"...outdated forms of government such as ... communism" - how is communism an outdated form of governance? It remains extant within the world for all to see, and compared to the outdated forms of governance in the West, it is thriving.
Seeing the latest overwraught political moment in the US regime as a struggle between Liberalism and Nationalism is I think slightly shortsighted, and betokens a predilection for fiction. In the political theatre of the US regime, one faction wears the colours of Liberalism, and the other faction wears the colours of Nationalism. Apart from this superficial difference, they are otherwise indistinguishable, save for the obvious differences around etiquette, privilege.
The US regime's current political moment says more about the US regime and it's attitude towards intelectual debate - they have provide two poles within which you must situate yourself, and nowhere else. The problem is that these poles are mere representations of ideas - and they are both located far away from any authentic revolutionary position - which is of course by design. Otherwise the Trump phenomenon would not be a phenomenon - do you honestly think those among us disaffected with the liberal world order would protest vote for the Trump if there were any real alternatives?
The problem with the West is that the Right has become the dominant political position, partly as a consequence of the misrepresentation of the Liberals as the Left (which has made the Right seem attractive as an opposing position to the accursed Liberals), and partly because the West is by nature conservative. And the problem with the Right is that they cannot admit of any possibility outside of that which they see as the acceptable range of values or positions. Anything that resides outside of their outdated (or conservative) experience is dismissed as irrelevant, or worse. This dominant Right perspective on (non) revolution and (no) change is the real source of the problem we are experiencing in the West. Until the Right loses it's position of primacy within the West, the people of the West will vacilate between slightly different expressions of the same authoritarianism.
Liberalism elevates the individual? I think you've lost the plot. No, liberalism elevates the fetish of capitalism and the pursuit of private profit above all else and MAGA personifies it!
I see liberalism - specifically neoliberalism - as rarefied capitalism (or better yet imperialism / colonialism) perfectly attenuated, perfectly crystalised, and also more importantly internalised.
All the familiar processes of (neo) liberalism are designed to fragment the collective and transform the individual into a perfect consumer while living in perfect isolation - i.e. the perfectly manageable and controllable state from the perspective of the authoritarian.
By breaking down impediments to consumption such as opinions and differences, it produces homogoneity which results in lower overheads with respect to production (one size fits all).
Neoliberalism - or the socioeconomic logic of late capitalism - is the projected nightmare of the Western oligarchic elites made flesh.
Both major parties are liberal. The Democrats believe they are free from the constraints of biology, history, reality, rationality, etc. The (Establishment) Republicans believe they are free to see their compatriots as cash cows to be mercilessly milked.
Steve Turley is a gushing fool to think that replacing the combined tyranny of bureaucrats and oligarchs with a tyranny of oligarchs alone as represented by Trump as frontman for the Heritage Foundation- is a good choice for *anyone* who is *not* an oligarch. There is a missing 'third force' in politics- workers and small-to-medium business owners are entirely unrepresented whatever Trump says to the contrary. The bureaucracy and oligarchy have conspired under neoliberalism to exclude this third force and the unfettered oligarchy of Trump's administration will do the same.
You write: "Liberalism represents an unusual and extraordinary development in human civilisation as it elevates the dignity and autonomy of the individual above the group."
Meanwhile, the greatest sage, and influencer, of liberalism wrote—in expressing his own belief:
"When the preservation of an individual is inconsistent with the safety of a multitude, nothing can be more just than that the many should be preferred to the one."
