The Overton Window: And How the Left Could Use It

[@azureScapegoat]

Correction: At 3:15 the text on the whiteboard says the Social Insurance Agency was established in 1963. The National Insurance Agency (Riksförsäkringsverket) was in fact established in 1961, through the merger of the Pensions Agency (Pensionsstyrelsen) and the National Insurance Institution (Riksförsäkringsanstalten).

[@neo-nkrumahist5765]

This is also why the right wing approach is always to try and make Communism/Socialism/Marxism unthinkable rather than to actually try to refute it.

[@ru9014]

The reason is because generally, it's not their battle. Socialism is widely disliked in economics for its perceived innefficiency, and western economics is to right wingers a form of study and not a political ideology. Right wingers are more focussed on cultural issues, where they do refute arguments.

[@neo-nkrumahist5765]

@@ru9014 Funny that youd claim economics isnt ideological right after admitting that the mainstream of western economics is ideologically anti socialist, its the typical Liberal-Conservative oh if its mainstream its not ideological.

[@ru9014]

@@neo-nkrumahist5765 i claimed thats what right wingers think, it most definitely is ideologically charged, so is scientists saying the climate is fucked and we gotta fix it. Just cuz experts say smt doesnt mean its not an ideology

[@neo-nkrumahist5765]

@@ru9014 Typical Rightist, just change the topic as soon as you cant defend your position

[@ru9014]

@@neo-nkrumahist5765 i didnt, read my original comment, i said what the "right wing" do, i consider myself seperate of the typical right wing as theyre generally seen as auth edit: i also agreed with you and gave an example as an argument for why we're both right

[@ilenisaatio]

That was actually a pretty clear way of making the particular point of the "left" (I really hate the overly simplistic left-right-dichotomy) sliding along with the capitalists' frame of reference building. I've tried to make people on the socialist side realize what they are doing for years, even before my stint at party politics, but I could never put it as neatly as your video put it. Thank you.

[@Vivivofi]

What’s a stint at party politics mean?

[@ilenisaatio]

@@Vivivofi "Stint" = short while "Party politics" = political action that political parties do, distinct from other forms of political engagement I was a party member for 4 years in our "democratic socialist" (so basically closer to what og social democrats were) party. Long story short: I got pretty fast labeled as radical as I already was in a radical chapter which was the 2nd most popular chapter among people as we actually did stuff on the streets. I quickly progressed the ranks because I got stuff done. Got into clashes at the city level party board meetings with the old-guard-in-power, who made immortal comments like "we can't do that because the bourgeoise party will get annoyed." Burned out. Left the party.

[@Vivivofi]

@@ilenisaatio we need a new party with people like you in charge, who call the shots. Seriously it’ll never fucking happen unless people like you decide to say fuck it, fuck the current parties and fuck all forms of the old guard, shit needs to be done and clearly you’re actually somebody who can get shit done. fuck!

[@ziwuri]

@@ilenisaatio Oliksä siis demareissa vai vasemmistoliitossa?

[@ilenisaatio]

@@ziwuri Vas. Löytyy googlella.

[@TinaMcCall.]

And that, children, is why we should never accept the right's framing under any circumstance.

[@GrumpyOldFart2]

The right wing in the US is very good at shifting the window. Now we’ve got people in Congress talking OUT LOUD about the “purity of the vote”. When the ACA first came out, it didn’t matter how many people yelled that it was essentially “Romneycare”. The right wing just kept yelling that it was Obamacare and that it was soshulizm. And the individual mandate was declared unconstitutional.

[@Wackaz]

The right wing in the U.S. have little power compared to the left. This is because the left and right are both moderate in the concrete scale of U.S. politics, because left and right are established on mostly social levels. I think people forget that the left-right binary fits nearly into the bourgeois, liberal paradigm. It's a French phenomenon, and Marx saw to negate its form. Marxist socialists want to sublate the present state of things, and they must. This is why democracy in the U.S. is a no-go option - AOC, the Squad, whatever, are all bourgeois liberals at the end of the day. They are leftists, and we Marxist-Leninists aren't. The greatest delusion in the West has been that Marxism is left wing - no, it's not left wing, but it's not right wing either. Marxism as a praxis works outside of the political binary.

