More and more people, it seems, are leaving
the left, and for good reasons.
The mainstream of the left is infested by
what was usually considered to be the radical
fringe, by people who claim to be liberals,
but actually have fundamental values that
are radically opposed to liberalism.
I took to defining them as the regressive
left, to discern myself from them and to make
it clear that I am not associating myself
with them in any way.
But many others on the left, unfortunately,
are too slow to realize what is going on,
and are accepting these regressives as a legitimate
part of the camp.
And so, the left is becoming associated with
these anti-liberal values, driving many people
away.
The title of this video implies that I am
going to give excuses for why I am still on
the left, but that is not what it means.
I believe right and left have certain characteristics
that define them, and are beyond some passing
fads.
These regressives that have taken over the
left are a passing fad, and the fact that
they regard all liberals as right-wing doesn't
mean that it is so.
They are wrong about this just like they are
wrong about everything else.
So in this video I am going to explain why
what I am is still left, even if today's politics
make it seem like it isn't.
My friend the Academic Agent once asked me
who I think constitutes the biggest threat
to civilization today: progressives or socialists.
I replied that I don't use those terms when
defining the regressive left, because they
are too broad.
I call them SJWs and Communists.
And while the Academic Agent, who is a right-winger,
believes that there is no essential difference
between SJWs and other progressives, or between
Communists and other socialists, I do make
these distinctions.
So in this video, I am going to try to explain
the difference, and I'm going to do it by
criticizing the Academic Agent's favorite
thinker, Thomas Sowell.
In other words…
Now, to my shame, I didn't get around to reading
Sowell yet, so I am not able to provide any
serious criticism.
However, whenever I hear about his theory
of the two visions, I feel that there is something
amiss.
I can't associate myself with any of these
visions, and I believe there is a third vision,
which either Sowell or his followers fail
to mention.
So let's first get acquainted with the two
visions that he does talk about.
Since I didn't read him, I will let the Academic
Agent present it:
It's easy to see that the constrained vision
is what informs the views of the conservative
right, whereas the unconstrained vision forms
the basis for the radical left.
But could there be another vision?
Let's take a closer look at the constrained
vision.
The thinkers that Sowell mentions all come
from the Christian tradition of thought, which
regards Man as marked by original sin.
Because original sin is part of Man, he will
always be a sinner, and cannot be perfected.
His only hope for heaven is in the afterlife,
so the attempts of the radical left to establish
heaven on earth are bound to fail.
I do not regard Man as marked by original
sin.
But I do not regard Man as a blank slate either.
I regard Man as an animal, which has evolved
over millions of years, and carries all that
genetic baggage with him.
And because of that Man has animalistic instincts
and urges, and cannot form a perfect society.
In that, I agree with the conservatives.
But I also believe that humankind, as a species,
is not constrained, and can change and evolve.
And so, I do believe in progress.
Since human nature didn't change much during
the period that we call human civilization,
things that were written about it in the past
are still true today.
So I agree with the constrained vision that
traditional wisdom is relevant.
However, civilization is about changing our
behavioral patterns, our so-called "second
nature", and make it better.
It is also about creating better tools to
control nature, and adjusting our behavior
to be in accordance with our better tools.
Which means that our traditions also contain
a lot of remnants from our less civilized
past, and should be criticized and changed.
In that, I stand against the conservatives
and their constrained vision.
Progress, to me, is the process where the
human ape refines its behavior and beliefs,
to make them increasingly less harmful.
And if that's what you mean by being progressive,
then I am with you.
There is even the possibility that sometime
in the distant future, Man will be perfectible.
But at this point in history, and for any
time in the foreseeable future, we are far
from it.
Therefore, the best government system for
Man right now is liberal democracy, and the
best economic system is capitalist free market.
Those are the systems that are both best at
minimizing the harm that human nature might
cause, and at allowing for gradual progress
to occur.
In the West, these systems are already in
place, and that leaves us with not much to
do except tweak them to make them better.
On top of that, we can also help non-democratic
countries implement them.
If you believe in progress, this is the stance
you should take.
But the radical left has a sharply different
opinion.
By employing the Matte Fallacy, they deny
that there is such a thing as human nature,
and contend that humans can be shaped in any
way we want.
Their unconstrained vision is not about human
ability to change in a slow process, but about
being able to change into whatever we want
right here and now.
So they believe that a perfect society is
possible to us, and that the current systems
are preventing us from achieving it.
When they call themselves progressives, they
mean that they want to progress beyond liberal
democracy, overthrow it through violent and
coercive means, and establish a Utopia.
That is the attitude that typifies those progressives
that we call SJWs.
As a liberal who believes in liberal democracy,
then, I also defend it against those radical
leftists.
And that actually puts me in the same camp
as the conservatives.
The conservatives in the West believe in the
values of liberal democracy, and believe they
should be preserved.
So it appears that while philosophically we
have different visions, politically there's
not much difference between me and the right.
Why do I distinguish myself from them, then?
Because to me, politics is not the main field
where the fight is taking place.
Since we are already living in the best type
of state, politics are not that interesting
anymore.
The main arena now is different.
It is culture.
Earlier, I said that progress is the process
of refining the human ape to make it less
harmful.
But actually, that is only one side of it.
