftist or rightist in favor of simply "pro-system" and "anti-system". As an anarcho-communist, I am very much in the anti-system camp.
@@saybervoltz695 simplistic yes, inaccurate? not really. what kind of words would you use to describe two opposing viewpoints?
@@briannelson27 "Pro-system" and "anti-system" would be more like it. This is because even some on "the left" (e.g. social democrats, democratic socialists, Marxist-Leninists) are actually pro-system. Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists believe in using the established political process and also want to reduce the power of the elite just stopping short of eliminating class divisions completely. Marxist-Leninists, however, have often just simply recreated the same state apparatus that existed under the previous regime. In many cases, social democrats, democratic socialists, and Marxist-Leninists have cooperated with some on the right.
So, in short, the pro-system camp is comprised of "the right", which is to say, conservatives, liberals, and fascists, who want things to stay the way they are or to turn back the clock as well as those on "the left" who support traditional electoral politics and simply believe in redistributing some wealth to the masses, which just so happens to make it so that the possibility of a revolution aimed at abolishing class divisions completely is mitigated. Meanwhile, the anti-system camp is comprised of revolutionaries who want to abolish the state and capitalism entirely, such as, but not limited to, anarchists.
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
This video is such a gross oversimplification, I think. There are clearly people who are tired of the standard left right divide. They might want to support lgbt+ community (left), support more social program (left), more law and order (right), more protectionist for global trades against China (neutral), more secured border (right), incentivize entrepreneurship (right) etc.... or focus on some partisan neutral issue like automation.
It is reasonable for those people to say they are neither left or right, and they are far from bonapartism. When you have an oversimplify model like "neither left nor right = bonapartism", you will get very unreliable result from model (like falsely calling Andrew Young or Sam Harris as right wing). Just because {there are some political figures who claims they are neither left nor right and happened to be bonapartist and right wing} doesn't mean this is the only option.
Okay... nevermind... I think it got it. This youtuber is essentially a hardcore lefties who think anything right of a full socialism is "right wing" and bad.
@@bohanxu6125oh you started off so well, A for effort but F for the landing.
You can't be raised in a left-right divide and separate yourself from that kind of thinking, the video is to remind you that anyone who is "above left and right" is definitely lying and PROBABLY right, because the right are more likely to say it than the left.
But you hit the nail on the head, it is possible to favour right and left policies, but that's a Centerist, sadly America (and sadly Britain) doesn't have those. Anyone who says they are "above left and right" is claiming center and so may not be in line with particular policies you agree with, Centerists can be pro-law and order or pro-preemptive youth programs or both but the title doesn't tell you that.
I typically identified my politics as left, but it is this type of sentiment that has pushed me away from the left. If I feel alienated by the left, and if grew up heavily disliking the right then where does that land me?
Frankly, I see this argument as being very similar to the right always complaining about the liberal media, “they are out there, and they’re trying to pretend they are something they are not in order to trick us”
Or maybe, just maybe they are just trying to be as honest as possible in a landscape dominated by a false dichotomy of Left and Right. I mean, I describe myself as incredibly centrist, nonpartisan or moderate and I’d say from my bias perspective it’d be a huge reach to describe me as Right. I haven’t see any political take that has struck me as sincere in a very long time. I kinda pity people who can somehow stand to believe in any of this stuff
@@gumbilicious1 in short you are center left, longer form you are left but have a different opinion on the right than other people on the left, which is perfectly fine because this slider is only measuring one thing that captures a common group of opinions that are usually, but not always, shared by people who identify as Left.
@@bohanxu6125 These political compass examples aren’t exactly 100% left-wing or 100% right-wing. It varies on political history on each region/country and its current political climate. ‘Law and Order’ is a good example of this, currently in France LFI is quite anti-cops because of recurring unpunished police brutally. However it doesn’t mean they campaign to defund the police. LFI politicians often explain police brutally is due to systemic defunding of public infrastructure leading to a lack of training and low hiring requirements. As long as you’re fit and can follow gross orders, after a few months of training you could to get an opportunity to beat up protestors. Following the June riots, the historical French communist party has been campaigning for law and order, not to make the state more powerful, but to ensure the safety of the workers. It’s a Labour Party, it makes sense they don’t like when the country is a chaotic mess. ‘Law and order’ isn’t antonymic to the Left-Wing, it’s just that the loudest Left parties have abandoned this topic and left it to the Right.
"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?
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.
What are you saying he still did all of these things
What do you mean?
True. And let’s not forget, Europe as a whole didn’t really like the idea of the French Republic. That’s why they went to war as soon as the first republic was established. Napoleon was necessary to keep the country afloat. Did he make mistakes? Absolutely, but he was what France needed.
Bourgeois propagandaa
Maximilien robespierre did nothing wrong
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.
same thing with Erdogan who shelled Kurd cities and genocided them, and violently cracked down on opposition, he is much much worse, except nobody gave a single fuck because he is aligned with NATO
If Obama wasn't American he would be considered like Orban too, with his war in Libya
he call himself a liberal, but he is a low socialdemocrat.