I've been criticizing modern liberalism for a long time. It has lead to what I call "hyperindividualism", where the individual is above everything. We see it for example when a man who thinks is a woman has more rights than a group of women. The feeling of the individual, the man in this case, is more important than the feeling of a group of 10 women in a dressing room. It can also explain the ruin of a traditional family. The individual, I, is more important than us, the relationship. More breakups, singles and why many men seek a wife overseas who still has traditional values. Individualism also destroyed the social cohesion in society. I don't like to deal with people anymore. It's almost impossible to start a relationship, or book a 2 week holiday with a friend, it's always me, me, me and they can't compromise. This is seen in society as polarization. You can extend to corporations, it's all about I, not the benefit of the workers, citizens or nation. You have a broken nation, a broken society, why don't people want to join the army anymore, why don't they want to fight for their nation anymore? It might be sad bad that people don't want children anymore as that would interrupt the I being. So many don't even want to make a sacrifice for children. The previous generation (babyboomers) lived a good life, they care for themselves and don't give a crap about the next generation who's worse of. You might not agree with it, that's fine, but I don't like what have become of society and I do blame it on liberalism. Every -ism in the extreem is toxic and destructive.
Oh and if you look at politicians it's the same individualism. Ursula sold the citizens out to the greens for her seat. Mark Rutten spend billions on Ukraine to get his NATO position. Again, why are all politicians so hated? They never cared about their citizens or nation, it was only for them.
I would like to add international politics too. As with Ukraine, you can't talk to the west. Their is only one view, and that's theirs. Never they try to listen and understand others, Russia's, position. Any sane person understands that Russia can never allow Ukraine to join NATO and have a hostile military right at his border. With Israel, Georgia, the west is drowning in it's own hypocrisy, yet they do not see it. Just as I said with talking or booking a vacation, you can't compromise with these people, only I counts. One talk I had was typical for current generation What I think is a fact (other person) so it becomes impossible to have a debate if the other person uses her own opinion as a fact and can't listen or compromise even when she's wrong and I have facts. One of their opinions is; Russia's unprovoked war. I do believe they believe that. It's really impossible and on a international level with nuclear weapons also dangerous. Just like they believe they're not part of the war even when sending and operating the weapons. For the love of God, we had German tanks on Russian soil. How is that not an act of war? But I (NATO) believes it's not, so it's not, period.
I’m a simple soul, so Trump has to prove what he says/ wants. He is up against big money, so… By the way, China seems to do great, despite it’s communistic embrace.
He is backed by big money. Big money always backs both sides to ensure the exclusion of 'no money'.
Unlike China, Communism 'in theory' entails a superlative degree of worker-democracy through a heirarchy of elected and recallable representative councils. Sure, no-one has achieved this, because the first thing a revolutionary government always has to do is to fight a foreign-backed counter-revolutionary war, which necessitates authoritarian structures that persist long after they cease to be useful for their intended purpose.
Liberalism represents an unusual and extraordinary development in human civilisation? Nothing Unsual and or Extraordinary about Liberalim been active since Sumeria an ancient civilization that flourished in the southern part of Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, between 4100–1750 BCE
There seems to be a lot of communists on this thread... seems worth mentioning that Alexander Dugin (sometimes known as Putin's brain) explicitly rejects communism because of it's foundation in modernity. See his book "the fourth political theory". Also it seems China is moving towards Confucianism and evidently deviating substantially from communism in it pure form if there is actually such a thing.
Why do you assume that the respondents on this thread should not be communists? And why would you assume they are, or should be, Duganists or Putinists?
I support Russia at this moment because they are in the right, and I am pro-justice for everyone, and unconditionally anti-imperialist and consequently anti-West. However that does not mean I am on team conservative.
While I would find myself largely opposed to President Putin politically speaking, I have boundless respect for him, and for his achievements post-Communism. I find him to be a brilliant leader and speaker. I see him as one of the two great statesmen of our time.
I feel the same way about the author - while our politics may diverge, I find his writings and videos to be thought provoking and worth the effort.
I have little time for what little of the philosophical writings of Alexander Dugan I am familiar with - I find his writings to be overly conservative and reactionary. But again, I find some of his thoughts and writings thought provoking, even if I find myself to be largely opposed to them.
My point is that political affiliation should not be assumed, and should not be imoportant. Debate and discussion is important. We can disagree politically - that is OK and should be expected - but we should not close ourselves off from opposing positions by virtue of their difference - otherwise we are no better than the Western elites.
