"Freedom" and "Democracy" always have to be spread through bombs, sanctions, and propaganda, because without "Freedom" and "Democracy," the people occasionally get what they want.
Is it? He says that liberalism promised a world of infinite tolerance but from the beginning the spread of liberalism has been through violent revolution and the destruction of other institutions. He also fails to realize that the systems that came before liberalism had the same structures that restricted absolutism. Nazi Germany was a lot more totalitarian than the US and even all the western European monarchies.
@Asman M1 could be. i usually want to read something first before giving my full opinion and judgements. but there is always something you can take away from every book even if you dont agree with everything
Oh wow! I've just been reading Schmitt in german for uni and had trouble understanding his concepts. Your video made it very interesting, entertaining and helpful. Thank you very much :)
It's really not. It's built on really bad analysis of history and how power is structured in a society. Also the idea that the goal of liberals is to be infinitely accepting just doesn't align with the history of liberalism. Liberalism came from a violent age of revolu6 where ancient institutions were destroyed.
There was little Democracy in the West before the WWI. Only UK, USA, Switzerland and France. Still, Germany, Spain, Rusia, Italy were not democracies and even the anglo democracies voting was very límited.
There's never been a TRUE democracy in the entire world, really. Any time the will of the people is in opposition of the will of the elites, the people always lose. See Proposition 8 in California, or Proposition 187, also in California. There are republics but I don't think there's any real democracy. There would have never been a first nor second world war had there been true democracy in Europe or America.
@@wyattwilbourne530 Many have. You have contemporaries like Oswald Spengler who foresaw the age of Caesarism to come when the Liberal order became too weak, corrupt and frail, it entails an apolitical leader with will to power that will rise up and take control. Putin would be someone you could argue fits this archetype. In the west we have had non so far, even though I think Trump pretended to be one for a while. Then you have the third position thinkers. They envisioned an authoritarian state ruled in the interest of the people which was united by a common identity, be it racial, religious or cultural. It's basically a synthesis of modern ideas like socialism and egalitarianism with traditional pre-enlightenment ideas. This was very popular in the late 20s up until the early 40s when it was clear that their revolt against the liberal order would be crushed. I still think this is the most promising way forward, but it's hard to further it since the elites governing the current system of liberalism knows this too, and they do everything they can to dissuade people from going in this direction.
An interesting piece of history: When WWII started, 1939, Gen. George Marhall boarded a navy ship and sailed to Brazil - though the US had not entered the war, he wanted to start preparations for when the time came. The President of Brazil at the time was Gen. Getúlio Vargas. Brazil was a monarchy until 1889 when the military and the economic elite decided it was time to start a republic. Most of the economic elite did it for themselves - just like part of the armed forces. There was, however, part of the armed forces who did out of principle and not in a self serving manner. The economic elite governed the country for nearly 40 years until, in 1930, after a rift appeared within the rulling economic elite, a lawyer and army officer was made president through political meneuvers involving governors and senators of states that had not held political power until then. The event is known as the "1930 Revolution" and the officer was Getúlio Vargas. Seven years later, Vargas would become a dictator through a military coup - and stay in power until 1945 when the blodiest dictatorship in Brazil's history, The New State, would end. Gen. Marshall was negotiating with a dictator - and from 1942 onwards, Frankling Hoosevelt would do the same. Roosevelt played an inportant role in Brazil's economic development by giving the country a steel works company and also by helping the Vargas regime to get private loans to create a national mining company. At the time, news pieces were published on the NYT attacking Roosevelt's relationship with the "fascist" Vargas. When Roosevelt died, Vargas was deposed. The republican period before the 1930s revolution wasn't democratic - it was a bad caricature of a democracy. Vote was not secret and the presidential election was meaningless. Also, there was no State infrastructure to support the Federal administration and decisions were based on hunches. Vargas, during his 15 years of authoritarianism, created all that infrastructure and, more importantly, created an electoral system that made Brazil trully democractic. I believe Roosevelt understood that democracies don't appear out of the blue and he understood who Vargas was and what he was aiming at. The Brazilian democracy came out of the most violent and repressive dictatorship in our history! Vargas would be elected president in 1950 but would face fierce opposition. That political situation got so intense that the possibility of a civil war became way too real. Vargas, once again, got his gun and solved the problem: he put a bullet in his heart and with that suicide he avoided a civil war. In the 1920s, on one of his first public speeches, Vargas said tha 'a nation that can't extract and transform its natural resources into weath will be forever underveloped and controlled by others'. Vargas gave a huge step towards making his dream true - and Franklin Roosevel had a fundamental role in it. The mining company is now called Vale and is the 6th largest in the world. The steelworks company, CSN, is also an important company worldwide. My goal is not to praise Vargas, the two companies or Brazil. My goal is to praise Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his un-dogmatic liberalism.
