I love when I get something I had an idea I cannot articulate but find someone that defies it. Democratism as civil religion will be on my mind for a long time.
It would be nice if, in a conversation about democracy, more than one democratic country could be meaningfully discussed, in a way less vague than a passing mention of "north-atlantic countries" (whatever that means. Anglo-american + France?). America is not the only democratic country, and certainly is not the most democratic one. I wonder how much of this discussion is relevant for other democratic countries, like Switzerland? Switzerland has democracy as a foundational element of its identity, and yet the majority of the population (and its politicians) also have neutrality as a core value. Does Switzerland exhibit 'democratism'? And if not, why not? This is a genuine question and one it would be nice for Mr Mott to address, as I still don't understand how his 'democratism' doesn't constitute a fairly straightforward critique of Anglo-american neo-liberal values and foreign policy (with a fun new provocative name and 'white paper' to go with it), although I suspect the discussion would be coloured by his clear (and somewhat ironic) America-centrism. It would have been nice to have a concise definition of what is really meant by 'democratism', as this discussion seems to jump from a critique of democracy in general, to democracy in practice, to using democracy-promotion as a reason for invading countries, to using democracy-promotion as a reason for 'not being diplomatic', and, somewhat inexplicably, how this is all mixed up in wokism.
all those other democracies are under US influence, none of them meaningfully challenge US rule, ergo the north Atlantic countries that make up nato and them
@davidduffy9241 I wish I could upvote your post more than once. The conversation suffered from a lack of opposition and self criticism. Maybe even a lack of imagination. Maybe invite some of those 'Steven Pinker types' and have a debate?
Thanks, I suspected that I was in for such a lacking discussion 11 min into the video and after reading this comment I feel like I can skip the rest of the vid and do something else instead
You have to be completely stoned to say that Switzerland is the parangon of democracy. They allowed women to vote only in 1971, and at the cantonal level in the 60s. Maybe you are so evangelized into the democratism dogma you think that just voting often means more democracy.
24:11 Finally, someone sees the connection I see. By unbinding from Ritual and Heritage, and instead choosing a Literal Ideology that can be both packaged and "Sold," protestantism was able to politicise itself without raising suspicion. Evolving towards the Democritism we now observe, and its contradictions. Atheist now, but strongly protestant upbringing. I once had a conversation with a Catholic man that pointed out a similar contradiction. He spoke about how Protestant Churches continuously spoke of "Come as you are." yet its followers are quite prone to judging another's appearance. I sometimes imagine Western Democracy appears that way to other nations.
I recently discovered the channel and I’m really enjoying the interesting discussions and how my POVs are challenged (and mostly based on common sense). It’s been really interesting learning more with you. 😊
‘Opinions are to the vast apparatus of social existences are what oil is to the machines. but one does not go up to a turbine and pour machine oil over it; one applies a little to hidden spindles and joints that one has to know.- W. Benjamin
I really need to read that paper about the confluence between woke progressivism and neo-conservatism. I have been ringing the alarm bell about that for nearly 6 years now and everyone thinks I'm crazy
Spread it around once you’ve read it, it’s super-important. Tons of people I’ve heard talk about it on vids or podcasts or whatnot have been very enthusiastic about it; personally I love it. It’s very good for offering a lens into the real motives behind the haze of rhetoric we get swamped by daily for people who haven’t quite connected those dots themselves yet.
Speaking as someone on the other side, When we hear people speak about democracy, there is always this "Our" preceding. Which clearly signals that we are not included. Essentially, when they speak about Democracy, they speak about "Our system of Control".
The most astounding aspect of the fetishism of democracy is the complete failure to notice that democracy has established systems of surrogated slavery wherever it has been coupled with capitalism, which is almost everywhere. We are fed an ideological narrative of democratic governance, but simultaneously only the managerial and capital classes are in any way meaningfully free - the rest are enslaved by a system of wage slavery where they are dependent on a master who tells them when to come to work, when to leave, what to wear and when to eat - and they have to ask permission a year in advance to take their allotted time off work as vacation. None of us are even familiar with what actual democracy looks like - we have the means today of being asked to vote on almost everything the government does - technological tools that would make it possible to vote on a regular basis on all sorts of initiatives and policies, but nobody asks for our opinions - what we have is the so called "representative" democracy - we aren't the ones ruling - we elect representatives who themselves vote (ie participate in democracy) in the legislative process - but the executive process is not even something they have a say in most of the time. Democracy is the perfect system by which a select few special interest groups can corrupt the social order in entirety, purchase whatever support they need and influence public opinion. Democracies are ideal at splintering society, dividing people up into camps, and being convenient vehicles by which external agents can sabotage and destroy a nation with its values and its ideals. It encourages criticism and debate and polarization which very rarely if ever has the outcome of producing the best ideas and the best choices and almost always creates the perfect Avenue by which those who wish to dominate it may enter. A United people United behind a cause or purpose, behind leaders, are a dangerous thing. But a splintered democratic society, the so-called open society, Is the perfect system for a handful small group of people to use their influence, connections, power and money, to get for themselves and for their ideology a far greater influence than they would ever demand by their size alone.