And not everything bad about modernity is due to the Democrats. And not all of the problems relating to the US regime are due to the Democrats. I am old enough to remember the previous Republican administrations, and they were just as bad as the Democrat administrations - maybe even worse in some respects. The US regime is a non-partisan problem, and to reduce it to team-sportism is to accede to the demands of the empire.
As for China embracing confucianism - well, it was always described as socialism with Chinese characteristics - perhaps you ahve identified the Chinese characteristics.
Better look under your bed Mr. Lehmann. Reds are everywhere. BTW did you notice that I said "workers and small-to-medium business owners are unrepresented"?
I was never sure about the esteemed speaker Turley, so I am not listening….., but this sounds about right….
“Liberalism has the benefit of tempering some of the more ruthless aspects of nationalism, yet nationalism is the glue that keeps society together and must thus limit the excesses of individualism. Over the past decades, liberalism has begun to free itself from the nation-state and important social structures / hierarchies that ensure societal cohesion.
Liberalism has become the leading ideology and collective identity of the Political West, which has resulted in neglecting that the excesses of liberalism can produce profound social, economic, cultural and political problems. “
Where do you see individualism in the US and Europe? They are all the same sitting or walking with their mobile phone pointed in front of them. They are all uncritical vaccinated with a risk of heart disease, they are all uncritical supporting Ukraine and war, etc. No, they are not individualists in its main meaning that they are not different from each other in the main features, but programmed and controlled mass zombies.
You have a point, liberalism today demands compliance with woke ideology. Their individualism is expressed mostly in the gender theory, where you have 50+ genders and growing, where essentially you can make up your own gender and not be subject to a category.
"...outdated forms of government such as ... communism" - how is communism an outdated form of governance? It remains extant within the world for all to see, and compared to the outdated forms of governance in the West, it is thriving.
Seeing the latest overwraught political moment in the US regime as a struggle between Liberalism and Nationalism is I think slightly shortsighted, and betokens a predilection for fiction. In the political theatre of the US regime, one faction wears the colours of Liberalism, and the other faction wears the colours of Nationalism. Apart from this superficial difference, they are otherwise indistinguishable, save for the obvious differences around etiquette, privilege.
The US regime's current political moment says more about the US regime and it's attitude towards intelectual debate - they have provide two poles within which you must situate yourself, and nowhere else. The problem is that these poles are mere representations of ideas - and they are both located far away from any authentic revolutionary position - which is of course by design. Otherwise the Trump phenomenon would not be a phenomenon - do you honestly think those among us disaffected with the liberal world order would protest vote for the Trump if there were any real alternatives?
The problem with the West is that the Right has become the dominant political position, partly as a consequence of the misrepresentation of the Liberals as the Left (which has made the Right seem attractive as an opposing position to the accursed Liberals), and partly because the West is by nature conservative. And the problem with the Right is that they cannot admit of any possibility outside of that which they see as the acceptable range of values or positions. Anything that resides outside of their outdated (or conservative) experience is dismissed as irrelevant, or worse. This dominant Right perspective on (non) revolution and (no) change is the real source of the problem we are experiencing in the West. Until the Right loses it's position of primacy within the West, the people of the West will vacilate between slightly different expressions of the same authoritarianism.
Elucidating comment. Thanks.
You said the same as me in 4x as many words- but you probably said it 4x better!
Endorsed!
Liberalism elevates the individual? I think you've lost the plot. No, liberalism elevates the fetish of capitalism and the pursuit of private profit above all else and MAGA personifies it!
I see liberalism - specifically neoliberalism - as rarefied capitalism (or better yet imperialism / colonialism) perfectly attenuated, perfectly crystalised, and also more importantly internalised.
All the familiar processes of (neo) liberalism are designed to fragment the collective and transform the individual into a perfect consumer while living in perfect isolation - i.e. the perfectly manageable and controllable state from the perspective of the authoritarian.
By breaking down impediments to consumption such as opinions and differences, it produces homogoneity which results in lower overheads with respect to production (one size fits all).