Victor Orban is a "dictator"? Jesus modern millennial leftist fevirously throwing words without meaning, but will claim Lenin was no dictator, ignore, Stalin, and just have boner for Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, and totally ignore failed socialist states such as the U.S.S.R., Communist China, North Korea, if you want to live your socialist utopian fantasy go to China, North Korea and the many socialist failed states.
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.
They're really not. You might've forgotten but I really wanted to be excited about Yang but his "UBI will fix everything" magic bullet approach made it impossible. Healthcare reform? Nah, how about UBI instead? Unionization? Nah, here's a check. Removing money from politics? Uh, look, money! What was that about politics again?
The video didn't do him any disservice. He handed out just enough breadcrumbs to make people like you happy enough and not look at the things he takes away from you with his other hand.
@@vdinh143 he was advocating for policies (via his website) to completely restructure our metric for GDP to literally “maximize human welfare”
@@vdinh143 he also had healthcare reform policies and addressed taking on corporate lobbyists (like any democrat)
@@vdinh143 also he wanted to essentially rid or drastically reduce corruption by giving every American a $100 flat campaign budget to allocate to a political campaign
Can't even imagine any politics outside right/left? It's that lack of imagination that will kill us all.
Class is the only hermeneutic.
Its just propaganda dude.
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.
UBI being opioid for the masses is hardly a fresh perspective, being the standard line for Big Government advocates touting minimum wage, welfare state, and federal job guarantee
whole rationale of Sanders wing rejecting Yang, besides his name, is that welfare moms would get less than 1K while everyone else get 1K
instead of real direct stimulus (pandemic cheques were only ~3% of pandemic relief), we got "relief programs" that keep the bankers and corporations at the government food trough
and nobody were screwed over more than the Sanders welfare moms, funny enough
It's quite surprising french politics, especially those after the revolution, are not more teach... It's litteraly where the meaning of left wing and right wing was created. And the first people revolution that set the tone for what people mean by revolution nowaday, especially socialist. It's always interesting to learn. Now, I'd say french one are at least talked about, there is politics from the rest of the world that would be very informative aswell, learning from politics around the world is the best way to understand the politics at home.
@@ledernierutopiste I went to school in Canada and we're taught about the French revolution but most of what we learned is the same information you'd find in a 40 minute Netflix documentary. It's very shallow.
@@ledernierutopiste endless colonial conflict in Africa and intractable social protest disruptions at home? yet another neoliberal example of what not to do I'd argue
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
Given the surge of Jimmy Dore type right populist grifting that's emerged in recent years, I'm glad that you made this video. Caleb Maupin and his ilk come to mind when I think of modern day agitators and / or precursors to modern neo fascism.
"Just because somebody uses revolutionary symbols, that does not make them a friend of the people."
Immediately Jimmy Dore popped up in my mind with that line. Glad it's not just me.
What about Russell Brand? These two guys always give me a similar feeling. It is true that they can sometimes take an anti-imperialist position similar to that of left-wingers, but their starting point is simply anti-establishment.
Jimmy Dore's popularity has been a disaster for the left, he's cancer for the left
@@yeeyee5117 the problem is we distrust you. reactionaries tend to try to break our movements.
@@americancommunist6076 That means that if your group ever comes to power that ingrained distrust will inevitably lead to the oppression of those groups you distrust creating yet another oppressive totalitarian state.
This video is very misinformed, and it mostly stems from the way democracy is wrongly defined. Democracy is public rule. Its practice varies a lot, but that does not change its definition. Most nations around the world have representative democracies (like US, or my country Norway) where you elect representatives whose job is to represent your vote in political matters. A country like Switzerland has more of a direct democracy, where everyone represent their own vote in political matters.
Also, I would advice the author to explain the process of his conclusions better, because some of the conclusions he drew in this video where by all my knowledge wrong, and the thought behind them were poorly explained if at all.
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.
The US government lives by The Golden Rule: Those who have the gold make the rules.
They actually embraced the free market. Those who do the best and isn’t illegal should be listened to. Should’ve restricted bankers because they’d just print money instead.
"I could make the minimum wage higher, invest massively in education, healthcare and infrastructure, reduce significantly our military "might" and stop all foreign agressions, economically and militarily, oooooooooooooooooor I could take this 500k $ and get myself a nice chalet in the north...."
I wonder if you can criticize the people with the gold.....
One minor point: Napoleon actually did not like *_La Marseilles_* and replaced it as the national anthem with a song titled *_Veillons au salut de l'Empire_* ("Let Us Secure the Salvation of the Empire").
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.
You are completely correct as we cannot judge any historical figure without the circumstances.
Actually Napoleon III. improved life in France.
Napoleon I sent thousands of troops to re-establish slavery in Haiti in order to protect the money of people like his wife, who's family owned slave plantations, and to fuel his dreams of conquests in the Americas. I have no sympathy for him.
@@elizabethsilk7160 I agree that we should have no sympathy for Napoleon, in fact we should probably have no sympathy for any historical figure since "the traditions of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living". It is also important to note that Napoleon himself regretted the Leclerc expedition, which was definitely his greatest fault. With that being said my main point is if you consider the historical context of the Napoleonic period, Napoleon to me seems like the best of the options. The English, Spanish, Austrian, Prussian, and Russian empires were all just as brutal in terms of imperialism, but they all lacked the revolutionary potential of the constitutions that Napoleon brought with him.
if you believe than Napoleon have no reddeiming qualities, than the thermidorians were right winger, than you call Austria and Prussia oppressive as it is Russia, and it was Napoleon whom started a war against Prussia first to conquer the HRE, Spain and Portugal, then you have zero credibility and you are a Napoleon apologistic.
