Philosopher spells out how populists defeated liberal democracy | John Gray interview
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 10. 2023
- Political philosopher John Gray came by JOE Towers to discuss his new book The New Leviathans: Thoughts After Liberalism.
In this discussion we delve into the failings of liberal democracy, how liberalism birthed a rise in populism in the West, and what a Keir Starmer premiership will look like off the back of a decade of Conservative rule.
Subscribe to our new podcast now, or you're a silly goose:
linktr.ee/pubcast
A brilliant analysis of the snakes & ladders of political economy past & present that deserves millions of viewers. 🤔
Interesting points, some of which I agree with and some I don't. What I do disagree with is the root of populism. In my view it's not fundamentally ideological, it is merely a symptom of something wider. Ideological populism is something that's emerged on both left and right as a consequence of the failure of the neoliberal economic consensus to deliver improving (or even stable) living standards for the majority. Widespread public discontent provides a a political opportunity for demagogues, and in such periods they inevitably emerge from the fringes. When we look at history, there are a great many examples where sustained economic dislocation was the catalyst for reactionary political periods.
Essentially it's a manifestation of government failure to deliver economic stability for the many, resulting in blame games and radicalization of the electorate. It's a phenomena that the Chinese government understands all too well, hence their relentless focus on growing the economy to becalm the populous. It's therefore unlikely in my view that western populism will subside, until a new economic consensus, that demonstrably benefits the majority, becomes firmly established. And this will be very difficult to deliver when various tyrants are deliberately stoking global economic upsets e.g. in the energy markets.
I do not think "cancel culture" actually exists. Social norms have always existed and I don't feel they are more strict now than before.
I think the major change is the pacification of socialists after the fall of the USSR and the reforms in China. Many socialists no longer feel they can blame capitalists directly or speak to people's anger which gives fascists a monopoly on that. I think a big reason why Bernie Sanders has been so successful is because he rejected that notion and his book that he's promoting about rejecting the notion that anger is bad.
There is no radical left. That collapsed in the 1990's and it's not really found it's footing and many still live in the past before the fall of the USSR. Like I said Bernie Sanders is a very notable exception and I think something leftists around the world should learn from.
various tyrants stoking global economic upsets in the energy markets... you mean like the authoritarian governments in the west, for instance germany who bans russian gas as well as their own nuclear power to see their populaces electricity costs go up tenfold?
@@MrMarinus18 "I do not think "cancel culture" actually exists. Social norms have always existed and I don't feel they are more strict now than before."
did people usually get 22 years for isnurrection despite not even being near the capitol that day or even had ANY evidence against them for any kidn of plot?
did people usually get a year in prison over memes on twitter, when a person on the left who did the IDENTICAL meme in reverse, nobody even batted an eye over?
@@wasdwasdedsf
The first one is yes, American communists have been jailed on false insurrection charges for a long time.
The evidence was very strong and the US justice system has been bogus for a long time. Blacks and socialists have experienced this for a very long time. January 6th is unusual cause it's a time the police state was turned against the people it usually serves.
So what you describe does happen. The aftermath of January 6 was not unusually harsh, just unusual who it targeted.
And I have no idea who you are referring to here. Though considering that corporations are naturally inclined to be right wing and the vast, vast majority of terror attacks are by right wing people I'm going to assume you're thinking of a false equivelance.
You have protected people in the US and making death threats against those is punished harsher than making death threats to people without that protected status.
A fascinating interview. Thanks for this Joe and John.
Love these longer deep dives into topics. Something really missed for the standard news. Thanks.
I absolutely agree.
Probably because this doesn't qualify as news. Do you know what else the news misses?... Creative writing lessons.
Grim, but riveting interview. Thank you for this accessible interview - Well done!
"The axiom, fear; the method, logic; the conclusion, despotism." - H. Trevor-Roper
Isiah Berlim said on his last interview that to impose Liberal Democracy upon others is an Ileberal action.
That's never going to end well
Great interview. As a non Briton even as a non Westerner I learned a lot about those perspectives. The past decades of easy times of 1990'ies or even before that neo liberal experimentation that became a sopcio/economic/political religion for elites in west and became a trend (like Ancien Regime before French Revolution) is the source of our current troubles and maybe would be doom us , inevitibbility of history due to decisions taken long before we had a say about them.
There isn't a backlash to neo liberalism though. It's pretty much standard. The backlash is to progressive social ideas they don't understand.
Don't confuse ECONOMIC liberalism and POLITICAL liberalism. They are almost the OPPOSITE of each other.
They go hand in hand in a negative way when it tips the point that those who wish to be so liberal that they care nothing for others, will then weaponise and/or manufacture falsehoods within society. In this way they get the 'herd' to look the wrong way, enabling them to grab total power and total resources with impunity in the eyes of the herd (who are now blaming every underdog going).
I am still waiting for a Bonaparte after all this? Who is it going to be Trump, Geert, Victor Orban, a new Putin, president Xi? I do not see none coming from the UK, because the British have proved the true bankruptcy of the Western Intellect and neo liberal ideal.
@@darktagmaster1861 Could it be both? Lots of people people don't know the word "neoliberalism", but they do know that they are being screwed over.
Ollie is absolutely right to let him talk, just as Aaron was. He has a fascinating mind but we don't have to agree with it all.
What is exactly so brilliant then about what he said?
What do you disagree with?
He does understand the reasons that lead to populism.
@@aristocraticrebelHe's wrong about putin and Russia. For that, listen to Scott Ritter, John Mearsheimer, Douglas MacGregor and Jeffrey Sachs.