[@Vivivofi]

Please can everyone stop with the shitty catchphrases like ‘and that, children, is why blahblajblahsh’ - seriously guys. Can we just fucking stop?

[@acf2802]

Bullshit. Most people on "the right" today accept gay marriage and abortion with reasonable limits. "The right" is less conservative, not more conservative.

[@thek2despot426]

@@Wackaz Uh, no. You're just describing the difference between the center-left versus far-left. Leftism, by virtually all definitions, is either defined in terms of 1. An openness and advocacy for change for the sake of the improvement of society, either through reform (center-left) or revolution (far-left), as opposed to wishing to keep society as it is (center-right) or to regress it to a previous state (far-right); and/or 2. The normative evaluation of a society in terms of egalitarian values and ideals, be it in social (race, ethnicity, sex, gender, sexuality, etc.), economic (class, wealth, property, etc.), and political (direct democracy, representative democracy, constitutional rule of law, republicanism, etc.) respects, as opposed to shaping society based on elitist values (right-wing politics). Marxism, including Marxism-Leninism and indeed nearly all revolutionary anti-capitalist thought, is definitionally far-left under this taxonomy, whereas U.S. Democrats, only going as far as social democratic and reformist policies at their most radical, are center-left.

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

if we lose sight of our maximum demands, we will lose our maximum demands AND our minimal demands. If we dont advocate for revolution and instead advocate only for reforms, we will get neither reform or revolution.

[@jisatsushitai]

When I was 12, five years ago, I watched one of your videos for the very first time. I didn't understand politics or socialism at all and it was all complex to me. Today, I remembered the existence of your channel and came back. Now I can say your content is good and extremely well developed. Congratulations.

[@loturzelrestaurant]

Then you will also like 'some More News' and 'Second Thought'.

[@Stellar_Politics]

Thank you for your contribution on the subject and with your Swedish perspective. I use a lot of these arguments that use neoliberal claims in our favor all the time. "Real democracy", "companies are structured like dictatorships". and so on.

[@rustattack1312]

I like to say Roughly corparations track nicely on feudal hierarchy Ceo-king board of directors- parliment franchise owners- lord Managers- knights/overseers workers-peasants indentured servitude- serfs For profit forced prison labor-slave

[@rustattack1312]

I go balls out for the most part though. Some words i gauge the person im talking to. But if i know you well and know your not gonna flip when i use the C word ive got no problem dropping communism but other wise ill pretend like im just a philosophy and history nut talkin about dialectical materialism and labor theory of value etc

[@gljames24]

@@rustattack1312 That's how I see it too. People will say they are for democracy, but they will argue with me when I say we should apply it to business with worker cooperatives.

[@rustattack1312]

@@gljames24 i recommend learning about the mass line it

[@butwithcats265]

It's fascinating to learn about how this awful dance of atrition played out in Sweden. Really great piece. Thanks for making it!

[@1001HELL]

I heard of this effect recently but it was called the "radical flank effect". Using the US civil rights movement of the 1960s as an example, the idea is that the Dr. King faction made more ground than they could have on their own because Malcolm X and the black panthers made Dr. King and his followers seem like reasonable moderates.

[@encouraginglyauthentic43]

Exactly.

[@marrowkaiproductions7053]

So what we need is a ultra-radical movement and a semi-radical movement?

[@1001HELL]

@@marrowkaiproductions7053 yes. That's the point I was making.

[@MasterOfBaiter]

A point to be made is that the Overton window doesn't aknowledge class distinctions and that one class is vastly more in control of politics than the other. The window is not set by public or political opinion but by the intensity of the class struggle. You hit the nail on the head when you mentioned that the left was not organized and united and thus the right was able to punch through. The Overton window assumes that it's all about how many voters one can appeal to but fails to recognize that some voters have more power than others be it the voters in parliament filtered by having access to campaign funds as compared to the common worker whose vote is one in millions. And ofcs under federal systems you also end up with regional inequalities in voter power, less populated rural regions getting to send as many representatives as way more populous urban ones for example, tho these regional distinctions can be way more valid dependent on the character of the minority and the set up. You made a great point about buying into neoliberal framing in advocating left politics being a concession, let's not make the same concession by taking up the class blindness inate to the Overton window

[@opreadumitru1]

*"The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal."* - Marshall Kirk After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90's (Plume) Paperback - September 1, 1990

[@AntonioTheTurtle]

A good idea!