Amazing! I've been looking for something like this ever since PhilosophyTube brought up Schmitt in a video a few years back. VERY excited to listen to part 2 when I have time! It's really interesting how you've divided the picture into democracy, capitalism and liberalism. So far it seems like Schmitt's analysis is missing a lot of important aspects of the other two as they kind of integrate together with liberalism. It'll be exciting to see how you break down the others too. I'm looking at a lot of this through the power framework I picked up from The Dictators Handbook. THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!! 😁
@@happiness9752 of course he was correct, when he stated that politics is dynamic between friend and enemy and that liberals just live in denial of this fact
@Jesus él McNuggetCunt >ironically distngushes "you" people "who have made friend-enemy distinctions" as his enemy and "people who haven't" as his friend >Unwittingly makes a friend-enemy distinction himself. >You people. The absolute copium of a Liberal.
I am very late commenting, as this video was just recommended. But one thing I would say is. By removing a traditional sovereign dictator, liberal societies made themselves vulnerable to the worst possible dictators. In a hereditary monarchy, you have dictator who is born into the role and trained from birth. There is a chance they will be power-mad and turn into a tyrant (which is why many countries did have restrictions on power), but they probably won't be. If, on the other hand, power is handed to those who are motivated and ruthless enough to claw their way up. You will always end up with a tyrant (see every post-revolution dictator). Alternatively, you vote for a president or prime minister, and you constantly end up with self-serving narcisists.
@@SensitiveGooner88 Chad movmenter Follow "thamster", "keith woods" and the rest of the 3p/4p crowd for more based theory works that rejects kosher left-right dichotomy etc..
Not all antifascists are liberals. A lot of us are leftists of varying tendencies, some of which support ideals like the dictatorship of the proletariat.
And by fascist I mean actually fascist, definition fascist. Not the way you lot through it around. The rest are delinquents and brain washed teens and university students who lack all ability of thought
@@olliewargoat219 You don't understand what fascism is, but ok boomer... Antifascists are 100% opposed to palingenic ultranationalism, a vast majority are very strongly anti-paternalist, and almost all are pro-democracy and anti-authoritarian. Fascism, by definition, is anti-democratic and relies on strong masculine leadership to help nationalist zealots usher in a new "golden age" of national strength.
@@olliewargoat219 yes....anti facist.....are facists. btw since you obviously didn't study you can't be part of Antifa or be Antifa so you can't say Antifa is leftist . Antifa just means being against facism
okay dude. what will it take for you to upgrade your audio? i am no AV person so I don't know but I am willing to support you monetarily if you upgrade your sound situation on youtube. all your episodes are on quiet mode and some, like this one, are impossible to hear, unless I'm in a headphone situation which is not often for me. i'm a long time listener, zero $ supporter, but I love this podcast and wish for the audio situation to upgrade.
carl schmitt's views are reflected by his ignorance of liberal democracy, because he was born in the German Empire which became Weimar Republic then Nazi Germany then West and East Germany. Of course he would say that Liberalism doesn't work he lived in an unstable Germany that had shape shifted 3 times during his life times. It's only because of his experiences that he believed this. If he had been born in america he would have lived through a liberal democracy that would've outlasted him ergo no critiques on all of liberal democracy.