@mariomario2642 Oligarchy is generally a term applied to the rule of the few who are the wealthiest; technocracy, as far as I know, has never actually ruled anywhere - by which I mean the actual movement called technocracy back in the 50's or something; I assume you mean technocracy in Yanis Varoufakis' meaning - the rule of Google and Facebook etc. I agree with you. The problems of democracy as people think of it are actually problems of representative democracy because the politicians have realized and mastered the art of getting elected, and play to that purpose. They are not rewarded for the best governance of, they are rewarded for being the best at the craft of getting elected since money and special interests and public relations and media image and profile building all play into it. It is not true, as Osho has said, that democracy means government by the people, of the people and for the people, and that the people are retarded. Retarded, yes, But democracy is not government by the people, and of the people, and for the people. Democracy is the election of representatives to govern on behalf of the people, and for themselves, and by special interests and personal benefit for the purpose of being reelected. But the problem of the people being retarded does remain. Lyndon Johnson Is to this day the man who has passed the greatest number of social welfare legislation of any president other than FDR. FDR himself was American nobility. He came from an extremely wealthy family with fine pedigree. Yet he essentially and practically was a socialist. Lyndon Johnson was what they called a red Democrat. He was in the conservative wing of the democratic party and a southerner from Texas. In his legislative days, he was frequently voting with the Republicans. He was also known to be a virulent racist. So how did a man who was a racist and about as far from a communist as you could get become someone who enacted social welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and all sorts of socialist initiatives. Asked after his presidency about How someone who was so racist in his earlier days became the president to effectively end segregation, and enact so many civil rights and equal rights programs, including affirmative action programs for black people, Johnson answered that before he had the responsibility, he thought of only himself. Once I was president, he says, and I realized I had to act in everybody's interest, I did the just thing. Perhaps the people, too, If given the responsibility, might prove themselves not to be retarded.
This is a somewhat US centric analysis and seems to conflate democracy, liberalism, two party parliamentarianism and neoliberalism. It’s also interesting that many of his criticisms align with ultra right thinkers like Moldbug or Banon. I’m not sure a liberal like Pinker would agree with the characterisations or thought of liberals as depicted here, but rather as left conceptions of democratic thought. The point about illiberal “woke” liberals is mostly a strain of synthetic thought that is liberal in appearance but combines elements of post Marx influenced left wing thought (butler, Foucault, Frankfurt school, critical theory) - such as attitudes towards capitalism, notions of race oppression, feminism and so on. These are far away from neoliberal or liberal thinkers policy or practice.
Great guest! Such a smart and down to earth guy, really cut through some tricky topics with ease. Sounds like his materialist/realist view allows him separation from ideology and taboo and you get a nice flowing analysis of the what’s actually going on the world
Hi, I would love to get you on my podcast 1Dime Radio, but I can't seem to find your email anywhere. Let me know if you would be interested. I think you have some interesting perspectives. I think a lot of leftists need to hear what you have to say with regard to "wokeism."
splitting territories, the land space where people used to move in and out from, into boundaries and calling it some nation preceded Nation-building. It is the former, a result of white Atlantic colonialism, that is now perpetually creating the violence and wars we have.
the world working class must ,in my opinion ,win the battle of Democracy , not for Democracy as i believe K. marx said or at least implied. This may sound dogmatic but it does point to an important dynamic.
I would really appreciate it if you could go into more detail about Niklas Luhmann's concept of social systems, and perhaps explain some of the societal subsystems, like the art system. It would also be very interesting if you could discuss symbolically generalized communication media, such as love.
3:52 to believe that harris lost because of gaza is kind of delusional and makes it difficult to take much of the following seriously 4:30 Gaza was at the very centre of a very online or very college based bubble not speaking much to the average voter at all. Yeah no i can't take this guy seriously.
While I find the critique of democratic peace theory and the concept of democraticism interesting, I am less convinced by the rest of the interview. Particularly with regard to the Russia-Ukraine war, I believe that the analysis presented is partial at best. Regarding the supposed Western ideological refusal to compromise and negotiate, that too can be seen as profoundly realist. Negotiations are always informed by the balance of military forces. And in order to obtain favorable grounds for negotiation, Ukraine has all the interest of maintaining, both in words and (where feasible) in actions, its maximalist aim of regaining full control of its territory. Moreover, from the interview it would seem that this anti-realism is a typically Western sin. But one has only to remember the appalled faces of the members of Russia's security council when Putin announced the start of the (very unrealistically called) "military operation", to understand that Russia is at least as ideologically-driven as the West. The war has been presented by the Kremlin as a metaphysical struggle for the soul of the Russian people, to which Ukrainians supposedly belong, willing or not. It is being presented as a war against the ultimate evils of Nazism, of LGBTQ culture, and of western contamination of the "purity" of the Russian world. Not to mention Putin's domestic profile as a devote orthodox Christian. This is not to say that Putin is, in his heart of hearts, some kind of nationalist crusader. But that it is not easy to distinguish between ideological and realist motivations. The two are always dialectically tied, one supports the other. And the attempt to neatly separate them, to do away with ideology and adhere to the true realism of force and power, doesn't seem to be too distant from the purity of Protestantism and of Kantian reason.