To yangs credit, I’m pretty sure he also supports ranked choice voting, and more party options, which are objectively good things
Exactly.. Yang has so many policies that would eventually fix our system and give us a true democracy..ubi was just a foundation... America won't be a socialist country anything soon.. We have to start somewhere
...
Are you saying, quote Orwell: "He who is not with me is against me."
This would explain things. The whole golden middle fallacy of centrism/neither-left-nor-right where people just smugly say that both sides are misguided and think they understood it all. But it explains another thing very well. Which is linked to both the reason why you had to explain definitions and where this golden middle fallacy comes from. It explains why people are kept ignorant about the political terminology, especially what left-wing and right-wing mean. I see a lot of people bashing the left-wing to appear moderate despite their ideas being essentially left-wing.
Maybe I am wrong there but it makes sense.
Nice try, but centrism is ideally about the slow and progressive implementation of what would otherwise be extremist ideas to leave room for backtracking if things didn't go right.
Use your head next time, extremist.
@@JsJdv you described moderate right or left, congrats
to implement smth, you first need to have some goal in mind - be it right-wing or left-wing
@@Ironsuaba Centrism is about being open to BOTH left and right wing ideas as long as they're potentially beneficial.
I suggest you learn the basics of political science before trying to argue, lol.
@@JsJdv so, basically, centrism is having none of your own ideas on how you'd like the country to work and instead just supporting whatever sounds good? Great. Sounds like a good strategy... to keep things the same. Which is conservatism, which is right-wing.
Pretty much everyone in the comments seems to have completely forgotten that centrism is a right wing ideology. To resist changes from the left and to slowly implement changes from the right
Socialism by definition desires the polar opposite of what the capitalists want. Left wing then desired the opposite of the right wing on the ownership question and any derivatives that can come out of that. There’s clear boundary and anything else falls in either of the two. The concept of “Neither right or left wing” is just impossible logically.
That's useless reductionism. Socialism is a coherent system in its own right, not the logical opposite of another system. The capitalists want to avoid a nuclear war that destroys the world; does socialism therefore desire that? Left and Right are convenient buckets to summarize the dominant political theories of the day. The "opposite" of either one is an incoherent mess.
@@drno87 For one thing, I don't know for a fact that the capitalist class doesn't desire nuclear war.
And second, even if they don't want one that isn't the same thing as them likely believing that it is inevitable.
Socialism on its own is not political which makes your point incorrect. Socialism is not something a politician can just snap into existence, socialism is a sociological arrangement that determines how labor is handled and the ownership of what is produced. In other words, it is any system where private property is absent.
Both capitalism and socialism are awful on their own. A good society knows how to balance both of them.
@@brentbowman5574 Socialism and capitalism are completely incompatible with each other. One puts control of the means of production in the hands of private owners who exploit the labor of others for personal profit. And the other puts control over the means of production in the hands of the workers who actually perform the labor.
As ideologies they have diametrically opposed goals and cannot coexist.
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.
From what I've heard, he was kind of a social liberal, but far more on the libertarian side.
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.
I wish I could watch the Deprogram, but I just can't watch podcasts because of my ADHD. Recommended it to someone I know, though.
“The deprogram”
Ironic coming from a bunch of brainwashed npcs
The Deprogram is a staple of my work playlist. Apathetic Midwestern USPS rural carrier approved
Another banger. Great job, especially the distinction between "populists" and "bonapartists" is desparately needed.
"Violently beating down protestors and abusing executive powers to force through legislation" are not inherently right-wing behaviour. They are simply authoritarian, antidemocraric, abusive behaviours.
Unless you also believe that Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, and Kim Il-Sung were also right-wing?
The problem is, saying "It's simply authoritarian behaviour". Simplifies the problem, as many centrists like and allows to steer the conversation away from the root structural causes of authoritarianism and it focuses on the superficial ones.
Authoritarianism is inherently right wing, the reasons left wing dictators default to it is rooted in that *among* a combination of other things that don't necessarily interlap with how right wing politics works. For example as mentioned on the video, the politics of the left are different from the right and forcing the equivalency ignores the historic development of each one.
"Bro I'm a centrist, which means I relentlessly bash progressives and vehemently defend conservatives"
"C'mon, we've gotta find a middle ground between banning bodily autonomy and letting people do whatever they want with their body!"
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
We should have a left wing politician do that here. We need to think about strategy to get our message out even if it involves a bit of deception
@@crimsonghost4107 It's not deception. The real world *is* far more complicated than this broken left-right model of politics suggests to be of any real use other than constantly painting false dichotomies and having people apply it to places that don't belong, like people labeling nuclear energy as "right wing" or "left wing", which is fucking absurd.
The problem is some people take that realization and just add more confusion rather than genuinely fixing problems this outdated model from the French revolution had. It doesn't mean it wasn't broken to begin with.
@@crimsonghost4107 The left will rather say Yang is FaScIsT than see that he had a political strategy to get people in the center and right on board with m4all, basic income and more social programs.