Gray needs a heavy weight to interview him. Bastani did a good job.
Foundation of Eurocentric thought, everything it seems needs a label . IMHO the entire world going ' right'? You have approximately 20-30 percent of people in your midst who miss the good old days ... for the last three decades they have been organising behind the scenes ... this is their decade. 😮 However they know the arc of the universe bends towards fairness 😊 . ...hate cannot be sustained .
Ziszek, Gray - kudos for interviewing such legends.
What a brilliant interview. A fascinating traverse through economic and political history and thoughts for the future. I need to listen again and reflect on what the implications are for us.
A wonderful 'fireside' chat. Thank you to both. As a Canadian it is interesting to have a seat and see the discussion occuring, referencing Canada's two best friends. Our next election will ljkely see a transition from hyper-liberalism to populism. And for me, it is because of what occurred early on in this discussion - conflict. Our current government does not like conflict but have been so adverse to stamping any conflict out, that those with opposing views on a topic are feeling bullied and are seeking their new saviour. I believe conflict should be embraced in order to get through the tough decisions. Going to be a rough ride.
Always great to hear and learn from you Prof John
Great to hear gray mention mimetic theory, although briefly
It's rare you hear people with such refined sketicism of the human animal... It gives his views wisdom... On top of this, his ability to communicate these insights with some semblance of clarity fills me with gratitude.
We need more quality conversations like this ...
Excellent. Thank you
40:15 That is an excellent point! Bernie Sanders and the late Prof. Stephen Cohen also agree.
Thank you, interesting, well measured and balanced talk. definitely not the type of opinion one hears often on TV
That was very interesting to listen too 👍
I am not a philosopher , nor a political student . What I am is an average English senior citizen. But I can only agree to a small amount of whats being said. .
Since WW2 the sole American Foreign policy has focused upon regime change . Unless nations copy the American political structure , its worthless . Europe 1947/8 they brought in the Marshall Plan , its aim was to stop the spread of communism across Europe , mainly France , Italy and Germany . NATO was a natural offspring .
China , American supported Chiang Kai-Shek , its recorded that Roosevelt wanted him to control French Indo China post war.
Greece America meddled in their civil war 1947-1950 . Supplying vast amount of military and economic aid to the national government.
Iran , after putting the Shah into power , they hatched to dispose of him . Outcome Khamenei became president in 1981.
Latin America from Cuba to Chile . The American government has overthrown legitimately elected leaders , because they have been bad for American business . It would be easier to name those countries that the USA hasn't used the CIA to influence coup d'etat's . Unofficial name . the Banana Wars.
My list of South American Countries that the USA has NOT been subvertly involved with.
Yes, I think you're right. Somoza , Pinochet, Marcos, it's a long list... ...and many who are incumbent as I write this who are propped up by the Yankee dollar.
But don't forget that in every one of the places you list there were matching communist insurgencies - People's Liberation Army of fill-in-the-blank - all over the globe. (You forgot to mention Africa?)
[We still have the PKP in Turkey, something of a living fossil.]
So whilst I am no great fan of American global capitalism and it's tawdry culture (I know it well, having lived in the USA for 20 years, until GW Bush did it for me) I'd rather put up with it than be ruled by the demagogues, dictators or despots on offer elsewhere.
But it's not an easy choice.
You are absolutely right. I feel like John Gray glosses over the overt and extremely aggressive foreign meddling of the US in this interview.
Every single country on the planet enganges in these same practices. The US is not some great puppet master, many many other actors from local regional powers to superpowers also act to project their power as well. The question you want to ask is do you want these other powers to push their view as well. The Iraq invasion was a terrible thing, but America was not the only power invovled. Turkey and Iran both funded proxies and committed jsut as heinous war crimes to ensure Iraq would never be a stable democracy. Russia collapsed into facism nealry a decade ago and no one but the eastern european countries noticed untill 2022. And russia has a very specific imperialist ambition for the globe. AMerica is not uniquely evil, if anythin ti defends a world order which is the only pollitical system that allows criticism of itself. This world view you espouse is an argument called appeasement, and it never worked. Look at pictures of Nevill Chaimberlain waving a paper napkin and you can decide for yourself how we can choose to engage with authoritarian governments.
@@anguscampbell3020 The Marshall Plan , no such thing , he was designated to augment it . Truman Plan , his idea but the nuts and bolts were the work of the Think Tank at the Council of Foreign Relations , they actually wrote Marshall's addressing speech. Do you know who are the CFR . Its like the Freemasons only a hundred times more powerful. The truth about that club was removed from utube years ago.
Angus, you really need to brush up on your US history. They have been, since their inception, the single most militarily aggressive and have taken every single opportunity to kill off any sort of left wing government to so much as consider denying them unlimited access to their land and resources. They are a nation based entirely on war, espionage, and resource extraction.
I wonder how things might have been different if the DNC in the US hadn't torpedoed Bernie in the 2016 Democratic primary. Bernie spoke to a lot of the same angst at the status quo that Trump did, but with a less destructive path to resolution. Could we have seen sufficient reversal of neoliberal policies and a return to the sorts of economic stewardship of the 50s and 60s to have prevented (or at least reduced the impact of) the various demagogues rising to power now.
corbyn in uk too, the media paint the pictures they want to
@@PazLeBon And of course the mainstream media are owned by the neoliberals!
So its populism, not corporate lobbyists and campaign donations that is ending our pretense at democracy.
You appear to misunderstand .. he defines such forces as causing populism, tho he does not mention them specifically ..