Neoliberalism - or the socioeconomic logic of late capitalism - is the projected nightmare of the Western oligarchic elites made flesh.
Both major parties are liberal. The Democrats believe they are free from the constraints of biology, history, reality, rationality, etc. The (Establishment) Republicans believe they are free to see their compatriots as cash cows to be mercilessly milked.
Steve Turley is a gushing fool to think that replacing the combined tyranny of bureaucrats and oligarchs with a tyranny of oligarchs alone as represented by Trump as frontman for the Heritage Foundation- is a good choice for *anyone* who is *not* an oligarch. There is a missing 'third force' in politics- workers and small-to-medium business owners are entirely unrepresented whatever Trump says to the contrary. The bureaucracy and oligarchy have conspired under neoliberalism to exclude this third force and the unfettered oligarchy of Trump's administration will do the same.
Glenn,
You write: "Liberalism represents an unusual and extraordinary development in human civilisation as it elevates the dignity and autonomy of the individual above the group."
Meanwhile, the greatest sage, and influencer, of liberalism wrote—in expressing his own belief:
"When the preservation of an individual is inconsistent with the safety of a multitude, nothing can be more just than that the many should be preferred to the one."
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/smith-the-theory-of-moral-sentiments-and-on-the-origins-of-languages-stewart-ed
I look forward to the interview!
/Dan
I've been criticizing modern liberalism for a long time. It has lead to what I call "hyperindividualism", where the individual is above everything. We see it for example when a man who thinks is a woman has more rights than a group of women. The feeling of the individual, the man in this case, is more important than the feeling of a group of 10 women in a dressing room. It can also explain the ruin of a traditional family. The individual, I, is more important than us, the relationship. More breakups, singles and why many men seek a wife overseas who still has traditional values. Individualism also destroyed the social cohesion in society. I don't like to deal with people anymore. It's almost impossible to start a relationship, or book a 2 week holiday with a friend, it's always me, me, me and they can't compromise. This is seen in society as polarization. You can extend to corporations, it's all about I, not the benefit of the workers, citizens or nation. You have a broken nation, a broken society, why don't people want to join the army anymore, why don't they want to fight for their nation anymore? It might be sad bad that people don't want children anymore as that would interrupt the I being. So many don't even want to make a sacrifice for children. The previous generation (babyboomers) lived a good life, they care for themselves and don't give a crap about the next generation who's worse of. You might not agree with it, that's fine, but I don't like what have become of society and I do blame it on liberalism. Every -ism in the extreem is toxic and destructive.
Oh and if you look at politicians it's the same individualism. Ursula sold the citizens out to the greens for her seat. Mark Rutten spend billions on Ukraine to get his NATO position. Again, why are all politicians so hated? They never cared about their citizens or nation, it was only for them.
I would like to add international politics too. As with Ukraine, you can't talk to the west. Their is only one view, and that's theirs. Never they try to listen and understand others, Russia's, position. Any sane person understands that Russia can never allow Ukraine to join NATO and have a hostile military right at his border. With Israel, Georgia, the west is drowning in it's own hypocrisy, yet they do not see it. Just as I said with talking or booking a vacation, you can't compromise with these people, only I counts. One talk I had was typical for current generation What I think is a fact (other person) so it becomes impossible to have a debate if the other person uses her own opinion as a fact and can't listen or compromise even when she's wrong and I have facts. One of their opinions is; Russia's unprovoked war. I do believe they believe that. It's really impossible and on a international level with nuclear weapons also dangerous. Just like they believe they're not part of the war even when sending and operating the weapons. For the love of God, we had German tanks on Russian soil. How is that not an act of war? But I (NATO) believes it's not, so it's not, period.
I’m a simple soul, so Trump has to prove what he says/ wants. He is up against big money, so… By the way, China seems to do great, despite it’s communistic embrace.
He is backed by big money. Big money always backs both sides to ensure the exclusion of 'no money'.