@@LakanBanwa
In a broad sense, it's not really outdated at all. We have two classes in society with broadly two different economic outlooks. The Ruling classes politics and the people's politics. Many people unknowingly support the ruling class's politics but that doesn't make the model outdated, it actually supports it because we know if you support the status quo ruling class's ideology you're called right-wing, if you don't you're called left-wing.
@@calebr7199 Not everyone operates on or even knows that definition of "left" or "right", that's the whole problem is that it's not a universally consistent definition and highly depends e.g. what country you're talking about.
Btw why call your definition "left" or "right" when I could have just as easily been more specific and talked about what the ruling class' specific ideology is there vs. the people's politics, like if the ruling class in one country are autocrats/supporters, or supporters of the current ruling theocracy/the theocrats, vs. the democrats or the secularists respectively. Less confusion this way, especially if you have to redefine the terms "left" and "right" in the way you defined it anyways for every given context, it's far better to just address the context directly instead of operating on word salad/buzzword logic.
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)
the awarenes of not "having it all figured out" is exact thing that keeps you from posting stupid videos to an audience of 1 mil 😂
congratulations you are most probably smarter than him
I think what Yang did was call attention to problems and offer some solutions. I would have liked to have seem what a Yang administration would have fought for, I don't think he is right wing, but I do question his willingness to stand up to power structures. We do need less antagonizing in our politics. Bernie was by far the best candidate in that race, but Yang's ideas, perspective and solutions in some cases went further and in some cases didn't go far enough. Universal Healthcare. I don't know if it's fair to compare him with Trump, who was running on Charisma and true Bonapartism.
The leftists threw out an incredible candidate, Yang, just because he wasn’t left wing enough. He was the only candidate in recent history that consistently listed out steps and solutions for issues he cared about, and provided easy access to learn on his site.
This kind of leftist self destructive behavior will consistently lead to their downfall, cement their POV as an “underdog”, and recruit more leftist leaning victimhood supporters, and just feed an endless cycle of these people. It’s sad and even sadder to think about what we could accomplish as humans if they stopped being so petulant. Sad
@@dylanmerediths Seriously. The left only knows how to make friends with minorities, making enemies with most everyone else.
@@dylanmerediths Great point he did not fit traditional left leaning stances, but his solutions would have certainly moved us forward. I just did not like his not supporting, Bernie after he dropped out who honestly had inspired him and had the most over lap, I can imagine what his energy and endorsement could have for that campaign, also he did not endorse Tulsi after she adopted UBI and he said he would support any candidate who did . Also we saw a different Yang when he ran in NY, all of the changes makes me wonder if he can unsure the pressure and remain true to his stated beliefs.
Yo Yang is defo not Right-wing he is a Bernie Bro and has some policies more progressive than Bernie. He even admitted multiple times that he is just good at speaking in a way that appeals to classical libertarians and conservatives. Human centred capitalism is just a way of making social democracy sound more appealing to the right. So really he is reverse bonapartist in a way. hahah. Second Thought must of just skimmed one article and not actually researched Yang much at all. ;) Yang Gang 2024 lol
@@ribos2762 Example Bernie wants a Federal job guarantee , Yang wanted to reexamine the work paradigm and fight for a guaranteed income and actually allow society to benefit from the advances of our amazing productivity and the coming advancements of automation
Reminds me of how the nazis called themselves national "socialists". Pretty much the same thing, altho instead it was right wing extremists pretending to me on the left.
Excellent video as usual. Keep up the good work.
Nazis are centrists
@@bleu2680 How on earth do you come to that conclusion?
@@bleu2680 good point, although I see them as left of center, but that is arbitrary. The woke media describes them as "far right", but that cannot withstand scrutiny.
Except they were socialist, originally socialism wasn't exclusively left wing, it was simply a new form of economic model, one that you could slap any form of political thought to that wasn't in love with the capitalist model.
It's when the Marxists captured socialism in the early 20th century that it became associated with left wing ideology.
But by then many right wing ideological movements had already incorporated socialism into their proscribed world-views.
This is why the Nazis having socialist in their name is so incongruous now, because it's not left wing, but it's still very much socialist, the primary difference being that Marxist Socialism seeks to socialise the working class, but National Socialism seeks to socialise the Aryan race.
It's the economic model they're in general agreement with, but not their world-views, which are incompatible.
What we, and future generations, need to remember is that just because a word has certain connotations now doesn't mean it has always had them, so that in different time periods familiar words can have radically different meanings & uses that aren't applicable today, and likewise our current usages aren't applicable to historical periods before their transformation into what we understand today.
@J I wish people could cope, rather than the false narratives both sides perpetuate.
The Nazis were not left wing.
The Nazis were socialist.
Socialism was never, and still is not, the exclusive reserve of "The (Marxist) Left".
Socialism and Marxism are not synonyms.
Social Democracy is a good example, it can incorporate a lot of socialist economic theories without adopting Marxism tenets.
But it seems no one's interested keeping definitions consistent when there's political points to score.
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.