Thought so too. It's good they put it into the trailer: Useless drivel ahead.
@@chrisfreebairn870 The headline must be misleading then. Specifically says populists defeated liberal democracy. In fact it has been too many elites with too much wealth and power that has defeated liberal democracy.
@@chrisfreebairn870 Could it be that "liberal democracy" is code for "capitalism?"
here Gray seems to be talking to liberals about why their politics failed abroad and domestically. Lobbying and campaign donations always existed, I would see them as necessary conditions for sustaining the appearance of liberal democracy rather than ending it: what's threatening the old regime is their revelation to the public, which the social media helped to make a near common-sense especially among the younger generations. to me Gray seems clear-headed enough, you might find his interview with Novara more interesting
John Gray should know that in addition to the causes of populism that he mentions, I.e. globalization, wage stagnation and housing shortage/exploitation with a potent dash of property tax, the populists are reacting to immigration. Brexit was basically a reaction to immigration, the FN and the AfD are protesting immigration. In the US where legal immigrants total well over 1M year in year out via a corporate recruiting and vetting process show up in the US as upper middle class and wealthy, whereas the corporations also pull in illegal immigrants for their low wage and subcontracting work. Where are the immigrants coming from? From nations with autocratic governments or weak states that coerce people to take flight, from war torn nations like Iraq, Afghanistan and especially Syria, several African nations and Latin/South American countries to the tune of 10’s of millions a year. In general, a South to North shift of population affected by global warming as well. Populism is a reaction to this demographic shift which is being accommodated by government policies and has fueled a frenzy of gun ownership.
In the late 1800s one THIRD of the population in the U.S. were foreign born immigrants - it's just that they were Western European immigrants and thus privy to Platonic "sovereignty" colonial development scams as "civilization."
Who do you think put the autocrats in charge of those nations? Who funded their political campaigns? Who sold them their weapons? Who trained their soldiers? You wrote such a spiel about immigrants when you literally don't realise the US and UK installed and supported the leaders who started the wars those immigrants are fleeing. You, sir, are ignorant.
@@mikesanders8621 You are trying to say that the US started the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine, the civil war in Syria, Gaza, etc., which they did not, instead, the US intervened because these nations either supported terror or were allies requesting support.
The larger context is that the US accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world. So take your ad hominem style somewhere else!
@@fredwelf8650 you've bought into the propaganda well.
@@mikesanders8621 No, you have. You fail to examine the quantity of terrorism, homicide and criminal activity in each nation. Then, you call it propaganda! You are the propaganda.
Really enjoyable and insightful discussion from the angle of having revalued some of Thomas Hobbes's core ideas. Very few Westerners can or want to understand Hobbes's concept of conflict as part and parcel of the human condition.
Your phrasing definitely has a bit of a superior tone to it, doesn't it? Hobbes's ideas are complex, sure, but they're not beyond the grasp of anyone who takes the time to study and think about them. Frankly, you sound xenophobic.
@@isaiahrowley9830 Are you now talking up to me? Must be my fault for making you feel non-superior. So I'll end with saying "just joking and I hope you feel much better".
Hobbes and Rousseau end at the same point. David Graeber abd David Wengrow in their book Dawn of Everything a New History of Humanity go beyond that debate of are we born sick or made ill. Always learning
Its true. Yet, it is easy to find dictatorships these days, in which people are fairly happy and they do choose what they have over anarchy.
It's helpful to read the accounts of the British Civil War by eyewitnesses to understand the horrors and bloodshed of social chaos and political anarchy. Locke offered a humane state of nature as a thought experiment on the necessary givens, a preternatural moral foundation for civil order and society. Hobbes gives us the bloody realities of continuous warring among British Religious Sects and aligned political powers. Best if we pay attention to those whose prime motivation is the punishment and incarceration of political opponents. That declaration of a war of retribution is a call for war against any and every civil order - anarchy by any other name. Hobbes lived it. Not a theoretical construct. But in an existential reality - we are playing with fire. It's a grim reality but no less real because of its grimness.
Completely agree, we have an absence of political thinking and ideas. Good podcast.
The opposite is the case
We have far to many ideas and most of them don’t work
Thanks for some grand overview theorising, this was fascinating, very real and all rather depressing.
Thank you for letting John talk. It is very frustrating to hear an interviewer constantly interrupting a guest. Very interesting.
Some years ago, I read John Gray’s book “Straw Dogs - Thoughts on Humans and other animals”. It changed my life.
His new book that he’s talking about here is excellent.
In what way? Can you be more specific?
That book changed my life, too.
Same here. It was almost depressing at first, as so many illusions I relied on were wiped away. Then I came back to it again and again and it became like a balm
I read it earlier this year and I haven’t stopped thinking about it. It will be remembered
@@qeitkas594read it mate, that sort of revelation cannot be distilled
Where is the Russian barbarism? I started listening but after hearing his exposition on Russia,I ceased.He should talk about western barbarism with the invasion of: Serbia,Iraq,Syria,Afghanistan,Libya,Vietnam and Panama. He disappoints as a former lecturer of history.
Everywhere. To begin with they caused the world wars by fabricating the protocol of the elders which in turn caused zionism.