[@rubenlarochelle1881]

Last time I was this early, the centre-right was still considered centre-right.

[@reyalsregnava]

Nah, I'll propose ideas outside the window. Here's one: The concept of owning land is batsh!t insane. Under the slightest of inspection the idea begins breaking apart. Do you own the air above the land? If so which air is your air? Does it stay fixed over the land, or move as it is the air, not the space you purchased? This compounds when you add water and the reality that the size and shape of land is not fixed. Example if you own land and it is flooded do you own that portion of underwater land, or the water directly above it? It gets even worse when you learn that owning the land doesn't necessarily mean you own anything in that land, like water, minerals, or metals. Do you own the magma under the land or just this section of crust? If your land takes some action, as a quake or volcano wouldn't this mean you are legally responsible for the land's actions?

[@felixstrider]

unfortunately this is easy to argue against, because the "partition of land" really just means "i drew lines on a map and this is how they look to match with material reality to me". what part of the land is "really yours" depends on what you can make use of (private property is bullshit, requires a state to enforce and has no natural basis: its entirely abstract) and the limits of your "responsibility" to how you should use the land / what the consequences are to your neighbors, are whatever you can get away with before the state-which-guarantees-your-right-to-property comes knocking.

[@leek6927]

Amazing video, it’s good to see people talking strategy for once especially in a more modern context

[@8thguy633]

This was really insightful! Thanks for the book recommendations too :]

[@asdqwe8837]

Hej. Tack för uppladdningen. Solidaritet kamrat.

[@MrCarlWax]

Thank you for making this. As a fellow swede it is hard to find many discussions about Sweden specifically.

[@rubensf7780]

Jag hade samma reaktion! Jag känner mig alldeles för underinformerad om svensk politik, så det var kul att få lära mig lite

[@opreadumitru1]

LGBT movement is expert at using Overton window with the help from a part of media and some movie makers and even youtube or instagram influencers to make radical ideas Acceptable and then Public Policy We need to protect children not to get exposed to dangerous ideas online especially in terms of sexual health and body and mental health

[@missZoey5387]

Glad to see another video from you, Comrade

[@jesusvasquez4734]

Awesome video, already watched it 20 times

[@fredskull1618]

Absolutely agree with this. Understanding the Overton Window's dynamics is crucial for progressives. Shifting it leftward by initially pushing for bold reforms, even if aiming for a more moderate outcome, aligns perfectly with the concept of anchoring. It's a smart strategy to set the negotiation tone and eventually achieve more progressive policies. The Swedish case indeed highlights the risks of conceding ground. Neoliberal dominance through coordinated efforts is a stark reminder of how narratives shape politics. The Overton Window is a powerful tool for political influence.

[@ThePathOfLeastResistanc]

But progressives don’t do this at all.

[@castledoctrine1548]

Thank you for explaining the Overton window so succinctly. What you say makes perfect sense.

[@WarrenPeaceOG]

Great video! I noticed something lost outside the Overton window recently: if you have universal healthcare, the insurance industry is entirely redundant.👀 How it works: you create healthcare resources, then you use them. That's it: one of the super powers a nation state has is the ability to spread risk, simply by being a group of 50 million people. Although I rarely need healthcare, thousands need it every second of every day. Insurance companies can not compete: they can calculate probabilities, but they don't have 50 million people. Nation states also have financial super powers we mostly ignore, which are an order of magnitude more powerful than any bank. #MMT. These basic realities - which describe collective or group super powers - are currently outside the Overton window

[@avacadomangobanana2588]

What are you talking about? Universal healthcare is an extreme leftist idea. Reality is everyone everywhere is against giving people who aren’t themselves shit for free

[@Hirohitorunguard]

While I agree, it's important to not forget that the nation has a vested interest in arguing for th corporations. The government of the nation state isn't the people's government, but rather a machine for which the upper class can funnel opposition into to prevent violent resistance.