That's a FINE analysis ! 👌
What you just did is called a strawman argument. You spent half the video characterizing Napoleon and then jumped to the conclusion that because he's not a communist he's therefore a neo-liberal fascists using Napoleon propaganda tactics. I like a bunch of your videos but this is a really bad take filled with logical fallacies and a lack of understanding of Yang's more than 100 policies. Additionally, I'm concerned that you may not see there is a spectrum of allies. Not everyone who doesn't perfectly align with your ideologies is 100% against you. I would caution you against this kind of vanguardism.
Hey Second Thought, great video as always! Can you do a video on how the US is a plutocracy?
@Juice - The Satanic Self-Proclaimed Chosen Tribe What about him?
I'm someone who is neither left-wing nor right-wing myself. I live in rural Alabama, and my very religious, very conservative family insists I'm a liberal, while my bohemian New Yorker friend calls me conservative. On the internet, the communists call me a rightoid fascist and the neo-nazi's call me a jew-sympathizing communist.
I'm pro-choice, pro-feminist, pro-immigration, a fan of critical-race theory, and yet I'm also pro gun, pro military, and think we shouldn't be so quick to discount the value of tradition. I believe in the nationalization of some industries, a public choice in others, and complete privatization in still others. I believe capitalists are necessary as a class, but don't think they deserve the size of the piece of the pie they're getting. I believe in Unions, business associations, and consumer advocacy groups alike. I think we shouldn't be quite so attached to democratic processes and voting, but am quite attached to rule of law and political plurality.
I think us having vastly different opinions of the way the world works and should be run points to the idea that none of us really know (I know I certainly don't) and it would be irresponsible to fully commit to one or the other with abandon. The world exists in a delicate balance that _functions_ dammit- even if we don't like the _way_ it works or the consequences of it working the way it does, the consequences of installing something that doesn't function correctly are always more dire.
But that doesn't mean no one is right about _anything_ at all- it doesn't mean we should never change anything ever, it just means we shouldn't immediately discard everything that works and immediately implement something we perceive as more progressive. The Western World strangles local African businesses in their cribs through sheer charity- good intentions do not good policy make.
Everyone is the same to me, stuck inside echo chambers like pods from the matrix. Red pill? Blue pill? Morpheus was a fictional character, he never offered truth of any kind. No one that presents some dichotomy between 'real-life' and 'fantasy' does. All we have are interpretations of the facts, and those interpretations are under constant revision. Even if it turns out that say the communists are right, in a hundred years would they still be right? I doubt it. Some other movement will pop up with an even _better_ solution, because that's what people do- they improve on things. But I guarantee you people would ignore them, because whether or not x ideology is right, they would never leave their precious chamber.
But still, some of us never found an echo chamber. Some of us are just out here drifting, rejected by every community, by every political theory. You dare say I'm right-wing when the right-wingers won't invite me to the Christmas party? They dare suggest I'm just a closet left-winger when the left-wingers ban me from their communities? What else is left for me then? Should I just not have opinions at all?
If you can make me out to be that thing you don't respect, then you can rationalize dehumanizing me, silencing me, and disenfranchising me. Because no matter what ideology you support or side you're on, that's always easier than holding yourself and others to an equal standard. After all, that runs the chance of you actually being _wrong_
@Good Sorrow. I appreciate the compliment, truly- but unfortunately I can't give you even a bit of advice. I have absolutely no formal training or education past my junior year of highschool- though I did manage to get my GED almost immediately after I dropped out.
I never stopped learning though. It was never the knowledge that served as my barrier, but the rejection of my peers. I was even framed for an act of domestic terrorism if you can imagine it. It was the last in a long line of injustices that turned out to be the last straw for me. They still faulted me for 'giving up' as it were. Only later would I realize they had never been interested in my education- only whether I would contribute to the metric of graduates, and therefore their funding, or to the metric of dropouts. In the end I was yet another child dragged through the system without care for consequence. 'No child left behind' indeed.
I digress. More to the point, for a very long time- all my life in fact, I was desperate to be heard. I told myself that I just needed to explain myself better. That if I could just find the words to inform others of my plight they would know what to do. They would help. Night after night I pleaded with friends, family, and teachers alike, making my case- to no effect. They always said they were listening. They always lied.
To answer you're question as to why... If I had to make a guess, I would say that's why. For over two decades I attempted with full effort to communicate the sum of my soul to those around me. Ironic, that it was only after I had long surpassed them in communication skills that I realized my error. They never understood, because they simply never cared to listen.
Sounds like a fairly run of the mill democrat.
lib
There is nothing wrong with being non-partisan.
Political parties pedal an illusion to their voters.
It’s very important that everyone thinks for themselves, even if they disagree with you.
No it's wrong, be socialist or you are fascist.
The problem is not to be non-partisan. The problem is when you clearly make a political project with right-wing reform and pretend is not partisan when in fact it's wrong.
As Lacan said: "The ones who don't fall into illusion are completely wrong"
That describes the "centrist" thing, "centrists" are just despicable right wingers.
Indeed. Second Thought is really missing this one in my opinion
@@theshermantanker7043 It exemplifies the problem with a lot of modern day populist left wing movement. I’d like for them to be more effective because let’s face it they’re not, they make a lot of noise but never any legislation. ‘Otherising’ moderates and non-partisans like this video tries to do is a primary problem with many of these movements. Claiming moderates and non-partisans don’t even exist is even more bizarre because although the USA is particularly divided, if you look at the demographic graphs for political views it clearly still follows the normal distribution. There are FAR more moderates and non-partisans than there are hard left wingers and hard right wingers. Any movement that alienates the majority of voters is doomed to fail.