You learned about international relations after Russia invaded in 2022, didn’t you. Those of us who’ve been studying it since the mid-90s have no problem here: the US is a revolutionary power, bent on overthrowing any perceived opponent government, seeking “full spectrum dominance” economically, politically, militarily. It is not a responsible global citizen. It is a belligerent child.
@@JHimminy I didn't write a word about the US. I am using the case of the Russia-Ukraine war to question the conceptual distinction of "(democraticist) ideology vs realism" which underlies Mott's argument.
@@LorenzoManildo Russia is as realist as it was under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. They can couch their actions in (Eastern) Christian terms, but their incursion into Ukraine is obviously “realist.” There’s nothing ideological about not letting yourself be strangled.
@@JHimminy This idea that Russia was under (I assume) NATO threat remains baffling to me. The members of Putin's security council did not believe this was the case. Nor did Prigozhin, who pubblicly opposed the idea just days before his failed insurection and his "plane accident". Moreover, just remember what was the situation before the start of what you euphemistically call the "incursion" into Ukraine. Russia was fully integrated into the European economy and the number of American troops in Europe was at an all time low. Now Russia has lost its European ties and pushed Finlands and Sweden to enter NATO. Call this realism, if you want, but it is a bad one a that. However, I am not interested in going down the rabbit hole of the NATO threat hypothesis, and I will not pursue this line of argument further. I am interested in the ideology/realism distinction. You say that we should interpret Putin's nationalist and Christian propaganda as an irrelevant coat of paint for his profound realism. Would you agree that the same could be said of the USA? That all the democraticist ideology is a mere façade for their realist strategy to maintain military and economic hegemony? Is there something wrong about that? What would the alternative be? I am personally willing to entertain Mott's critique of (in this case, American) democraticism. I just wanted to make the case that it is not clear that the West is the only ideology-driven actor in this conflict, and that I don't find this neat ideology/realism distinction useful to understand the present moment.
@@LorenzoManildo Realistically, if Ukraine joins NATO and EU, Russian will be under threat, militrily yes, but more importantly is socially and politically. Russian will be easier to be infiltrated, more anti-government movements may occur, revolution even, same gose north/south korea, China/taiwan. China is integrated into global economy, but it has restricted communication for its citizens with people abroad, people's interaction overtime will undermine their rulling legitimacy and superiority they claimed they have, especially among same ethnic group living under different political systems, in this case slavs. Such issue wouldn't be admitted diplomatical wise, this issue is usually referred to as national security. In terms of whether West is the only ideology-driven actor, at least by appearance, it is. Sure all are driven by different ideologies, look at all those unexperienced diplomats EU and Brit had and what they say openly, connect with their other ideology-driven policies, such as immigration, green energy, diversity etc. Russian seems wanted to secure their region by having a buffer zone, gain more territory and resources, which are essential to survival and Prosperity. America seems had some master plan which is failing, EU seems has nothing but ideology. Maybe this is all but a facade, maybe the new realism winning move is to be appear fully as ideology-driven.
Ultimately, if democracy breaks out all over the world, and everybody loves each other, we will fight wars out of sheer boredom. But, ultimately, there will always be the drive to gain power, democracy or not. Even native tribes in the USA, who had a close-to egalitarian social and political structure, fought wars...
This actually felt like a very lazy and superficial critique to me. It honestly felt like two guys avoiding taking a serious position - or offering any of their own world views or intentions/desires for future engagement/goals. A lack of political agenda in this regard sort of just feels like two people yelling from the peanut gallery about how they don't like the show, whilst offering nothing substantive of their own (no show of their own, no implementation). Cheap. It felt cheap, bland, and slightly out of date. I know it's popular among rogue youtube academics from across the spectrum, from Douglas Lain, to Jordan Peterson, to complain about Woke politics, or censorship, but that was 3 or 4 years ago now. So this kind of missed the boat. Most of all I found it boring, there was just mild mealy mouthed agreement between the two - what's the point? Two old parrots squawking at each other in the same voice? BOOOORRRRINNGGG...
A bit harsh but mostly true. This is more like some sort of game/movie review, they are here only to criticize, which is better than nothing I would say, there are some good insights.
Great analysis, thank you! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
Lots of vibes very little substance, not to mention data. The amount of cognitive bias, some sound bites that I've noticed and a little research into the guest himself and his sources leave me deeply disappointed and questioning prof. Moeller's judgement, impartiality and neutrality. I sincerely hope prof. Moeller is not getting caught up in an algorithmic drift. I feel the video should have been left unpublished SAD
They're talking as hegelians. What sort of figures do you want anyway in the critique of how people believe in "democracy" as a form of civil religion?
well since he's dismantling such notion as "democratism" it's pretty clear what kind of audience he's addressing.. pretty clueless people... but really would it be too much even for clueless people to say that, for example, if george w bush says he's "born again" it doesn't mean he's religious but means that he's trying to appeal to people who see religiousness as an advantage ... i don't think even pretty clueless people would have a problem with such assertion.. yet he just takes it as given that W was a devout christian or something .. and that's just one such naive point from numerous others within his discourse... so naive really that he himself comes out as clueless ... and anyway .. even a relatively superficial marxist analysis of the subject reveals what the whole pretense of democracy is all about.. but i guess a marxist analysis would be too shocking a revelation for many people...
yeah but really... what's the problem with accepting that this exporting of democracy narrative is only being used to justify interventionalism ... and that probably very few of the people who promote it really believe in it, and really value democracy.. or think it's even something acceptable.. in view that a true democracy probably wouldn't leave a living millionaire about... knowing what people make the overwhelming majority.... if it's even supposed to really mean "majority rule"... go figure ...
