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.

I absolutely agree.

Probably because this doesn't qualify as news. Do you know what else the news misses?... Creative writing lessons.

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.

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 .

That's never going to end well

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

corbyn in uk too, the media paint the pictures they want to

@@PazLeBon And of course the mainstream media are owned by the neoliberals!

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.

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.

Everywhere. To begin with they caused the world wars by fabricating the protocol of the elders which in turn caused zionism.

The opposite is the case We have far to many ideas and most of them don’t work

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

It's the same MO where they go, but the gravy train is coming to halt.

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

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.

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 👍🏾

Look up Liz Truss and High Speed 2

Where will we build all those houses?

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.

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?

Hobbes is just part of British colonialism based on slavery. Big deal - not sure why anyone would take him seriously.

It’s a monologue rather than an interview really isn’t it.

Yeah. It's *_one_* kind of making interviews, presenting the views of the interviewed rather than trying to create entertainment. Gray's personality has its flaws. And they shine through. But he is nevertheless both interesting and relevant.

@@jmolofsson his was more a advert for a book, that a journalistic interview. It’s generally considered there is some form of conversation in an interview rather than just long monologues.

I agree. The Bastani interview was very disappointing. I would say he didn't actually challenge Gray much, when he did try to get a word in, Gray would just talk over him. Just starting this one and wondering if it will be the same, sounds like it will be. Gray's an interesting thinker, no question, but everything in his worldview is very black and white, which is no doubt why it appeals to so many people. There's little complexity or nuance in his broad brush strokes, and an awful lot of hyperbole. And for a philosopher, there's a LOT of assertion and not much argument. For this reason, in particular, it suits him to be interviewed by journalists rather than philosophers.

I saw the same interview! If it wasn’t for the fact he seems a genuinely nice person, I’d of thought the way he kept interrupting Aaron was just plain rude.

theres no climtae change

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.