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.
Nobody:
This Channel: "Anything that isnt left is right."
Just like a true extremist.
Then what would "actual centrism" look like? Is it a moderate stance on ALL issues or left leaning on certain issues and right leaning in others? Because someone in the far right will tell me that any moderate candidate nowadays is essentially on the left.
It's worth remembering that on a global political spectrum both economically and politically the US's parties are both far right parties.
As for actual centrism, in practice it behaves in an identical fashion to the less than jokingly named ratchet effect. Cherry picking non-structural issues (Social niceties/culture war/idpol works) towards the left while making structural compromises towards the right (public-private partnerships, dissolution of the commons, expansion/militarization of police forces,) leading straight back into an entrenched aristocracy with a slightly different naming convention than the last round.
There's a comic on compromise that does it well, on one hill you have civil rights, on the other you have genocide. The middle ground is intermittent murder, which is still working towards the hill of genocide but at a slower pace.
In my opinion, a centrist should be closer to a social democrat. While social democrats are considered 'left leaning', they still prefer markets for most things. They are just humane enough to understand that some things like education, healthcare, housing, etc. are so essential to humans that they cannot be trusted to the markets.
But then again in a country with both the rich and the poor, both oppressors and the oppressed, the rich oppressors will always have more power. If you are centrist, you are just letting the stronger side win.
yanis varoufakis made this same point in a ted talk, that the ancient greeks wouldn't even recognise what we've got as democracy (because they had direct democracy)
A system where you choose your rulers through voting, was Aristotle's definition of an *Oligarchy*.
We get it. Everything that is bad is right and everything that is good is left.
yes.
@@Miguel-xl8ui No.
@@colejones6312 tell me one good right wing thing?
The problem is; for the “left” to accomplish anything meaningful it will have to organize and be more coherent, something that can only be accomplished by adopting practices that are typically attributed to the “right”.
That was how Fascism formed. Multiple marxist scholars looked at the devastation of the first world war and thought if there was ever a time for a global class uprising, this is it. Instead what they saw was the poor and oppressed siding more with their national identity rather than any global class consciousness. That is when Giovanni Gentile using his Hegelian background decided to create a collective around the state. All individuals belong to the state, and in return the state and the people within will thrive. So all industry would work towards one goal, and if any refused they would be removed and replaced by those who would work towards the goals of the state.
Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how you look at it, the Italians were weak militarily. Hitler decided to use a very similar governing style, yet he was also completely mad, believing in the jewish conspiracy to such levels that he was willing to sacrifice strategy to follow through with his extermination plans. The Germans became the leader of the movement due to military strength rather than full adherence to the ideology. Or it could have been considered the pinnacle of the ideology, it became the goal of the state to eradicate the Jewish population. So since this was the goal of the state, all industry must work towards this goal by the definition of Fascism.
@@Plainsburner nevertheless if the “Left” does not organize establish some well defined goals then come up with a plan on how to achieve said goals it will never amount to anything.
@@Plainsburner Then get rid of the nation, the state, the centralized power of an outdated gathering of regions and cultures. It's simple. See the USA, France, Russia? Break them into smaller countries based on culture. States, regions. It's simple.
@@ununun9995 In times of peace that would be the optimal solution, much less bloated administration leaving the locals who know their region best to dictate policy. Yet in times of strife it would leave a disunited front ripe for conquest from within and without.
@@Plainsburner Based
7:09 not only the right wing are authoritarians, and neither is every right winger an authoritarian. Otherwise he'd never get revoted. Authoritarianism is a political and social behavior that is separated from one's views on political issues.
I know but he's going to use a strawman argument that all right wingers are authoritarian to fulfill his agenda
Social Democracy was essentially thought to be ideally third alternative ("neither left, nor right") ... so are Social Democrats Right-wing?
Yes in Scandinavian countries
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.
As a french I can assume that when in history class we learn about Bonaparte, nobody tell us that conquer Europe is a bad things. A lot of people are very proud of this part of our history even if that's at some point equals to Nazism. On the left we don't like him but on the right they are proud of what he did .
That's all for me I hope that my English is understandable
C'est bien tu as bien appris la propagande anglo-saxonne qui consiste à te faire gentiment oublié qui défendait la monarchie et qui répondait le code civil, les droits de l'homme et les idéaux nationnalistes (c'est-à-dire qui prônent la création d'états-nation, je ne parle pas du nationalisme moderne).L'Empire était toujours la 1ère république et était dans la continuité de la révolution. Le régime était autoritaire, mais sans commune mesure avec l'intégralité des monarchies européennes. Il ne faut pas se tromper de camp, les réactionnaires de l'époque c'était les monarques européens. Ensuite il ne faut pas oublier non plus que la majorité des guerres menées par l'Empire étaient défensives. Enfin les deux empire ne sont pas comparables, puisque le second empire s'inscrivait lui dans une logique réactionnaire pour son époque. Bref cette vidéo est plus idéologique qu'informative et n'a aucune rigueur historique.