Well: For the capitalist class, it is of the utmost importance not only to own the bodies of the workers. But, far more, the minds and hearts as well. - Ideology production is a key business branch.
@@Badbentham well ... i don't think this is the main motivation.. the desire to own the minds and hearts ... it stems from insecurities... often parents have the same attitude toward their children.. when the children show some independence parents often panic and react violently... so this is something common to all people brought up in the conditions of totally dominant logic of the market.. but of course.. can't deny that ideology production and reproduction is of utmost importance for the reproduction of the whole system and they know it...
I agreed up to the reference to "Russia Gate Conspiracy". It will be difficult for me to take Chris Mott seriously after that. And, most importantly, very disappointed to hear Prof. Moeller give his 100% approval. But I will listen on.
Oh he did? I didn't notice it but yeah Russia definitely tried to influence that election. I imagine most governments nowadays attempt to do something like this to a degree just because it's rather easy to do with the internet.
I was also disappointed by the generic media illiteracy displayed by this guest. I think prof. Moeller is trying out more interview formats and therefore the quality of guest is, we might charitably say, commensurate with the size of this channel.
But he's referring to the illegal laundering of ginned up "intelligence" to justify surveillance of Trump's campaign in 2016. It was all false and everyone knows it. The pathetic FB ads were not significant and we'd have to believe that Russia has also influenced the entire west (why not China, odd) to a populist shift. But that ignores how we had two preceding populist movements (Occupy and Tea Party).
Eric Hoffer warned about the true believer during the Cold War. utopian aspirations, MAGA right and left, while maintenance and stewardship of what has been built deteriorates and crumbles
From my Nietzschian perspective politics is bad for people’s mental health as it makes people focus on the ascetic ideal in result making them resentful for this reason I think we are better off getting rid of democracy. I am not advocating to bring back an older system but instead wanting to see something new. Though having an authoritarian government is not bad either as it would allow us to live the hero’s journey we always fantasise about in our media.
Dear Møller You critique religion a lot. How do you understand religion in a complete context, pros and cons of religion. Can you imagine an a-religius society
I wish you had been more concrete about accepting diversity in how societies are governed. That would mean that all refugee policies could/should be stopped and it would be required that all countries take responsibility of their citizens. No need to care of whatever is done to women or children or whoever outside your country. Isn't there anything wrong about placing the whole blame of instability on developed countries? I don't see democratic efforts to create stability in Africa, middle East etc in as cynical view as you do, as a missionary campaign to perpetuate dependency. If only someone would start discussing what is the responsibility of underdeveloped (I could'n't find a neutral term here) in their own fate so that people will stop fleeing from them. We should bring to the common diplomatic table the fact that whole populations can't move to another country without bringing with them the very same things they are escaping. It should be put to the table too that different countries receive very different kind of immigrant flows. Africa attracts some Chinese today, but China itself does not attract anybody. Islamist countries don't attract any women from outside. And how do you negotiate with islamists? At the table they may say nice things, but they will not give up their ultimate goal of converting the whole world into Islam.
Ideological Anti-statism is not self dtermination without a ruler, ἀν ἀρχόν. Online it seems anyway the Anarchy symbol is just a very vague " for freedom" symbol often combined with hippie pacifist and identity virtue signaling
Speaking as someone on the other side, When we hear people speak about democracy, there is always this "Our" preceding. Which clearly signals that we are not included. Essentially, when they speak about Democracy, they speak about "Our system of Control".
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
I love when I get something I had an idea I cannot articulate but find someone that defies it. Democratism as civil religion will be on my mind for a long time.
Always a good day with Prof. Moeller uploads
It would be nice if, in a conversation about democracy, more than one democratic country could be meaningfully discussed, in a way less vague than a passing mention of "north-atlantic countries" (whatever that means. Anglo-american + France?). America is not the only democratic country, and certainly is not the most democratic one. I wonder how much of this discussion is relevant for other democratic countries, like Switzerland? Switzerland has democracy as a foundational element of its identity, and yet the majority of the population (and its politicians) also have neutrality as a core value. Does Switzerland exhibit 'democratism'? And if not, why not? This is a genuine question and one it would be nice for Mr Mott to address, as I still don't understand how his 'democratism' doesn't constitute a fairly straightforward critique of Anglo-american neo-liberal values and foreign policy (with a fun new provocative name and 'white paper' to go with it), although I suspect the discussion would be coloured by his clear (and somewhat ironic) America-centrism. It would have been nice to have a concise definition of what is really meant by 'democratism', as this discussion seems to jump from a critique of democracy in general, to democracy in practice, to using democracy-promotion as a reason for invading countries, to using democracy-promotion as a reason for 'not being diplomatic', and, somewhat inexplicably, how this is all mixed up in wokism.
all those other democracies are under US influence, none of them meaningfully challenge US rule, ergo the north Atlantic countries that make up nato and them
@davidduffy9241 I wish I could upvote your post more than once. The conversation suffered from a lack of opposition and self criticism. Maybe even a lack of imagination. Maybe invite some of those 'Steven Pinker types' and have a debate?