[@allthenewsordeath5772]

Can you please take MMT and shove it, we have basically tried that the last few years and in case you haven’t noticed rapidly increasing the money supply without a proportional increase in a nations productivity results in high inflation. I am largely with you on things like universal healthcare, at least to an extent, but don’t pretend like nation states or large entities in general, are immune from economic gravity in the consequences of their actions, the reason why the US is failing now is not because of inherent weaknesses of capitalism, it is because the government is picking winners and losers in a very anti-capitalist manner, we are seeing in real time, that when you bail out the losers there is no end to the cost.

[@WarrenPeaceOG]

@@allthenewsordeath5772 MMT, in the first instance, simply corrects myths about how the monetary system works today. MMT doesn't say there are no constraints, or say you can simply give corrupt oligarchs and corporations trillions without consequences. 'Drugs and gambling are not 'investments.' I agree tho: US ruling class are liberals that are not liberal; democrats that aren't democratic; and market fundamentalists who are totally fine with monopolies, cartels, and pretend markets. Not to mention the military industrial surveillance complex - war is business (on the public dime)! And US won't even try to compete in the capitalism game with China's powerful mixed economy, instead relying on economic warfare and provoking another expensive proxy war, to wash public funds out of the tax base and into the pockets of war profiteers, aka. big party donors. One dollar, one vote. But US is not unique. Everywhere there is neoliberalism is a slightly less extreme version of USA. Neoliberalism is shit. It's 19th century economics for 21st century aristocrats and billionaires

[@gbf111]

and the media almost completely controls where the window is

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

Not really. Just is another tool to represent where "center" is. No one is in the control of the ship, they just know that if you do A, B will maybe happen.

[@Inolikestatusquo]

Yeah, Tucker Carlson and Fox say that anything lefter than them is authoritarian and with PragerU I have seen videos where it says that communism is worse than socialism but socialism still being “the most racist thing in the history of mankind” also those media sources say that liberals are bad and in order to keep them to think they are terrible they call liberals far left and even more unthinkable

[@Calmrecordings]

Great and concise video, but would love to see you go into more detail on "how the left could use it". I see a lot of political discourse being driven by a compliant neoliberal media, how should a left wing politician respond to questions around cost and productivity? I have my own ideas, but would love to hear yours.

[@ziwuri]

Well tell us your ideas first!

[@nairsheasterling9457]

My idea is to immediately reframe. "I get your concerns for cost and productivity - I am more concerned with well-being, as that is what productivity, and thus cost, are built on."

[@azureScapegoat]

It's important to point out what the question asker is doing by framing it in terms of cost. With healthcare, for instance, the hidden, neoliberal implication of criticizing healthcare spending is "money is more important than human lives". The answer to such a question should never be "oh but trust me, my healthcare proposal won't cost us that much". Because in answering in that way, you are accepting the neoliberal framing and presupposition. The answer must always be a complete rejection of considering healthcare from a monetary perspective. "It is absurd to think we can put a prize cap on saving lives. Healthcare is a human right, it is a service to be provided universally, it is not a commodity to be subject to greedy, profit-driven market mechanics."

[@clashblaster]

This was a very good video illustrating a very real problem with how capitalists and conservatives dominate political discourse, but the video has the subtitle "And How the Left Could Use It" and I didn't notice much of that in the video. You didn't give any concrete examples of what a left-wing counter to right-wing discursive hegemony would look like. Do you believe the same tactics used by the right could be utilized by a disorganized left? Do you believe the left needs to become more organized in order to be able to utilize these tactics? Or do you believe that the left is ultimately unable to use the same tactics and must approach political discourse through different tactics entirely?

[@HenrythePaleoGuy]

Cool to come across this video. Great work!

[@NavyGuero83]

The "overton window" seems to me just a fancy way of saying "perspectively."

[@filurenerik1643]

Ha, as soon as you explained the Overton Window I immediately thought of the neoliberalization of Sweden.

[@cfish9891]

The issue with I'd individual mandate is the entire thing was built to serve us up the health insurance companies by forcing all of us to have insurance whether or not we can afford the bill. It's an amazing piece of corpofash legislation

[@Fuzzycuffsqt]

i'm having trouble understanding the "And How the Left Could Use It" part. Is it meant to be prompt advocacy for leftist policy on leftist terms? i have to agree with azureScapegoat that the framing of arguments is a key issue, but I feel like we're lacking a discussion of how a broad consensus can be formed using leftist framing. without this consensus, how can we affect the what is considered politically acceptable?