Enjoyed your last four episodes. Would it be unfair to start the Carl Schmitt episode with the opening sentence from his Wikipedia entry?, “... German jurist, political theorist, and prominent member of the Nazi Party.”
@@UnrepentantFenian Exactly, it's sort of like starting off Heidegger on technology by talking about how he had an affair with Hannah Arendt or whatever. (except that actually is immoral ; )
How Carl Schmitt was a Natzi. and how he thinks society to function should be homogeneous, Like Japan, Germany. How your adversary is your enemy. Carl Schmitt rationalize the jewish extermination attempt. Fun guy! (sarcasm).
LOL, So many seeing this critique as belonging on the politcal spectrum of American politics...just goes to show how badly educated Americans are and how they have been radicalized by algorithmic capitalism
Sorry, but there are so many miopic perspectives in your exposition that I had to stop: All your supposed standards, and generalisations, and lack of perceptiveness are quite outstanding. It would be fair to list them, but that would require listening to the whole of it. Just read a bit more and TRAVEL!!!
@@TheAlison1456 Read Schmitt directly. If you can in the German original. Then try to understand. If you or others don't, if you only try to make him fit your previous convictions, don't make videos "explaining" Schmitt.
This video constantly strawmans liberalism and glorifies a literal nazi. If you want to see how badly you’ve failed to critique schmitt’s ideas just look at the rest of these comments
I don't think he's really critiquing the views. I think he's trying to teach the views as accurately as he can. This should not offend you. I wish more people could do this. Unfortunately, it seems to be tremendously hard for modern journalists, prefessors, youtubers and politicians to do. I don't want people to chew my food for me, I can chew my own food. Likewise I don't want people to interpret political theory for me, I can "chew" my own political theory.
It's not a critique my dude. If you've listened to other episodes from Steven you would know that his goal is to present the ideas of the philosophers he is discussing as accurately as possible. It's up to you to make your own decisions given the information. Look up his episode on Ayn Rand, it's one of the most unbiased explanations of her objectivist philosophy that I've found on the internet, and that really is something special.
Something which isn’t explicitly a critique can still be biased. Most news programs for example claim to be simply presenting the facts but that doesn’t mean they don’t put their own spin on what happened to fit their broader political narrative.
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
I think i agree about his points, and this is liberalisms eternal problem when dealing with the different worldviews that are not liberal.
"Freedom" and "Democracy" always have to be spread through bombs, sanctions, and propaganda, because without "Freedom" and "Democracy," the people occasionally get what they want.
Is it? He says that liberalism promised a world of infinite tolerance but from the beginning the spread of liberalism has been through violent revolution and the destruction of other institutions. He also fails to realize that the systems that came before liberalism had the same structures that restricted absolutism. Nazi Germany was a lot more totalitarian than the US and even all the western European monarchies.
It is just a banker ideology that is why it makes sense. It's not based on any principle good. Just greed.
Bless you man I’ve learned more in 2 days of listening than most pods
I hope you get all the money and women
He's a philosopher! He knows there are better things than having money and women 🙌
@@ftrkngfspn Tell that to Sartre!
@@ftrkngfspn There will be always better things but sometimes you have to be humble and settle for mere money and women :D
Great pick to discuss. Schmitt is a fascinating figure, I ended up writing my Master's thesis on his work and its connections with critical theory.
@TheBmo4538 Kinda like how the right loves Deleuze, Foucalt and Derrida
@@wp6007 No one loves them.
@@louduva9849 I do
@@louduva9849 Im on the Right and i like Deleuze, why would you think no one loves them?
@Asman M1 could be. i usually want to read something first before giving my full opinion and judgements. but there is always something you can take away from every book even if you dont agree with everything
30 comments? "Popular Atheism Vs fundamental theism" videos get thousands of comments. This podcast is gold... Only 30 comments? This saddens me.
Just finished Jonathan Bowden - Credo; A Nietzschean Testament. This presentation seems so tame by comparison!
Watch out for milkshakes/Russian winters little guy
That's because Bowden was brilliant and bold.