Interesting conversation, on some of the broad comments i was in agreement on others i was in hard disagreement but clearly an important and reasonable thinker, on corbyn he was off the mark and with russia ukraine he was off the mark on some matters pertaining to that issue he were correct on others his framing was off, regardless Interesting and worthwhile discussion
The irony of Hobbes sweeping away the classical writers 'for treating words as realities instead of constructs', is that today the ideologues treat their won words seriously as realities [or constructing reality if not representing it]. I think the classical writers were right, in not treating language so literally, but making use of symbolic and figurative language in order to frame our sense of reality. Art not 'science'.
the process of the flowing of human history that mr. gray grasps to pinpoint can't be really 'pinpointed' perhaps because he cognizes said history as an endlessly fixed-but-moving 'flow' --- much in the manner of Heraclitus's fixed but always flowing stream....apparently also subject to parallel sub process of Enantiodromia.....
FWIW: I see Mr. Gray as a far deeper meta thinker than many of his seeming critics, iike Mr. Fukuyama......
Check out Rortys work
@@DigitalGnosis Sure, but he is not helpful, for he's on this side of that post modern divide.
Gray has swallowed some of the anti-Russian agitprop. He needs to catch up with Geoffrey Roberts, John Mearsheimer, the late Stephen Cohen, Jack Matlock (and I'm not naming less exalted but insightful people Gray may have no tome for)
I agree with him falling for the anti Russian propaganda, but I would expect that he is familiar with Mearsheimers views. No respectable academic can ignore Mearsheimer. IF Gray doesn't mention him, it is deliberate. Apart from this blindspot, I think he is brilliant
This is the same Mearsheimer who is close to Orban and members of the AfD in Germany? I'd suggest you need to understand Russian imperialism and pay attention to Putin saying Lenin invented Ukraine, while Medvedev says he wants Ukraine in the Russian federation.
If you ignore a majority population on the issues of mass immigration and selling off national assets for 40+ years you can’t complain when people become disenchanted with the mainstream
Do you think Great Britain should send people back where they came from along with the wealth we stole from them? I do, but it would break this country, because we're such a bunch of useless bootlickers we squandered all that wealth we created from empire and slavery by letting the landlords take it all.
Bingo
Who do the two different 'you's in this sentence refer to?
They can get over immigration and suck it up. As for privatisation, the public voted for it when they elected Thatcher, Reagan, etc
@@hovefactually7505 Those liberal metropolitan types who complain about western populations turning to anti-immigration and pro-nationalisation movements. i.e. UKIP & Corbyn
Brilliant man! But something I would have liked to have asked him is "Is the purveying and believing of outright lies more prevalent now, what is its effect and what can be done about it?"
What lies?
Like covid being deadly?
The biggest liar by far, is the state.
They are attacking individual citizens for speaking the truth because it hurts their precious narratives that don’t survive a week of open sunlight.
Helpful, refreshing views.
Always fascinating to listen to the resurrections of Norman Angell. War cannot happen because of economic relationships, and because it would be a complete disaster.
Very intersting. I'd love to see a discussion between gray and john meatsheimer.
A cursory listening to the Hobbs-ian thought made me think that he (or John Gray or either) is a secret "student" of the most famous philosopher from India: Adi Sankara!
“Fled to Europe”? You’d think an intelligent man like this would get it right that Britain is in fact part of Europe, but nope.
Liberal democracy wanted to assume it did not have to address the hostage crisis of capitalism.
The state of quiescence that existed in Colonial Southern Africa has collapsed into a state of ‘Capitalistic Anarchy’ since the fall of the Colonials.
I say ‘Capitalistic’ because the new leaders have generally dedicated themselves to the accumulation of capital to themselves.
As per Russia, which is why Putin was a winner - the strong man controlling those predatory capitalistic forces; unfortunately it's just a bigger con, but society is more stable at least.
How did Put. control 'predatory capitalistic forces@ when we have scores of russian billionaires splashing their cash in western Europe when most russians don't even have a flush toilet?@@chrisfreebairn870
I've read the leading Anarchist thinkers. Not one advocates for chaos. If they do, then a direct quote would refute that claim. Anarchism is the only political theory that places Power or Authority as a central theme in its thinking.
Liberal democracy is equivalent to Globalism. Economic liberalism - which is hardly ever debated - reduces everything to a commodity - including human labour. When this is juxtaposed with cultural liberalism its internal absurdities are laid bare.
at 19:10 the US/British invasion of Iraq is described as a "folly". That's a novel way to apologise for the war crimes committed and to deflect from the material interests behind the invasion. The notion that the invasion was justified because of the crimes of the Hussein regime doesn't withstand even cursory scrutiny. If the Nuremburg Trials standard was applied the invasion, a war of aggression, those who organised it would be convicted of war crimes.
The discussion just shows liberals have made their peace with imperialist war. (I can't find any video on this channel addressing the persecution of Julian Assange. Is that right? Is Wikileaks exposure of US war crimes in Iraq of no interest? Were those war crimes a "folly"?)
We are facing WW3. The material interests of US banks, finance houses and corporations requires the use of the US war machine to maintain US hegemony over the world economy. This is why the US provoked the Russian invasion of Ukraine. (Putin's criminal invasion sought to defend the interests of the Russian oligarchy). This is also why the US is preparing for war with China. The other imperialist powers are preparing to fight to defend their interests with Germany and Japan rearming.
The capitalist class have a "solution" to the present crisis: 1. war (make their rivals and other pay), 2. austerity (make the working class pay) and 3. dictatorship (suppress and crush the threat of revolution.) Anyone interested in an alternative should read the World Socialist Web Site (wsws. org)
Sadam Hussein was a CIA asset!! Just like Noriega - Hussein did not BEHAVE!! Corruption had been completely fortified by the CIA in both cases - chemical weapons and drug smuggling. It's hilarious how the corporate-state media can't discuss the most basic facets of reality. Noam Chomsky predicted the US would invade Iraq again - in 1998 - I know since I wrote a graduate paper on it. I got arrested twice protesting the genocidal US-led sanctions on Iraq and I passed out copies of my graduate paper while protesting, etc. By the time the "mass" protests happened it was WAY too late!! People are too indoctrinated.