[@handsfortoothpicks]

A possible method could be to present yourself as democratic. For example, when discussing controlling the means of production, present it as a democratic work place. If neo libs or conservatives argument against it, don't say " it allows people working in the company to democratically decide what goes on in the workplace", instead just say "You don't want democracy? So you just want one person deciding something for everyone?" With this you present yourself as a freedom fighter and the other as someone who isn't.

[@uhohhotdog]

He explains around 5:00 Better negotiating by starting more radical and “negotiating down” to where you actually wanted to be. Right wingers do this all the time by basically advocating for zero regulations and zero taxes. Also we can just start calling all right wing ideas radical because in many cases they are.

[@eleSDSU]

@@handsfortoothpicks I used to think that worked but my experience is that the libs realize they are not democrats and go "yes, I want one person to be in charge and one day I will be that person". The only real difference between Liberals and fascists is that the latter are honest about how they want to achieve their goals, which are very much the same goals.

[@RedRabbitEntertainment]

@@eleSDSU Plus side is it would make for great propaganda forcing liberals to defend against economic democratization.

[@Hirohitorunguard]

What happened in Sweden I think was well described by Lenin. Lenin proposed the idea that "appealing to the masses" more often than not forces the party to compromise, and after enough compromises those compromises become the new foundation for the party. It's a perfect way to assess the failure of social democracy.

[@Alex-fu3mi]

Your point in practice: Now any time I start a conversation with someone about climate change I *begin* with, “any solutions to climate change that don’t include completely phasing out the fossil fuel industry as quickly as possible can’t be considered reasonable.” Unless they’re already a radical, it gets them thinking on terms that are adequate to the scale and urgency of the problem.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

But there is none. And even if they do exist, they solve ABSOLUTLY nothing. Climate change will continue, there is no way around nature.

[@meganegan5992]

Frankly, it feels like meeting neolibs on their own terms, privitization is just completely asinine. Private interests are terrible at allocating economic resources, and they have little to no interest in the wider economic health of a system. It's like selling your house because you think renting will be a better outcome. Heck, that's literally what happened in the UK under Thatcher for the goal of getting more Tory voters.

[@ru9014]

Well im sure people voted for thatcher because of that and not the economic growth, bringing down inflation and getting rid of industries which were costing the gov tons of money which they then spent parts of on the NHS.

[@meganegan5992]

@@ru9014 Yeah, that and her warmongering and devastating display of Girl Power with death squads in N. Ireland. Besides, it's not like lasseiz faire is better at handling inflation, considering how British privatization has driven subsidies in the French national electric grid and created its own Cost of Living crisis. There's a reason why when the Tories decided to put the latest tax cuts and deregulations to use under the last PM, their pound utterly collapsed in value. Neoliberalism is not a legitimate economic strategy, it is a rhetorical device.

[@ru9014]

@@meganegan5992 i agree on that first half Well no obviously not they have booms and busts, but what she did gave the british gov more money cuz less was tying it down, which means the gov is more capable in what its doing, which creates more trust in the ability to do business. Lizzie trust did the opposite

[@meganegan5992]

@@ru9014 Honestly, genuinely, I've yet to see a single industry that the private sector can drive costs down in compared to a nationalized sector. Railways are more expensive, healthcare is more expensive, utilities are more expensive, food, defense, R&D, the only thing that private companies can be cheaper than public ones is restaurants, and that's just because the government never got around to it. The UK sold itself out, and once the Tories or Labour get around to gutting the NHS, you'll see the budget shrink for maybe a session or two of Parliament, and then costs are going to skyrocket. That's what happened here in the US, and that's what will keep happening if people try to add more "competition" by making the system more convoluted.