Look at Danil cope because Schmitt is irrefutable.
@@GhGh-gq8oo I like Schmitt, I don’t like fascists
Bowden is awesome!
Oh wow! I've just been reading Schmitt in german for uni and had trouble understanding his concepts. Your video made it very interesting, entertaining and helpful. Thank you very much :)
This is a great critique of liberalism.
It's really not. It's built on really bad analysis of history and how power is structured in a society. Also the idea that the goal of liberals is to be infinitely accepting just doesn't align with the history of liberalism. Liberalism came from a violent age of revolu6 where ancient institutions were destroyed.
Take a shot everytime he says "Liberal Capitalist Democracy", you wont make it to part 2.
aka ZOG
There was little Democracy in the West before the WWI. Only UK, USA, Switzerland and France. Still, Germany, Spain, Rusia, Italy were not democracies and even the anglo democracies voting was very límited.
There's never been a TRUE democracy in the entire world, really. Any time the will of the people is in opposition of the will of the elites, the people always lose. See Proposition 8 in California, or Proposition 187, also in California. There are republics but I don't think there's any real democracy. There would have never been a first nor second world war had there been true democracy in Europe or America.
Best podcast out there
Schmitt is the first truly post-liberal thinker
But has he been the last so far? Who else truly forsee a post-liberal age?
@@wyattwilbourne530 Many have.
You have contemporaries like Oswald Spengler who foresaw the age of Caesarism to come when the Liberal order became too weak, corrupt and frail, it entails an apolitical leader with will to power that will rise up and take control. Putin would be someone you could argue fits this archetype. In the west we have had non so far, even though I think Trump pretended to be one for a while.
Then you have the third position thinkers. They envisioned an authoritarian state ruled in the interest of the people which was united by a common identity, be it racial, religious or cultural. It's basically a synthesis of modern ideas like socialism and egalitarianism with traditional pre-enlightenment ideas. This was very popular in the late 20s up until the early 40s when it was clear that their revolt against the liberal order would be crushed. I still think this is the most promising way forward, but it's hard to further it since the elites governing the current system of liberalism knows this too, and they do everything they can to dissuade people from going in this direction.
Saving my entire degree, great work thank you so much!
An interesting piece of history: When WWII started, 1939, Gen. George Marhall boarded a navy ship and sailed to Brazil - though the US had not entered the war, he wanted to start preparations for when the time came. The President of Brazil at the time was Gen. Getúlio Vargas.
Brazil was a monarchy until 1889 when the military and the economic elite decided it was time to start a republic. Most of the economic elite did it for themselves - just like part of the armed forces. There was, however, part of the armed forces who did out of principle and not in a self serving manner. The economic elite governed the country for nearly 40 years until, in 1930, after a rift appeared within the rulling economic elite, a lawyer and army officer was made president through political meneuvers involving governors and senators of states that had not held political power until then. The event is known as the "1930 Revolution" and the officer was Getúlio Vargas. Seven years later, Vargas would become a dictator through a military coup - and stay in power until 1945 when the blodiest dictatorship in Brazil's history, The New State, would end.
Gen. Marshall was negotiating with a dictator - and from 1942 onwards, Frankling Hoosevelt would do the same. Roosevelt played an inportant role in Brazil's economic development by giving the country a steel works company and also by helping the Vargas regime to get private loans to create a national mining company. At the time, news pieces were published on the NYT attacking Roosevelt's relationship with the "fascist" Vargas. When Roosevelt died, Vargas was deposed.
The republican period before the 1930s revolution wasn't democratic - it was a bad caricature of a democracy. Vote was not secret and the presidential election was meaningless. Also, there was no State infrastructure to support the Federal administration and decisions were based on hunches. Vargas, during his 15 years of authoritarianism, created all that infrastructure and, more importantly, created an electoral system that made Brazil trully democractic. I believe Roosevelt understood that democracies don't appear out of the blue and he understood who Vargas was and what he was aiming at. The Brazilian democracy came out of the most violent and repressive dictatorship in our history!