Of course the invasion of Iraq was "folly"! They expected it to be an easy ride that would produce good results, but all it did was unleash untold chaos. There was no good material interest for America and Britain - it cost us billions and delivered nothing. My objection to the war is precisely the fact that it wasn't in our material interest!
Great interview
Fascinating interview. Being an American Liberal, I caught a bias against liberalism and a misunderstanding of America’s 1990’s. Much of what occurred in the 1990’s was put in motion by our conservative Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush. They pushed free trade and NAFTA. This was opposed by American labor. It was not opposed or exposed enough by Democrats since it was an era of globalization. Yet, metaphorically all boats did not rise many sunk. This created today’s disenchanted workers ripe and ready for a populist president. Add the 2008 financial crisis and the Nation’s first black President and you have recipe for Trump. This is not hyper-liberalism, it’s the past practices of hyper conservative free market capitalism. Our wealth divide has never been greater. Now dissatisfied low paid workers and small business owners are being misinformed daily by the far right media.
This was a Quite Interesting discussion.
This is Mark Blyth's exact & correct analysis
I am pleased to see John Gray being interviewed here. Whether you agree with him or not I really hope that this conversation encourages people to think more deeply about populism, Brexit and free speech. The kinds of comments I see on Twitter and other social media from the left are very simplistic.
the kinds of comments from both left and right tend to be very simplistic on social media.
On populism, he is dead right. Many liberals are too quick to condemn the 'stupidity' of it without making any effort to understand where it has come from. I have been guilty of that mysefl in the past. But we can all live and learn and change our minds. There is no shame in changing your mind. I wish everyone understood that.
@@smolderingtitanI disagree, Jordan Peterson, Joe rogan, Ben Shapiro are intellectual powerhouses that the left has no rival to.
All I get from arguing a leftist is CNN sources that don’t survive the most basic research.
@@smolderingtitanI disagree, Jordan Peterson, Joe rogan, Ben Shapiro are intellectual powerhouses that the left has no rival to.
All I get from arguing a leftist is CNN sources that don’t survive the most basic research.
The online left circa 2014/5 which was around post GFC but pre-brexit was pro-populism. This left has been completely defeated and doesn't exist anymore as a social force. The online left that has replaced it come from identity politics and various social justice movements. No. This type of left is not open to such self criticism. I place no hope in them what so ever.
Thank you 😊
"what liberals call populism, is the political backlash against the social disruption produced by their policies" God I love this
Fascinating and wonderful to listen to, but it can turn into a rambling monologue. A bit of the old tangentiality. It’s nice in a conversation to involve 2 people.
Did this guy not see the interference of the US in toppling the elected president and the cruel nature of its treatment of those in the Donbas together with NATO expansion and refusing to stick to their agreements provoked this response from Putin which America stupidly believed it could win.
It's the same MO where they go, but the gravy train is coming to halt.
Sounds a lot like "What's The Matter With Kansas" frankly, and perhaps with a dash of Postman's "Amusing Ourselves To Death".
Thanks
He is on point.
It’s possible I haven’t understood the argument properly, but I’m struggling to understand the distinction between “populist” and “winning at democracy” political parties. Do people tend to vote for parties they don’t like?
There's winning by telling the truth and winning by lying. Populism is lying to win. Given the average person's attention span, social media has industrialised populism. This is no different to propaganda and after a time will hopefully become just as obvious, even to the plebs.
Populism is not the same as popular; the former is defined by offering simple (unrealistic but appealing to popular misconceptions) solutions to complex problems, creating myths of a glorious past (to be returned to), exaggerating or worsening current problems to justify authoritarian policies or leaders etc.
Google it.
@@chrisfreebairn870 nah populism is what liberals brand anti-eliteism, fomented as the natural result of rubbish liberal policies.
@@chrisfreebairn870Sounds like, when people who don't believe in the speaker's notions of what the problems and solutions are ... wins at democracy, they call those people "Populist".
Who decides? That is the question. It's all well and good to invey invectives against your politic enemies, but they are doing the same. Lack of asymmetry in favor of the academic, that's what Populism seems like to me.
No, you are at crossed purposes; popular & populism are different things, you can't have a sensible discussion if you refuse to accept the basic definitions of words; populism is the political exploitation of the disgruntled, by offering candy floss simplicity disguised as serious solutions to complex problems; this is the definition of the word.
It is not a way of cheating ppl out of what they want, it's a way of using their dissatisfaction to deceive them, regardless of the reasonableness of that dissatisfaction.
Gray is saying that dissatisfaction with liberal policies has created a mass of ppl unhappy bc they've been left out; reasonable better policies would be popular with them, but instead their anger is used by political opportunists, who deceive them by offering unattainable dreams that appeal to those emotions, rather than achievable outcomes.
All politicians play to dreams & emotions at some level; what distinguishes populism is its cynical manipulation of ppls fears & ignorance.
Wonderful insights
There is an fatalistic/deterministic tone to Gray's views. I wonder if he realizes that.