The other side is discovering all the joys
that the world has to offer us, to make life
increasingly more joyful.
Whenever there's a new fun thing, a new joyful
experience, conservatives are suspicious of
it.
Because they believe in original sin, they
believe that giving into pleasures has a corrupting
effect on Man's sinful nature, and will lead
to bad results.
But for me, our nature, that has evolved over
millions of years, basically knows what's
good for us.
If something gives us pleasure, then it is
good for us, as long as we don't do it excessively.
So the challenge with every new thing is to
find the best way of doing it, the right balance
between fun and excess, and this is usually
where I apply my critical skills.
Thomas Sowell speaks of what he calls the
vision of the anointed.
The anointed are the people who are considered
very smart by those of the unconstrained vision,
so smart that their thinking is more progressed
than that of the common folk.
Therefore, their vision is the one that we should
follow, even if all the evidence shows that
they are wrong, and anyone who objects has
to be silenced or ridiculed.
Well, I don't consider myself to be anointed,
and I don't want to silence conservatives.
On the contrary, I am grateful to have conservatives
around.
That means that we can be adventurous and
try out new things, without worrying that
society will collapse as a result.
The conservatives will hold the fort, resist
the new temptations, and keep society going
while we make our mistakes.
Eventually, we learn what is good and what
is bad about the new thing, and then we get
society to adopt the good, overcoming conservative
resistance.
If you watch the series on psychedelia that
I am doing, I talk there about all the exciting
new experiences and ideas that came in the
sixties, but also of the bad results caused
by their excesses.
If all of America and Britain would have just
accepted the new thing, they would have both
drowned in a whirlpool of sex and drugs and wild mysticism.
But since it was just the counter-culture,
it could make its experiments and mistakes
without bringing everything down.
In the end, some of the things introduced
in the sixties were accepted into mainstream
culture, and some found themselves on the
ash heap of history.
Eventually, victories in the culture wars
also lead to legislation, to changes on the
political level. But I prefer to see it happen only after the culture war is settled.
I wasn't very happy, for instance, when the
United States Supreme Court decided in 2015
to legalize gay marriage.
This came after years of cultural battles
taking place all over the US, in which Americans
were forced to deal with their prejudices
towards gay people, and overcome them.
In many states, this led to the majority deciding
to legalize gay marriage, and it seemed like
it was just a matter of a few years before
all fifty states got there.
The Supreme Court's decision cut this process.
Now, gays can get married everywhere, but
the prejudices are not being dealt with, and
the anti-gay people are just more resentful
about being forced to accept them.
On the level of day-to-day interactions, this
will lead to friction and sorrow.
In my view, it would have been better to allow the cultural process to go on.
The gays could have waited a few more years to get married.
It is a lot more important for their wellbeing
to be fully accepted by the public, than to
have a marriage certificate granted by the
imposing of federal law.
I have the same approach towards socialism.
It has become accepted to define socialism as a system in which the government organizes
society, but I don't think that is the essence
of socialism.
Socialism, for me, is first and foremost the
opposition to capitalism, and it begins with
the people, not the government.
Capitalism is the best economic system, but
it isn't perfect, and it can harm and exploit
people.
In those cases, there has to be socialist
action to fix it.
This action should not be through the political
system, but on ground level, as the people
who are being hurt organize to fight back.
Legislation should be only the last step,
after the battle has been settled.
We youtubers currently feel the deficiencies
of capitalism, as we are getting screwed by
the YouTube company, which seems to care about advertisers a lot more than about its own
content creators.
There is no way that this is going to change
unless we take action.
Currently there is an attempt by youtubers
to unionize, and I support this initiative.
One way I can support it is by
making videos like this, so again, my socialism
is mainly a cultural thing.
If this is what you mean by socialism, then
I am with you.
If by socialism you mean social engineering
by the government according to a utopian vision,
then we have a problem.
When it comes to the question of the role
of government, it depends whether it is needed.
The idea of human progress is the idea that
Man should learn to stand by himself, without
the need of support from the government.
But that also implies that we are not there
yet, so sometimes government is needed.
When Beatniks and Hippies went wild and attributed
all sorts of magical powers to drugs, it may
have been a good idea to stomp this excess
by making drugs illegal.
Nowadays, when we are all aware of the dangers
of drugs and know more about their effects,
it may be better for the government to butt
out and let us deal with drugs on the cultural
level.
When there is racism or homophobia to the
point where people are being culturally persecuted,
the government should give them protection.
When we reach the stage the West is at today,
where racism and homophobia are mild, it is
better to let things be resolved on the cultural level.
So I support government oversight in places
where the public seems unable to handle things
by itself, but once it is, I will seek to
remove the legislation and give the public
its freedom.
Now all of this is completely in line with
leftist thought.
Take Marx, for instance.
His ultimate goal was to eliminate government.
But he accepted that on the way there, government
action may be needed to point things in the
right direction.
This is essentially what I believe, although
I doubt we will ever be able to eliminate
government altogether.
And, unlike the Marxists, I believe that any
government action should be limited by individual
rights.
This is why I am still a leftist.
People like me are being hounded at the moment
by the regressive left, and those who aren't
very clear or strong about their convictions
choose to just run away and leave the left
behind.
I choose to stay and fight.
These regressives don't stand a chance.