Thank you for this comment, it was evident to me that it's just American politics improperly generalized to "Democracy" or "The West"
Thanks, I suspected that I was in for such a lacking discussion 11 min into the video and after reading this comment I feel like I can skip the rest of the vid and do something else instead
You have to be completely stoned to say that Switzerland is the parangon of democracy. They allowed women to vote only in 1971, and at the cantonal level in the 60s. Maybe you are so evangelized into the democratism dogma you think that just voting often means more democracy.
24:11
Finally, someone sees the connection I see. By unbinding from Ritual and Heritage, and instead choosing a Literal Ideology that can be both packaged and "Sold," protestantism was able to politicise itself without raising suspicion. Evolving towards the Democritism we now observe, and its contradictions.
Atheist now, but strongly protestant upbringing. I once had a conversation with a Catholic man that pointed out a similar contradiction. He spoke about how Protestant Churches continuously spoke of "Come as you are." yet its followers are quite prone to judging another's appearance. I sometimes imagine Western Democracy appears that way to other nations.
I recently discovered the channel and I’m really enjoying the interesting discussions and how my POVs are challenged (and mostly based on common sense). It’s been really interesting learning more with you. 😊
‘Opinions are to the vast apparatus of social existences are what oil is to the machines. but one does not go up to a turbine and pour machine oil over it; one applies a little to hidden spindles and joints that one has to know.- W. Benjamin
I really need to read that paper about the confluence between woke progressivism and neo-conservatism. I have been ringing the alarm bell about that for nearly 6 years now and everyone thinks I'm crazy
angloboxed
Spread it around once you’ve read it, it’s super-important. Tons of people I’ve heard talk about it on vids or podcasts or whatnot have been very enthusiastic about it; personally I love it. It’s very good for offering a lens into the real motives behind the haze of rhetoric we get swamped by daily for people who haven’t quite connected those dots themselves yet.
Speaking as someone on the other side,
When we hear people speak about democracy, there is always this "Our" preceding. Which clearly signals that we are not included.
Essentially, when they speak about Democracy, they speak about "Our system of Control".
The most astounding aspect of the fetishism of democracy is the complete failure to notice that democracy has established systems of surrogated slavery wherever it has been coupled with capitalism, which is almost everywhere. We are fed an ideological narrative of democratic governance, but simultaneously only the managerial and capital classes are in any way meaningfully free - the rest are enslaved by a system of wage slavery where they are dependent on a master who tells them when to come to work, when to leave, what to wear and when to eat - and they have to ask permission a year in advance to take their allotted time off work as vacation. None of us are even familiar with what actual democracy looks like - we have the means today of being asked to vote on almost everything the government does - technological tools that would make it possible to vote on a regular basis on all sorts of initiatives and policies, but nobody asks for our opinions - what we have is the so called "representative" democracy - we aren't the ones ruling - we elect representatives who themselves vote (ie participate in democracy) in the legislative process - but the executive process is not even something they have a say in most of the time. Democracy is the perfect system by which a select few special interest groups can corrupt the social order in entirety, purchase whatever support they need and influence public opinion. Democracies are ideal at splintering society, dividing people up into camps, and being convenient vehicles by which external agents can sabotage and destroy a nation with its values and its ideals. It encourages criticism and debate and polarization which very rarely if ever has the outcome of producing the best ideas and the best choices and almost always creates the perfect Avenue by which those who wish to dominate it may enter. A United people United behind a cause or purpose, behind leaders, are a dangerous thing. But a splintered democratic society, the so-called open society, Is the perfect system for a handful small group of people to use their influence, connections, power and money, to get for themselves and for their ideology a far greater influence than they would ever demand by their size alone.
We shouldn't be afraid of people's rule, oligarchy and technocracy have been tried and tested to equally terrible results.