The mot important things to take away from Gray are around Brexit. Brexit hasn't caused all the problems te country is experiencing it was the result of all the problems the UK has been experiencing.
like trump, a product of the system
Andrew, I think you are misunderstanding what he was saying. Yes, brexit was a result of large swathes of the country feeling left behind but it is also the reason why Britain is now doing worse, economically speaking, than ALL other western countries. There is a reason why the UK is at the bottom of the G7,G8 & G20 economic tables and that is because we are dealing with EXACTLY the same things everybody else is dealing with BUT we have the problems of brexit too! Brexit was a protest vote treated much the same as a by-election by the electorate in that it gave them the opportunity to give the Govt of the day a poke in the eye. Unfortunately, the nation is now suffering because of it (though 70%+ would vote to remain in the EU if they could turn the clock back according to every poll provider in the country).
P.s Russia is in the G8 so that tells you just how bad the UK is doing!
@@rayt8633 Worse than which EU countries as recent data suggests the eurozone is going into recession
@@rayt8633 Are you talking about the same polls that predicted Remain would win comfortably in 2016
@@rayt8633sounding full of shit 👍🏾
They tried to stop the car by putting the foot on the accelerator.
I disagree about Ukraine and this independently of the Putin's essay. As for obductions and deportations I would suggest to look on what both sides do.
Also what Trum did the first time around that was so terrible (around 27:40').
John Gray is a fascinating thinker and always interesting to listen to.
I do disagree with him over Putin's decision to invade Ukraine.
I recently listened to a Kyiv official who in April 2022, shortly after Russia's invasion, negotiated a peace treaty (which Putin signed and Ukraine initialled) before Boris Johnson flew to Kyiv and wrecked the agreement.
According to this Ukrainian negotiator, Putin recognised that invading Ukraine was a mistake and sincerely wanted an agreement.
The trope that Putin wanted an expanded Russian homeland is belied by his clear statement that Russia was big enough and not in need of any additional territory. The real reasons for invading Ukraine are similar to America's motivation in the Cuban missile: preventing a hostile military from establishing a forward base of attack (especially with nuclear missiles - which the US declared they would station in Ukraine) immediately adjacent to the core Russian homeland.
It puzzles me that serious thinkers feel the need to posit additional nefarious motivations for the invasion.
We have Bill Burns' (current head of the CIA and former US ambassador to Moscow's) leaked memo to Condaleezza Rice from 2008 where he reports that opposition to NATO inducting Ukraine faces unanimous opposition from all Russian power factions, even pro-western groups.
You need to watch Putin's long rambling video that he made when he invaded Ukraine. He wants to recreate the Soviet Union and how dare Ukraine have independence because Ukraine is his. Plus a lot of Nazis there. All nonsense of course.
22:58 The friction between Poland and Ukraine was largely invented for electoral purposes by the ruling PiS party, which lost the election to the democratic opposition. Expect Poland to become more supportive again in the coming months. The Polish election of Oct. 15 must be considered a major defeat for national populism. 23:47 It's becoming clear that Crimea is untenable by the Russians in the way that Kherson became untenable. John Gray does not seem to recognise that Crimea is more vulnerable as Russian-held territory than, say, the eastern Donbass, and of greater existential importance to Ukraine. The Russian population in Crimea can be used as hostages for the return of the Ukrainians held in Russia, with mutual deportation in the way such deportations were done after WWII in this part of the world. 27:47 What is so frustrating is that the West, if united, has all the means to dominate the 21st century. Both Russia and China are weakened by despotic rule, while major countries such as Japan, India and Brazil probably recognise the West as being closer to their national aspirations and offering a better deal for achieving prosperity. The defeat of the Russian-Iranian-N.Korean axis and containment of China are the route to achieving this new Euro-American peace. Unfortunately, the West seems fragmented for seemingly parochial, irrational reasons.
Yeah, pro-german parties probably will form the government, so it is rather expected to totally withdrawn aid to Ukraine, or lower it to a German level ("just for show" level).
one question and one objection:
question) "Crimea is more vulnerable as Russian-held territory than, say, the eastern Donbass, and of greater existential importance to Ukraine." -> how do you substantiate that? I heard from a few people, not particularly with more credentials, that Crimea had been the Russian territory and the majority of the locals support the Russian ruling. I also heard the Ukrainian government is misconceived to be an example of the Western style liberal democracy, but in fact had had a worse authoritarian government in the past.
objection) "the West, if united, has all the means to dominate the 21st century." -> falls exactly into what Mr. Gray in the video criticizes as the pitfall of nostalgism, fantasizing that if one condition was met the prosperity of the 90s will be restored. I find this argument the least convincing, considering there are underlying causes which are often ignored. The collapse of the universal regime of ethics or values, or in other words the reason that people seem less supportive of the liberal narrative in international relations is not because the liberal politicians have been complacent or playing silly games against each other but their competitors, conservatives, Marxists, nationalists, anarchists and so on are gaining better means to voice their interests unlike in the 90s and 00s. The "means for the West to dominate" were military might, cultural superiority, international institutions, and the educational institutions which the elites of the Third World would subscribe and find references in, not anymore since it is less and less the demand for them to attain a Western style modernity, liberal democracy, ethics or even aesthetics, and I think a lot of the liberals don't get that they simply fall short of the new demand. It is true that the authoritarian government in China is a weakness in particular senses, but it also works as a strength if you consider how the government is able to regulate finance, big banks, and tech corporations with a snap if need be. Neither US nor Germany are capable of this, if Europe had a competitive digital platform or fintech to match the US or China at all.