Vargas would be elected president in 1950 but would face fierce opposition. That political situation got so intense that the possibility of a civil war became way too real. Vargas, once again, got his gun and solved the problem: he put a bullet in his heart and with that suicide he avoided a civil war.
In the 1920s, on one of his first public speeches, Vargas said tha 'a nation that can't extract and transform its natural resources into weath will be forever underveloped and controlled by others'. Vargas gave a huge step towards making his dream true - and Franklin Roosevel had a fundamental role in it. The mining company is now called Vale and is the 6th largest in the world. The steelworks company, CSN, is also an important company worldwide.
My goal is not to praise Vargas, the two companies or Brazil. My goal is to praise Franklin Delano Roosevelt and his un-dogmatic liberalism.
Amazing! I've been looking for something like this ever since PhilosophyTube brought up Schmitt in a video a few years back. VERY excited to listen to part 2 when I have time!
It's really interesting how you've divided the picture into democracy, capitalism and liberalism. So far it seems like Schmitt's analysis is missing a lot of important aspects of the other two as they kind of integrate together with liberalism. It'll be exciting to see how you break down the others too.
I'm looking at a lot of this through the power framework I picked up from The Dictators Handbook.
THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU!!!
😁
@Accelerationist ?
He was right.
Right as in on the Political Spectrum but not correct
@@happiness9752 of course he was correct, when he stated that politics is dynamic between friend and enemy and that liberals just live in denial of this fact
Look at the liberal cope HAHAHA
@Jesus él McNuggetCunt
>ironically distngushes "you" people "who have made friend-enemy distinctions" as his enemy and "people who haven't" as his friend
>Unwittingly makes a friend-enemy distinction himself.
>You people.
The absolute copium of a Liberal.
Sadly yes. Schmitt realized the harsh ancient realities of the truth of politics.
Based
14:35 The non-aggression principle. A transcendental, metaphysical, rarified abstraction.
Here after Covid.
I am very late commenting, as this video was just recommended. But one thing I would say is. By removing a traditional sovereign dictator, liberal societies made themselves vulnerable to the worst possible dictators.
In a hereditary monarchy, you have dictator who is born into the role and trained from birth. There is a chance they will be power-mad and turn into a tyrant (which is why many countries did have restrictions on power), but they probably won't be. If, on the other hand, power is handed to those who are motivated and ruthless enough to claw their way up. You will always end up with a tyrant (see every post-revolution dictator). Alternatively, you vote for a president or prime minister, and you constantly end up with self-serving narcisists.
Came here from Attack on Titan
What connects this and attack on titan?
@@kinggeldon fascism o/
@@SensitiveGooner88 Chad movmenter
Follow "thamster", "keith woods" and the rest of the 3p/4p crowd for more based theory works that rejects kosher left-right dichotomy etc..
@@divvsivlivs5406 insecurity and pseudoscience isn’t based, bootlicker. Touch grass. Get laid. Your life will improve tremendously.
Phew 😅 Geeeeeeeeeesus I was worried about you bro. I have been jonesing so bad for a episode. Thank you for stepping back out for us.
Yeah "jonesing" is over, thankfully
Excellent as always
17:21 made me think of Anitfa
Not all antifascists are liberals. A lot of us are leftists of varying tendencies, some of which support ideals like the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yeah, the majority of you are fascists.
And by fascist I mean actually fascist, definition fascist. Not the way you lot through it around. The rest are delinquents and brain washed teens and university students who lack all ability of thought
@@olliewargoat219 You don't understand what fascism is, but ok boomer... Antifascists are 100% opposed to palingenic ultranationalism, a vast majority are very strongly anti-paternalist, and almost all are pro-democracy and anti-authoritarian. Fascism, by definition, is anti-democratic and relies on strong masculine leadership to help nationalist zealots usher in a new "golden age" of national strength.
@@olliewargoat219 yes....anti facist.....are facists.
btw since you obviously didn't study you can't be part of Antifa or be Antifa so you can't say Antifa is leftist . Antifa just means being against facism
Schmitt was right
Thanks Stephen!