[@ru9014]

@@meganegan5992 @Megan Egan @Megan Egan First of all, nationalised sectors can only offset its costs by other things that are profitable, wether they be private or personal and taxed or gov owned and sold at a higher price. Nonetheless, railways are expensive by design, theyre not a profitable system. Healthcare has patents ruining it, which is government intervention, same applies to food. Utilities Im not particularly aware of how that system works so i cant say either way, defense is done privately and has been for a while so idk what youre comparing it to, if youre comparing it to wartime economies thats obv different cuz literally everything the country can do to subsidise it is in use. R&D is terrible in the private sector as it discourages the free spread of knowledge. In my view, most government intervention in the economy makes it worse off and patents especially here annoy me, but yeah sure if the NHS gets gutted ill have a look to see if your prophecy comes true

[@rogerterry5013]

This is absolutely brilliant. Thank you! I am beginning to think that if you push the Overton window far enough you end up with a small number of people controlling everything. That couldn’t happen though, could it?

[@Jormangunder]

Great explanation and excellent video. Thanks Azure ❤

[@sithofdarkness8927]

Great video on combating hegemony by calling out dominant ideology as wrong instead of agreeing to its terms. A lot of rhetoric of appealing to a 4 hour work week and worker's cooperatives (while both at their core necessary transitions for the betterment of society)- the rhetoric feeds into conversations of productivity as a baseline for what is good. Productivity isn't necessarily bad, that's a whole conversation I don't want to start, but more often its an excuse to maintain neoliberal markets as opposed to a "for-use oriented" planned economy.

[@appa609]

There's a backlash though. People get scared when they see things they considered unthinkable become normalized in their lifetime. The further left you push the further right the reaction. The real overton window is blowing up in America today and depending on who you're talking to, both Leninism and ethnofascism are becoming publically acceptable discourse.

[@CraigKeidel]

They're already going further right whether you advocate for leftist policy or not. The Evangelists used to be the fringe in the 80s. Then the Neocons in the 90s. The Tea Party in the 00s. Now we have America First isolationist fascists calling the Neocons 'RINOs'. If anything, the recent wave of leftism in the youth have been in reaction to the rightward slide of national politics for the last 50 years. Which might go a ways in explaining why ML & MLM thought is the prevailing voice of leftism right now; it's inherently reactionary compared to more libertarian socialist theory.

[@rubensf7780]

I’m actually Swedish myself, and I’ve been wondering how we shifted so heavily to the right that the second most popular party is a nationalist one (second only to the social democrats), and I haven’t really understood why. You explained it very well and it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for talking about this!

[@WastedBananas]

how much does migration have to do with it? it seems like many people are having issues with migrants and because of that many right wing european parties, swedish included, gained power because of that. even though most of their other policies are not necessarily popular.

[@CraigKeidel]

​@@WastedBananasAre they *actually* having a "migrant problem" or is it just effective rhetoric? I would wager that immigration probably hasn't changed meaningfully in the last 30 years for most of these countries screaming about migrants. And yet things keep chugging along...

[@nkanyezihlatshwayo3601]

This is also why I somewhat refuse traditional ‘antiparlementarian’ logic we have here on the left ! in that it _assumes_ the classically liberal argument that any legitimate party for the Worker and the Oppressed is by virtue unable to participate in deliberative assembly - which is quietly bonkers massive as far as assumptions go.

[@RashmikaLikesBooks]

I really appreciate this video. You are super articulate and have made me reflect about how the left could use the Overton window where I live (South Africa.)

[@icantaimpg3d776]

Hello from a Vietnamese comrade ! Would be nice if you can post videos more often, where did you go in the past 5 months ? Solidarity with the Swedish proletarian!

[@xabieretchepare3910]

Very interesting video. I am reconsidering my form to attack certain issues

[@andiralosh2173]

I liked this a lot, but also I see the main issue as the rightwing control of media and material incentive for heirarchal control. Creating a very rigid barior where radical and substance discourse is regularly rejected out of hand. The right in many ways succeeds a lt making historical stuggles uninterpretable to the intently confused working class. So... there's a lot of work to do

[@DrAnarchy69]

The legend returns!

[@muellerhans]

Meanwhile SPD and Greens in Germany: 12€ in federal election program of 2022. While 12.63€ was the necessary minimum so that people get more than Grundsicherung (old age security thing; you have to give up property for it). By the way: 12.63€ was the necessary minimum... in 2018. According to the government (CDU and SPD) back then (or more precise: answer of the Federal Ministry of Labor to a question by the left party that asked them what minimum wage would be needed). It is likely more towards 13€+ now, which only the left party advocated for (and I have heard many times from people voting the SPD arguing that 13€ is radical and too high).