@mariomario2642 Oligarchy is generally a term applied to the rule of the few who are the wealthiest; technocracy, as far as I know, has never actually ruled anywhere - by which I mean the actual movement called technocracy back in the 50's or something; I assume you mean technocracy in Yanis Varoufakis' meaning - the rule of Google and Facebook etc. I agree with you. The problems of democracy as people think of it are actually problems of representative democracy because the politicians have realized and mastered the art of getting elected, and play to that purpose. They are not rewarded for the best governance of, they are rewarded for being the best at the craft of getting elected since money and special interests and public relations and media image and profile building all play into it. It is not true, as Osho has said, that democracy means government by the people, of the people and for the people, and that the people are retarded. Retarded, yes, But democracy is not government by the people, and of the people, and for the people. Democracy is the election of representatives to govern on behalf of the people, and for themselves, and by special interests and personal benefit for the purpose of being reelected. But the problem of the people being retarded does remain. Lyndon Johnson Is to this day the man who has passed the greatest number of social welfare legislation of any president other than FDR. FDR himself was American nobility. He came from an extremely wealthy family with fine pedigree. Yet he essentially and practically was a socialist. Lyndon Johnson was what they called a red Democrat. He was in the conservative wing of the democratic party and a southerner from Texas. In his legislative days, he was frequently voting with the Republicans. He was also known to be a virulent racist. So how did a man who was a racist and about as far from a communist as you could get become someone who enacted social welfare, Medicare and Medicaid, and all sorts of socialist initiatives. Asked after his presidency about How someone who was so racist in his earlier days became the president to effectively end segregation, and enact so many civil rights and equal rights programs, including affirmative action programs for black people, Johnson answered that before he had the responsibility, he thought of only himself. Once I was president, he says, and I realized I had to act in everybody's interest, I did the just thing. Perhaps the people, too, If given the responsibility, might prove themselves not to be retarded.
This conversation gives no valuable explanation for the historical moment we are in, but exemplifies it as a symptom to be analyzed in the future.
Great discussion. I always look forward to any new upload. I listened to this round about ten times as it was quite fast and detailed.
This is a somewhat US centric analysis and seems to conflate democracy, liberalism, two party parliamentarianism and neoliberalism.
It’s also interesting that many of his criticisms align with ultra right thinkers like Moldbug or Banon.
I’m not sure a liberal like Pinker would agree with the characterisations or thought of liberals as depicted here, but rather as left conceptions of democratic thought.
The point about illiberal “woke” liberals is mostly a strain of synthetic thought that is liberal in appearance but combines elements of post Marx influenced left wing thought (butler, Foucault, Frankfurt school, critical theory) - such as attitudes towards capitalism, notions of race oppression, feminism and so on. These are far away from neoliberal or liberal thinkers policy or practice.
Great guest! Such a smart and down to earth guy, really cut through some tricky topics with ease. Sounds like his materialist/realist view allows him separation from ideology and taboo and you get a nice flowing analysis of the what’s actually going on the world
Hi, I would love to get you on my podcast 1Dime Radio, but I can't seem to find your email anywhere. Let me know if you would be interested. I think you have some interesting perspectives. I think a lot of leftists need to hear what you have to say with regard to "wokeism."
splitting territories, the land space where people used to move in and out from, into boundaries and calling it some nation preceded Nation-building. It is the former, a result of white Atlantic colonialism, that is now perpetually creating the violence and wars we have.
Very good discussion!
the world working class must ,in my opinion ,win the battle of Democracy , not for Democracy as i believe K. marx said or at least implied. This may sound dogmatic but it does point to an important dynamic.
Excellent discussion. Thank you.
I would really appreciate it if you could go into more detail about Niklas Luhmann's concept of social systems, and perhaps explain some of the societal subsystems, like the art system. It would also be very interesting if you could discuss symbolically generalized communication media, such as love.
Most excellent discussion, thank you both!
Hit the nail on the head there!
3:52 to believe that harris lost because of gaza is kind of delusional and makes it difficult to take much of the following seriously
4:30 Gaza was at the very centre of a very online or very college based bubble not speaking much to the average voter at all. Yeah no i can't take this guy seriously.
cool video, will watch soon
greetings from brazil
While I find the critique of democratic peace theory and the concept of democraticism interesting, I am less convinced by the rest of the interview. Particularly with regard to the Russia-Ukraine war, I believe that the analysis presented is partial at best.
Regarding the supposed Western ideological refusal to compromise and negotiate, that too can be seen as profoundly realist. Negotiations are always informed by the balance of military forces. And in order to obtain favorable grounds for negotiation, Ukraine has all the interest of maintaining, both in words and (where feasible) in actions, its maximalist aim of regaining full control of its territory.
Moreover, from the interview it would seem that this anti-realism is a typically Western sin. But one has only to remember the appalled faces of the members of Russia's security council when Putin announced the start of the (very unrealistically called) "military operation", to understand that Russia is at least as ideologically-driven as the West. The war has been presented by the Kremlin as a metaphysical struggle for the soul of the Russian people, to which Ukrainians supposedly belong, willing or not. It is being presented as a war against the ultimate evils of Nazism, of LGBTQ culture, and of western contamination of the "purity" of the Russian world. Not to mention Putin's domestic profile as a devote orthodox Christian.
This is not to say that Putin is, in his heart of hearts, some kind of nationalist crusader. But that it is not easy to distinguish between ideological and realist motivations. The two are always dialectically tied, one supports the other. And the attempt to neatly separate them, to do away with ideology and adhere to the true realism of force and power, doesn't seem to be too distant from the purity of Protestantism and of Kantian reason.
You learned about international relations after Russia invaded in 2022, didn’t you. Those of us who’ve been studying it since the mid-90s have no problem here: the US is a revolutionary power, bent on overthrowing any perceived opponent government, seeking “full spectrum dominance” economically, politically, militarily. It is not a responsible global citizen. It is a belligerent child.