Thank you so much for this!
Anyone know where I can find the missing 60 episodes?
Rational debate cant convince every extremist, but you can use rational debate to convince non extremists to not follow the extremist
Thank you!
this had any volume i'd listen gladly.
The volume is fine
Beautiful ❣️
okay dude. what will it take for you to upgrade your audio? i am no AV person so I don't know but I am willing to support you monetarily if you upgrade your sound situation on youtube. all your episodes are on quiet mode and some, like this one, are impossible to hear, unless I'm in a headphone situation which is not often for me. i'm a long time listener, zero $ supporter, but I love this podcast and wish for the audio situation to upgrade.
Sounds like Zizek’s critique of multicultural liberal intolerance
carl schmitt's views are reflected by his ignorance of liberal democracy, because he was born in the German Empire which became Weimar Republic then Nazi Germany then West and East Germany. Of course he would say that Liberalism doesn't work he lived in an unstable Germany that had shape shifted 3 times during his life times. It's only because of his experiences that he believed this. If he had been born in america he would have lived through a liberal democracy that would've outlasted him ergo no critiques on all of liberal democracy.
Enjoyed your last four episodes. Would it be unfair to start the Carl Schmitt episode with the opening sentence from his Wikipedia entry?, “... German jurist, political theorist, and prominent member of the Nazi Party.”
Considering the demonisation of the national socialists it would just poison the well for Schmitts ideas and concepts
@@UnrepentantFenian Exactly, it's sort of like starting off Heidegger on technology by talking about how he had an affair with Hannah Arendt or whatever. (except that actually is immoral ; )
That's exactly the point Krieg, nice catch
Big deal who cares
How Carl Schmitt was a Natzi. and how he thinks society to function should be homogeneous, Like Japan, Germany. How your adversary is your enemy. Carl Schmitt rationalize the jewish extermination attempt. Fun guy! (sarcasm).
LOL, So many seeing this critique as belonging on the politcal spectrum of American politics...just goes to show how badly educated Americans are and how they have been radicalized by algorithmic capitalism
It's like he saw Trump ans MAGA in a crystal ball
Sorry, but there are so many miopic perspectives in your exposition that I had to stop: All your supposed standards, and generalisations, and lack of perceptiveness are quite outstanding.
It would be fair to list them, but that would require listening to the whole of it. Just read a bit more and TRAVEL!!!
Just what? hahaha
'Read a book bigot'
>leftist argument 2016
@@RS-rl6fh "Leftist"? Agora tu és adivinho tambem?
If you didn't bother to listen to it all, that means your comment is in of itself myopic and generalizing.
I hope it was an attempt at an ironic joke.
@@TheAlison1456 Read Schmitt directly. If you can in the German original. Then try to understand. If you or others don't, if you only try to make him fit your previous convictions, don't make videos "explaining" Schmitt.
This video constantly strawmans liberalism and glorifies a literal nazi. If you want to see how badly you’ve failed to critique schmitt’s ideas just look at the rest of these comments
I don't think he's really critiquing the views. I think he's trying to teach the views as accurately as he can. This should not offend you. I wish more people could do this. Unfortunately, it seems to be tremendously hard for modern journalists, prefessors, youtubers and politicians to do.
I don't want people to chew my food for me, I can chew my own food. Likewise I don't want people to interpret political theory for me, I can "chew" my own political theory.
It's not a critique my dude. If you've listened to other episodes from Steven you would know that his goal is to present the ideas of the philosophers he is discussing as accurately as possible. It's up to you to make your own decisions given the information. Look up his episode on Ayn Rand, it's one of the most unbiased explanations of her objectivist philosophy that I've found on the internet, and that really is something special.
Something which isn’t explicitly a critique can still be biased. Most news programs for example claim to be simply presenting the facts but that doesn’t mean they don’t put their own spin on what happened to fit their broader political narrative.
rosa x give an example of straw man.dont just spout nonsense
De doos not strawman liberalism