Unlike China, Communism 'in theory' entails a superlative degree of worker-democracy through a heirarchy of elected and recallable representative councils. Sure, no-one has achieved this, because the first thing a revolutionary government always has to do is to fight a foreign-backed counter-revolutionary war, which necessitates authoritarian structures that persist long after they cease to be useful for their intended purpose.
"Big money always backs both sides to ensure the exclusion of 'no money'."
It's the political version of Henry Ford:
"You can have any color auto as long as it's black."
"the first thing a revolutionary government always has to do is to fight a foreign-backed counter-revolutionary war"
An important observation that is often overlooked.
Liberalism represents an unusual and extraordinary development in human civilisation? Nothing Unsual and or Extraordinary about Liberalim been active since Sumeria an ancient civilization that flourished in the southern part of Mesopotamia, which is now Iraq, between 4100–1750 BCE
There seems to be a lot of communists on this thread... seems worth mentioning that Alexander Dugin (sometimes known as Putin's brain) explicitly rejects communism because of it's foundation in modernity. See his book "the fourth political theory". Also it seems China is moving towards Confucianism and evidently deviating substantially from communism in it pure form if there is actually such a thing.
Why do you assume that the respondents on this thread should not be communists? And why would you assume they are, or should be, Duganists or Putinists?
I support Russia at this moment because they are in the right, and I am pro-justice for everyone, and unconditionally anti-imperialist and consequently anti-West. However that does not mean I am on team conservative.
While I would find myself largely opposed to President Putin politically speaking, I have boundless respect for him, and for his achievements post-Communism. I find him to be a brilliant leader and speaker. I see him as one of the two great statesmen of our time.
I feel the same way about the author - while our politics may diverge, I find his writings and videos to be thought provoking and worth the effort.
I have little time for what little of the philosophical writings of Alexander Dugan I am familiar with - I find his writings to be overly conservative and reactionary. But again, I find some of his thoughts and writings thought provoking, even if I find myself to be largely opposed to them.
My point is that political affiliation should not be assumed, and should not be imoportant. Debate and discussion is important. We can disagree politically - that is OK and should be expected - but we should not close ourselves off from opposing positions by virtue of their difference - otherwise we are no better than the Western elites.
And not everything bad about modernity is due to the Democrats. And not all of the problems relating to the US regime are due to the Democrats. I am old enough to remember the previous Republican administrations, and they were just as bad as the Democrat administrations - maybe even worse in some respects. The US regime is a non-partisan problem, and to reduce it to team-sportism is to accede to the demands of the empire.
As for China embracing confucianism - well, it was always described as socialism with Chinese characteristics - perhaps you ahve identified the Chinese characteristics.
Better look under your bed Mr. Lehmann. Reds are everywhere. BTW did you notice that I said "workers and small-to-medium business owners are unrepresented"?
I was never sure about the esteemed speaker Turley, so I am not listening….., but this sounds about right….
“Liberalism has the benefit of tempering some of the more ruthless aspects of nationalism, yet nationalism is the glue that keeps society together and must thus limit the excesses of individualism. Over the past decades, liberalism has begun to free itself from the nation-state and important social structures / hierarchies that ensure societal cohesion.
Liberalism has become the leading ideology and collective identity of the Political West, which has resulted in neglecting that the excesses of liberalism can produce profound social, economic, cultural and political problems. “
Where do you see individualism in the US and Europe? They are all the same sitting or walking with their mobile phone pointed in front of them. They are all uncritical vaccinated with a risk of heart disease, they are all uncritical supporting Ukraine and war, etc. No, they are not individualists in its main meaning that they are not different from each other in the main features, but programmed and controlled mass zombies.
You have a point, liberalism today demands compliance with woke ideology. Their individualism is expressed mostly in the gender theory, where you have 50+ genders and growing, where essentially you can make up your own gender and not be subject to a category.
Terrific article for discussion daring the talking points.
Clip of Trump on Nov 18 saying America’s hate isn’t what its people want.
Will it hold true???
Novel politics is upon us!