@@JHimminy I didn't write a word about the US. I am using the case of the Russia-Ukraine war to question the conceptual distinction of "(democraticist) ideology vs realism" which underlies Mott's argument.
@@LorenzoManildo Russia is as realist as it was under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. They can couch their actions in (Eastern) Christian terms, but their incursion into Ukraine is obviously “realist.” There’s nothing ideological about not letting yourself be strangled.
@@JHimminy This idea that Russia was under (I assume) NATO threat remains baffling to me. The members of Putin's security council did not believe this was the case. Nor did Prigozhin, who pubblicly opposed the idea just days before his failed insurection and his "plane accident". Moreover, just remember what was the situation before the start of what you euphemistically call the "incursion" into Ukraine. Russia was fully integrated into the European economy and the number of American troops in Europe was at an all time low. Now Russia has lost its European ties and pushed Finlands and Sweden to enter NATO. Call this realism, if you want, but it is a bad one a that.
However, I am not interested in going down the rabbit hole of the NATO threat hypothesis, and I will not pursue this line of argument further. I am interested in the ideology/realism distinction. You say that we should interpret Putin's nationalist and Christian propaganda as an irrelevant coat of paint for his profound realism. Would you agree that the same could be said of the USA? That all the democraticist ideology is a mere façade for their realist strategy to maintain military and economic hegemony? Is there something wrong about that? What would the alternative be?
I am personally willing to entertain Mott's critique of (in this case, American) democraticism. I just wanted to make the case that it is not clear that the West is the only ideology-driven actor in this conflict, and that I don't find this neat ideology/realism distinction useful to understand the present moment.
@@LorenzoManildo Realistically, if Ukraine joins NATO and EU, Russian will be under threat, militrily yes, but more importantly is socially and politically. Russian will be easier to be infiltrated, more anti-government movements may occur, revolution even, same gose north/south korea, China/taiwan. China is integrated into global economy, but it has restricted communication for its citizens with people abroad, people's interaction overtime will undermine their rulling legitimacy and superiority they claimed they have, especially among same ethnic group living under different political systems, in this case slavs. Such issue wouldn't be admitted diplomatical wise, this issue is usually referred to as national security.
In terms of whether West is the only ideology-driven actor, at least by appearance, it is. Sure all are driven by different ideologies, look at all those unexperienced diplomats EU and Brit had and what they say openly, connect with their other ideology-driven policies, such as immigration, green energy, diversity etc. Russian seems wanted to secure their region by having a buffer zone, gain more territory and resources, which are essential to survival and Prosperity. America seems had some master plan which is failing, EU seems has nothing but ideology. Maybe this is all but a facade, maybe the new realism winning move is to be appear fully as ideology-driven.
When you talk about parties in Germany being overly scrutinized and called undemocratic, are you referring to the AFD or BSW?
Ultimately, if democracy breaks out all over the world, and everybody loves each other, we will fight wars out of sheer boredom. But, ultimately, there will always be the drive to gain power, democracy or not. Even native tribes in the USA, who had a close-to egalitarian social and political structure, fought wars...
The word Möller uses around 27:15 is détente. Just for clarity.
..and he means reducing tensions with east germany in particular.. and the east european commies in general..
This actually felt like a very lazy and superficial critique to me. It honestly felt like two guys avoiding taking a serious position - or offering any of their own world views or intentions/desires for future engagement/goals. A lack of political agenda in this regard sort of just feels like two people yelling from the peanut gallery about how they don't like the show, whilst offering nothing substantive of their own (no show of their own, no implementation). Cheap. It felt cheap, bland, and slightly out of date. I know it's popular among rogue youtube academics from across the spectrum, from Douglas Lain, to Jordan Peterson, to complain about Woke politics, or censorship, but that was 3 or 4 years ago now. So this kind of missed the boat. Most of all I found it boring, there was just mild mealy mouthed agreement between the two - what's the point? Two old parrots squawking at each other in the same voice? BOOOORRRRINNGGG...
A bit harsh but mostly true. This is more like some sort of game/movie review, they are here only to criticize, which is better than nothing I would say, there are some good insights.
The German unification aka the evolution of "Sozialistische Einheitspartei" in the East towards "Demokratische Einheitspartei" for all
Great analysis, thank you! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?
Lots of vibes very little substance, not to mention data. The amount of cognitive bias, some sound bites that I've noticed and a little research into the guest himself and his sources leave me deeply disappointed and questioning prof. Moeller's judgement, impartiality and neutrality. I sincerely hope prof. Moeller is not getting caught up in an algorithmic drift. I feel the video should have been left unpublished
SAD
They're talking as hegelians. What sort of figures do you want anyway in the critique of how people believe in "democracy" as a form of civil religion?
@@Sputnikcosmonot "So much the worse for the facts!"
Oh, honest and self aware westerners? How refreshing
interesting that you generalize 'westerners'.
@generischgesichtslosgeneri3781 easy, every one of them that is not promoting globalisation.
@@cynicalist5869 correct.
Sounds like cultural chauvinism to me. Over generalisation and anti western bigotry
@@kennybrhouston wrong on two counts, third is meaningless.