@@romainfr2981Donc... Trump est cool, c'est ça ?
Ah oui répandre les idéaux republicains face au monarchie européenne qui nous ont déclaré la guerre 5 fois en 15 ans 😂. Bien sur mais c'est du n'importe quoi ce que tu dis.
@@juliendurand1178j'avoue gros BG Napoléon surtout la partie où il envahit l'Europe et cause des millions de morts. Le frérot a tué la démocratie BTW il l'a pas sauvé. Je veux bien pas être calé en histoire mais il a quand même été élu pendant une république, puis il a décidé qu'il serait l'empereur tout seul sans aucune démocratie et partage du pouvoir.
J'imagine que ça choquait aussi a l'époque vu la réaction de Victor Hugo ?
Bref non Napoléon n'est pas quelq'un dont on doit être fière
@@juliendurand1178 Et la Russie a envahit la France... en Russie ?
Of course this is so typical. To the left, the The third position is right wing, and to the right, it is left wing. This is nothing new, however binary politics is currently the biggest issue we face. In order to solve every other problem we have, we have to get rid of partisanship and identity politics.
I come from a place that has never developped this "left vs right" narrative that is very common, and I find that learning about American politics is so alienating. It's as if people lived in these echochambers where their side holds all virtues, while the other side is guilty of sabotage and evil.
There's no more place for rational discussions. No place for negociation, no place to disagree.
This video for example doesn't even try to analyse the political situation in France when Napoleon took power. France was unstable internally, people where being executed for the most random reasons, the population was terrified, the country was being invaded by external powers. Was he a tyrant? Yes, but he was supported by the revolution, and he was seen as an essential figure to the stability of the revolutionary cause. It's like people want the bread, and the bread's money without realizing that there are many sacrifices to a successfull revolution.
So if im apolitical im really im conservative?
damn cant believe i became a conservative.
"I'm apolitical"
Translation: "I am not affected by the problems in society due to my privilege. "
@@Phantom_DD I mean, sure, in some cases, but some people genuinely don't like the labels, don't like society in general, are anarchists, would prefer living in the woods in a cabin by themselves if they could, etc.
Why are you apolitical? because you don't believe politics can accomplish anything? or because you don't believe politics ought to accomplish anything? Can you explain how the results of your stance are any different than the results of being conservative?
Ngl my autistic ass just finds it so incredibly tiring, i guess in technicallity i am not apolitical, since i have a very strong belief in indipendence (Faroe Islands from Denmark) but it just really fries my brain. I am probably more so to the left-Center full indipendence now compared to when this was like two years ago lol, when i didnt even have the right to vote, think i just chose to not think about politics before i could actually vote.
@@ZeroShaneBob living in the woods in a cabin does sound conservative. Also, to be apolitical means to be complacent with how things are and the direction things are going, which is indirectly a support of the status quo which is not progressive but conservative. Not liking labels also sounds like not wanting to get attached to stigma of one's choices
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 heavily and vehemently oppose capitalism, lobbying, and ultranationalism and I classify myself as somewhere in the middle because of lots of things I also disagree with on the left.
I think your statement about “saying you’re in the middle, is just being right winged” is quite an oversimplification. It’s not so black and white. Beliefs are free flowing and different between each and every individual.
Everyone knows there is a political spectrum, thats why we were refer to things as “left” and “right”. To say there is no middle to that spectrum of left and right, is like saying there is only Los Angeles to New York city, and nothing in between. Kinda silly.
How do you oppose capitalism outside of capital-labour conflict?
I like your videos but disagree on this one. During the early 1800s Napoleon was considered a liberal, and he brought the ideas of the revolution to other areas in europe, which led to the end of serfdom in central europe. For the time he was a radical.
Radically reintroducing slavery?
I liked the video. Andrew Yang was my first introduction into being passionate about politics. I really think his UBI would help millions of Americas. Why should we keep supporting these welfare systems when they actually trap us (if you make too much, you don’t qualify, if you make too little you qualify but can exceed it or you wont). Also scarcity mindset, that living pay check to pay check, makes us crazier. I believe this is way to redistribute income and give people at least something to pass to there kids, that’s how you really build wealth
indeed, but Second Thought won't give actual solutions a second thought
channel is great for pointing out issues, but anything that harnesses consumerism for societal benefit sends Marxist acolytes into mental paroxysm
Agreed. UBI would make the lives of average Americans better but to your point about scarcity mindset, our current version of capitalism preys on those in that mindset. The system practically demands it in order to work. That's why we don't yet have UBI in the US but we are shifting as a people away from neo liberalism and toward socialism so I'm hopeful.
@@HeidiThompson7 younger Americans are desperate enough to consider anything, but socialism has its own mechanisms for enforcing the scarcity mindset to maintain state control, with the "cadre" controlling resource allocation, Federal Job Guarantees being the ultimate end game
that's why Sanders Socialists loath UBI, as an enabler of individual free will and entrepreneurship
You simplify a lot to evoke emotion and perceive a story an example would be 9:20. How could Napoleon III of reinstated slavery when it was banned in France since 1848?