Japan, India, and Brazil are also not to be reduced to the easy allies of the West. Politically speaking, yes, Japan and India will most definitely stand on the US side to deal with China in their respective regions, but the degree to which they rely their economic prosperity on Chinese capital is massive, no less than Europe or Australia find it vital to rely on China both as the main source of supply and of demand. Lastly, I think there is hardly any South American governments apart from Chile that feels about the West the way you described it. They are not even in any security threats apart from those posed by the West itself, particularly the United States--geographically too far from China to want military protection offered by the US.
@@Go2daFutureCrimeea belonged to tatars before Russia, so it wasn't always Russian, the supply of Crimea is done through a narrow istmus, which closed will make life harder. Donbas has a huge land link.
Also Western Roman empire had potential when it fell, but it had incompetent and corrupt leaders. All over the world I see incompetence. The only difference is that in west incompetents don't have the same power as tyrants from East.
@@Kannot2023u serious? Crimea was russian longer than N America was american. So unless u wanna rewrite the borders of basically all the nation states in the world, u shd drop this line of thought
Where did these elite conversations happen and why were we excluded from making these hugely significant decisions that effect all of us??
Oli putting in a shift to not fully corpse at the drink-stalling "final point" there 56:01
He writes about Mars and Venus ;) I heard some IDW type start referencing Gray and I was like, nice we'll get some substance here. He was unironically appealing to The Other John 🤓
Only a very distant/casual observer would conclude that far right figures have remained unchanged for decades. Of course I agree with the material analysis - I'm reminded of Paul Mason saying he'd never forgive neoliberalism for turning his neighbours into fascists - but it's incomplete without a real understanding of how the far right has morphed over time.
I wonder how many times Benjamin Franklin told her she was mistaken before he convinced her of it?
As for labour dealing with stikes
I'd still say that heck of a lot of cost of living crisis would get assessed by availability of affordable housing.
If a person now pays 800 quid rent for their studio
If you can instead offer them a flat for 600 that puts an extra 200 in their pocket, even without givimg them a penny of pay rise.
So this is what i think they should crack on with, immidiately.
Where will we build all those houses?
The state of nature also demonstrates states of co-operation.
"What liberals call populism" is one *hell* of a caveat. Conflating Thomas Frank's populism or Eugene Debs' populism with Trump's or Orban's is willful ignorance.
It's hilarious to me that a fella like Gray doesn't seem to follow the money and how it fools so many people.
Maybe you've been fooled?
That would show the contradictions in what he is saying.
being an academic IS following the money - I mean he's a brown-no$er.
China makes the best sex dolls
When you follow the money it ends up in billioniares banks. Then what?
Those of us who are not British.....could use brief explanation of certain terms...eg. Truss experiment, HS2......
Look up Liz Truss and High Speed 2
Apart from the Corbyn antisemitism comment, great interview 🤠💜
I think he was sticking to the play book there. I wouldn’t of thought he could of been so easily fooled.
@@mick947 It seemed out of place to me for that reason, but then I don't know a great deal about Gray and being intelligent doesn't always mean we avoid falling for such smears.
Хороший политический философ. Спасибо за интервью!
Thatcher: The end of history? The beginning of nonsense 👏 👏 👏
Thankfully America is a Republic.
It's true that Putin prefered a Russian realm that also included Ukraine, however he would have prefered it without war, war was not his first choice which is proven by hard evidence: the number of the Russian invasion army of 190,000 at the beginning which clearly isn't enough for occupying a vast country like Ukraine. For comparison, the invading force Germany sent to conquer Poland in WW2 was 1.5 million and that was only for the Western part of Poland. So Putin used the invasion, termed 'special military operation' as a tool of pressure to force Ukraine to the negotiation table and was willing to broker a peace agreement before Boris flew in and strong-armed Zelensky into trashing the possibility of any kind of peace deal.
Retrospectively it would have been better for Ukraine to accept that deal and swallow the bitter pill of losing Crimea and maybe the de facto independance of the Donbass region under some kind of autonomy than all the bloodshed and devastation that followed while ending up basically at the same place. But now the dice is cast, the Russian war machine is amped up, switching into a higher gear and winter is coming, while Western patience and money is running out. Shouldn't have believed in the syren voices offering EU and NATO membership, the propaganda machine painting a picture of Ukraine capable of defeating Russia and the Western miracle weapons, they were always fairy tales. But now it's too late. The next act will be a tragicomedy of rats fleeing the sinking ship, expect something along the lines of Afghanistan after the US troops left. Ukrainians will be lucky if they can retain any kind of statehood when all the dust settles.
Gray speaks in a folksy matter of fact, down to earth way and has some interesting observations. However, while there is some interest in populists in the UK and Europe, or USA, it is easy to over exaggerate it's support, which is never in a majority ( except Hungary). Mostly it is not the largest minority. The few in power in Europe, notably Italy, are in coalitions that limit what they can do and moderate them. Nor is populism increasing. These are the ones voted out mostly after 1 term: Bolsonaro (Brazil), Trump (USA), PiS /Law & Justice (Poland) and soon in the UK. They are well beaten in France, Netherlands, Greece and Germany.
I'm inclined to agree with this. It does annoy me how people equate Progressivism as Populism.
There is a stark contrast with right-wing populism, which essentially piggy backs of already established mainstream propaganda to distract from the negatives of the establishment policy by redirecting anger onto some scapegoat, whether that be foreigners, minority identities, or even the poor in some cases, as opposed to left wing populism which is often just asking for policy agenda that, while deemed radical because it takes power away from the wealthy, much of which was already implemented a century ago with the American New Deal or the rebuilding efforts after the WW2, but has been rolled back en mass in the decades that followed in order to funnel back up to the wealthy.