YAY my nectar
Ever considered the idea that caucasian people continue to view morality as being like "divine commands"?
well since he's dismantling such notion as "democratism" it's pretty clear what kind of audience he's addressing.. pretty clueless people... but really would it be too much even for clueless people to say that, for example, if george w bush says he's "born again" it doesn't mean he's religious but means that he's trying to appeal to people who see religiousness as an advantage ... i don't think even pretty clueless people would have a problem with such assertion.. yet he just takes it as given that W was a devout christian or something .. and that's just one such naive point from numerous others within his discourse... so naive really that he himself comes out as clueless ...
and anyway .. even a relatively superficial marxist analysis of the subject reveals what the whole pretense of democracy is all about.. but i guess a marxist analysis would be too shocking a revelation for many people...
yeah but really... what's the problem with accepting that this exporting of democracy narrative is only being used to justify interventionalism ... and that probably very few of the people who promote it really believe in it, and really value democracy.. or think it's even something acceptable.. in view that a true democracy probably wouldn't leave a living millionaire about... knowing what people make the overwhelming majority.... if it's even supposed to really mean "majority rule"... go figure ...
Well: For the capitalist class, it is of the utmost importance not only to own the bodies of the workers. But, far more, the minds and hearts as well. - Ideology production is a key business branch.
@@Badbentham well ... i don't think this is the main motivation.. the desire to own the minds and hearts ... it stems from insecurities... often parents have the same attitude toward their children.. when the children show some independence parents often panic and react violently... so this is something common to all people brought up in the conditions of totally dominant logic of the market.. but of course.. can't deny that ideology production and reproduction is of utmost importance for the reproduction of the whole system and they know it...
Good thoughtful video
I agreed up to the reference to "Russia Gate Conspiracy". It will be difficult for me to take Chris Mott seriously after that. And, most importantly, very disappointed to hear Prof. Moeller give his 100% approval. But I will listen on.
Oh he did? I didn't notice it but yeah Russia definitely tried to influence that election. I imagine most governments nowadays attempt to do something like this to a degree just because it's rather easy to do with the internet.
I was also disappointed by the generic media illiteracy displayed by this guest. I think prof. Moeller is trying out more interview formats and therefore the quality of guest is, we might charitably say, commensurate with the size of this channel.
Russia is the catalyst for multipolarity which is hostile to movement and thus voting
But he's referring to the illegal laundering of ginned up "intelligence" to justify surveillance of Trump's campaign in 2016. It was all false and everyone knows it. The pathetic FB ads were not significant and we'd have to believe that Russia has also influenced the entire west (why not China, odd) to a populist shift. But that ignores how we had two preceding populist movements (Occupy and Tea Party).
Do you also believe in “Havana Syndrome” as well?
On point.
"crisis" is singular, "crises" is plural.
OK nice conversation but I don't feel you properly represented other powers attempt at influence.
This was such a great discussion!!
Eric Hoffer warned about the true believer during the Cold War. utopian aspirations, MAGA right and left, while maintenance and stewardship of what has been built deteriorates and crumbles
42:01 very true.
Damn what sort of anarchists Christopher interacted with. AnComs so tend to be… authoritative
From my Nietzschian perspective politics is bad for people’s mental health as it makes people focus on the ascetic ideal in result making them resentful for this reason I think we are better off getting rid of democracy. I am not advocating to bring back an older system but instead wanting to see something new. Though having an authoritarian government is not bad either as it would allow us to live the hero’s journey we always fantasise about in our media.
Dear Møller
You critique religion a lot. How do you understand religion in a complete context, pros and cons of religion. Can you imagine an a-religius society
Is Macao real China?
“Global Sweden”!🤣🤣🤣🤣
I wish you had been more concrete about accepting diversity in how societies are governed. That would mean that all refugee policies could/should be stopped and it would be required that all countries take responsibility of their citizens. No need to care of whatever is done to women or children or whoever outside your country. Isn't there anything wrong about placing the whole blame of instability on developed countries? I don't see democratic efforts to create stability in Africa, middle East etc in as cynical view as you do, as a missionary campaign to perpetuate dependency. If only someone would start discussing what is the responsibility of underdeveloped (I could'n't find a neutral term here) in their own fate so that people will stop fleeing from them. We should bring to the common diplomatic table the fact that whole populations can't move to another country without bringing with them the very same things they are escaping. It should be put to the table too that different countries receive very different kind of immigrant flows. Africa attracts some Chinese today, but China itself does not attract anybody. Islamist countries don't attract any women from outside. And how do you negotiate with islamists? At the table they may say nice things, but they will not give up their ultimate goal of converting the whole world into Islam.
this ignorance^ holy shit don't even know where to start
@@aerobiquehow about the mirror?
I’ve never seen someone wear headphones quite this stupidly.😂
Ideological Anti-statism is not self dtermination without a ruler, ἀν ἀρχόν.
Online it seems anyway the Anarchy symbol is just a very vague " for freedom" symbol often combined with hippie pacifist and identity virtue signaling
Speaking as someone on the other side,
When we hear people speak about democracy, there is always this "Our" preceding. Which clearly signals that we are not included.
Essentially, when they speak about Democracy, they speak about "Our system of Control".