I'm interested to hear if anyone can let me know about a slave revolt that happened in France after 1848 as I am unaware of any - most likely you have over-exaggerated and this is just storytelling bull shit. If anything the French intervention in Mexico and coronation of Maximilian as emperor there lead to a shorter work day, no more child labour, higher wages and a better standard of living. Give a fair comparison next time please rather than brainwash the ignorant like both the right and the left do because thats a dangerous weapon.
Feel free to read through the many sources in the description. Also, liking your own comment doesn’t give you any more legitimacy. Don’t think I didn’t see that 😉
@@SecondThought Oh I know I do that all the time and no it isn't to give the comment more legitimacy as this video is months old and I didn't expect to get much of a response. Anyway could you actually reply to some of my questions while I read through your sources - thanks 👍
@@SecondThought bro you source Wikipedia twice and your first source is very anti napoleon, please try to use *non biased* and to not use *top level* sources when making a video, this looks like your just pushing a political view.
Never a second thought when it comes to clicking on a Second Thought video
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.
When you universally refer to something as progress, you are appealing to someone. Someone who has defined what progress is. Who exactly is that person, and can they be trusted? No mere human can be trusted with the defining of progress, because there will always be a conflict of interests if a vulnerable human being defines progress. That’s what God was invented/discovered for.
Or perhaps progress just means “ideas we haven’t tried yet”. The correct word for that is experimentation.
Either way you look at it, under any real scrutiny, the idea of “progressivism” falls flat on it’s face. Especially considering the fact that progressive people tend to believe in moral relativism. How can there be a morally objective definition of a virtue without a God?
Another well done piece. I think that you hit on democracy's fatal flaw, that it takes the attention, understanding, and continued effort of all citizens to make it work.
The unappealing fact is that the overwhelming majority of people everywhere just don't want to bother. They are completely happy being told what to think and what to do by someone else. In fact, most of us prefer it. It's like the people at work who will spend more time and effort to avoid doing their job, than doing the job would take to do.
The problem isn't that people like to be told what to do but that *they are told what they WANT to hear.* They want to be told that it isn't in part their fault, that they don't have to change, that it's "them" whoever that is that's the main problem. Because the path of least resistance is preferable to having to actually fight long and hard to obtain freedom. It is why revolution is needed, people have to fundamentally change their lives and realize their collective power, face the reality that they don't need someone at the top of some bullsh*t hierarchy telling them what to do. They need to realize that politics doesn't start nor end with an individual, it branches out to all of us.
To be clear I'm not talking about individual responsibility as being the cure to our issues, far from it nor do I mean there isn't those that are a major source of those many problems i.e. corporations and their insane influence on society. No what I mean is people need to learn that it isn't about them individually, the obstacles are societal, *a collective problem requires a collective solution.* Specifiaclly we live under capitalism which maintains an injust system and encourages selfish behavior because being kind is more risky than being cruel.
Part of the problem is that you are asking people to choose to be upset, to acknowledge there even are problems, It is hard to want to be unhappy. *People would rather believe in a sweat lie than face a harsh reality, because that means no difficult questions have to be ask, questions they fear they already know the answer to.*
@@navilluscire2567 I like your way of thinking. Hit me up if u wanna chat more
@@navilluscire2567 you're not taking it far enough, people are told what they want to hear because online information is structured in "channels" and "social" media rewards engagement which means building echo chambers
the solution is simple, creating a new type of Constructive Media where information is designed around perspective clusters, so that people could easily see all facets of any issue without being mentally stressed out
that's what the Meldd framework is designed to do
Wait whats a "meldd framework"
Or people have other things to worry about
Damn, I would've loved to see a more good faith analysis of Yang and more importantly, his policies.
This was good faith.
Yang is horrendous
@@GalacticNovaOverlord nothing about this channel is good faith. it's a populist channel, and like all populists he spins us a narrative that makes him look amazing and his opponents look horrendous. which it seems you've bought into
@@GalacticNovaOverlord It wasn't. But again, the policies he supported are worthy of a more unbiased analysis.
I don't understand how Yang's 2020 policies of Universal basic income, Value added tax, and Medicare for all should be considered "100 % Right wing policies".
Maybe it's because I'm from the United States, but my understanding is that European countries are considered more "to the left" than the United States.
Those countries typically have higher taxes on corporations and State run Healthcare systems. Which I believe are considered left wing policies, correct?
So how does this make Yang "right wing"?
Because he's not strictly anti-capitalist?
By that logic, Bernie Sanders and AOC would be considered right-wing as well because the green new deal and federal jobs guarantee policies they advocated for were not anti-capitalist in how they were written or presented.
Yang's "Not left, not right, but forward" slogan was used to make him stand out in a field of 30+ democratic candidates. Not because he's some closet Bonapartist. It was political marketing. It's the same reason he had to brand UBI as a "freedom Divided". Because anything with "Freedom" in it automatically sounds better to us simple-minded Americans.
Likewise, distancing yourself from both the right and the left in America is also very appealing to a large number of voters here because many of us know that neither party cares about the working class.
Any of you who’ve historically laughed at the “you’re either with us or against us” modality, and yet are convinced by this.. Congrats, you’re not as smart as you think you are.
I wonder what other idiotic positions can be repackaged with more sophisticated sophistry to get the “intellectuals” onboard. 🧐
When I clicked on the thumbnail, I got an advert for the Daily Wire.
Ironic