This is in large part why Right Wing populists often find office -- they are not a threat to the establishment, see nowhere near the same attacks from the mainstream media as a result, and are often exploited when they're governing continues the worst policy of the status quo to then equate left wing populism as no different when voters inevitably kick them to the kerb.
This is just Marxist drivel.@@davidbates3057
Majorities all over Europe agree with several main themes of populism. Immigration being the most important of them. Supermajorities in lots of European countries want less -- or even zero -- extra-European immigration. And electoral support for these parties has steadily increased over the last 20 years.
@@davidbates3057 He is talking about trends that will take a generation to work out. Yes, the anti populists have won every battle but the war keeps going on. By the way, Netherlands and Germany are now the only net contributors to the EU.
Lula is not a populist at all.
Thankfully America did intercede in Europe with the Marshall Plan to defuse communism or the whole of Europe would have ended up like East Germany/Berlin, Hungary, Czech, Poland (eastern Europe for the most part) in poverty , stagnation, communist terror. Fortunately my grandparents saw what was coming to Eastern Europe and got out to live a prosperous and free existence relatively speaking in the West! 🙏
I agree.
Why is it so hard for intellectuals to admit that besides it's economic policies people can be, and are, also suffering from neo-liberalism's social policies?
What I’d like to ask these philosophers of not only today but in the past Rousseau Voltaire etc
But you’re not ultimately ruling are you !
Would you stick to your principles or would you bend them
If I gave you The Ruling Ring would you wear it to do the good you thought you were doing ?
life is not that difficult..the power has to be in the hands of people (Switzerland..)..not run by aristocrats, political parties or any other selfappointed parasites..people in the 2Age of Knowledge/Information" cannot be fooled as before..it is that simple..history does not always repeat itself..even if humanity does not live in the same Ages..we are still very different genetically, IQ, infrastructure, etc.
I'm nostalgic. If only the 3 trillion dollars for the Iraq war had been invested in renewable energy we would have a chance. Now not so sure
theres no climtae change
'I wanted to be simply a voice amongst other voices' 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 👏 🥳 🎉 🪅 🎊 🍺
The idea that the US has moved left is ridiculous. Reagan and Nixon could never get elected as conservatives today
Very insightful (if a little boastful). I would recommend you take a look at my book published in 2022 by Polity RECLAIMING POPULISM: HOW ECONOMIC FAIRNESS CAN WIN BACK DISENCHANTED VOTERS where many of the excellent points made by John are reflected. One big difference is his assessment of support for Corbyn's redistributive policies. We demonstrate that was one of the reasons that he was thrashed. Please note the quote from Guardian Jonathan Freedland that we cite on page 87-88. Despite this an outstanding listen.
Hobbes is only applicable where the rulers have ignored that, unless the lowest level of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs are fulfilled, then humans often do not have the capacity, or desire, to address higher needs. When people have a roof over their head, a full belly and relative security, then his views are less relevant. However, as this video explains, when this low level of needs remains unmet, when the majority of your population consider themselves ignored, poor and treated like dirt, you either end up with change, or revolution.
The connections of the British, French, and German economies in the early 20th century made the outbreak of war MORE likely because there was no other way to break their economic entanglement. The same is true of the US and China today.
There “will be grid lock in Washington”? I would argue, there already has been massive grid lock in Washington. Also I also disagree on another point: America has always been preoccupied with their internal politics. It’s their national past time. And Trump will be in prison by then, so it may actually be a very different climate. Also, Joe Biden wouldn’t be a one-term president. It’d be his second term….
'Philosopher'? This is none other than living legend John Gray. at least give him due by putting hit name in the title.
For such an erudite and knowledgeable man, Gray's ignorance of the causes of the situation in Ukraine is truly frightening.
We really are doomed when our brightest and best are so divorced from reality.
Totally agree
tell us more about your "reality" where causes of the "sutiation in Ukraine" (also known as the fascist invasion by Russia) are different and also your "reality"'s relationship to regular consumption of mushrooms.
I do not say that democracy has been more pernicious on the whole, and in the long run, than monarchy or aristocracy. Democracy has never been and never can be so durable as aristocracy or monarchy; but while it lasts, it is more bloody than either. … Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy. It is not true, in fact, and nowhere appears in history. Those passions are the same in all men, under all forms of simple government, and when unchecked, produce the same effects of fraud, violence, and cruelty. When clear prospects are opened before vanity, pride, avarice, or ambition, for their easy gratification, it is hard for the most considerate philosophers and the most conscientious moralists to resist the temptation. Individuals have conquered themselves. Nations and large bodies of men, never.
John Adams
John Gray obviously hasn't read 'The Dawn Of Everything,' or perhaps he has, but is somehow still in thrall to Hobbes, despite Graeber and Wengrow's methodical dismantling.
Not me I’m still struggling with the Hobbit
@@chrismann5070 It gets better after they leave Rivendell.
He reviewed it in the New Statesman...
@@Pobotrol few thanks don’t tell me the ending 👍👍
@@dewievans01 ah, interesting, thanks
Interesting what you are saying about pensions?
Quote by Lyndon Johnson:
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Lyndon B. Johnson
I didn't appreciate the headline. Liberal democracy is not over.
'His [Hobbs] fears for his life were not ill-founded'
How did humans survive anarchy if they were only in a state of conflict and fear? Did they overcome that conflict and fear with cooperation and love via politics and spiritual beliefs? Does that mean Hobbes was half right or half wrong?
Hobbes is just part of British colonialism based on slavery. Big deal - not sure why anyone would take him seriously.