[@paavohirn3728]

Good to have you back Swedish comrade!

[@枝江往事]

Your points about the Hegemony of the Media or we can say the Ideological State Apparatus are so important. In those already-welfare States, the social democrats are defending the welfare system by the prefitable incentives. They have already recognized that not striking the Private Ownership. As long as this thought is to be continue, the right wing will still dominate the media filed

[@thetumans1394]

This is an excellent video--really, it's great. Neo-liberalism's deep infiltration of even the most "radical" non-communist left (ironically, including many nominally communist parties) is a powerful example of the system's ability to redefine and recuperate, and how it has done so in recent history. As any number of radical theorists have noted, effective ideology does not appear as ideology; its very effectiveness is found in how it makes contingent and non-permanent forms of society appear as obvious and rational truths. Emancipatory politics lets us reassert ourselves as active subjects: our supposedly anti-rationality allows us to make imaginations and theories real.

[@ps2man]

Good to have you back

[@AmbergAug]

I love listening to your videos keep up explaining weird politics!

[@justinweber8070]

An absolutely fantastic explanation using visuals

[@GregHuffman1987]

close my overton window! youre letting the breeze in!

[@buckempire1395]

when this guy starts making sense to a moderate you know shit has gone bad

[@asdfghyter]

excellent video! i learnt a lot about how my own country’s politics have evolved over time which is a nice break from all the american politics were being bombarded with all the time!

[@DiMadHatter]

have you ever read Gramsci's writings on Hegemony? :)

[@noheroespublishing1907]

Oh look, a rightward shift directly after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. 🤔

[@redleaderantilles1263]

Fantastic video

[@Masp89]

LO's idé om att använde skattemedel för att öka arbetarnas ägande och inflytande i sina arbetsplatser är ett förslag jag aldrig ens hört om! Det visar verkligen vilken framgång Svenskt Näringslivs påverkanskampanj hade när det är något som inte ens nämns i historieböckerna.

[@snefagel]

Great video! I think more people should see it.

[@clarity984]

I would absolutely disagree that you cannot change the length of the Overton window. The right has become more radical and if you were to ask leftists they would say the overton window has shifted to the right but take a look back to 10 years some of the ideas floating around now would be unacceptable such as various LGBTQ rights and so on. When you ask a long-time leftist in America they will say that the window has shifted to the right but will also praise Bernie for opening up leftism as a legitimate public discourse. Look at any country in turmoil: radicalism is rampant on both sides (ie interwar Germany, civil war Spain, civil war Syria and contemporary Iraq). Because the overton window is tied to the political spectrum which has its limits it should only for surface level discussion but as a phrase to use but not measured empirically. To say that universal healthcare is not in the overton window is just flat out wrong. It is the constant most complaint about America and the majority of people wish it to be done, this does not mean however single payer healthcare is not in the overton window. The issue with re-anchoring in power is that it in fact kicks you out of the overton window and thus nobody is willing to hear your thoughts if you are attempting to run for a higher office. The number one reason people point to increasing radicalization on both sides is social media, why? because trolls are completely able to hijack discourse which is how the 4chan and incels have become mainstream topics despite other more popular online spaces. I did enjoy this video as a non leftist thought and it is refreshing to hear somebody talk about praxis rather than fantasizing what they would do if they could. Although you never really laid out a roadmap to do so.

[@caretakercat7176]

When Republicans are the one who abolished slavery... Man this binary politic is like a freakin wheel

[@merbst]

Just remember, Swedes, it could always be worse... (Like here in the United States)

[@georgecastle1646]

Mexico by no means has universal Healthcare😅, it's paid mainly by employers, and if you're not employed, you have to pay a very expensive fee in order to use it (considering Mexicos wages).

[@pietro5206]

while this is an incredibly well put together video (as per usual), I feel like this idea of convincing moderate “left wingers” of the merits of pushing for “radical” ideas for the purposes of achieving their moderate goals is, in itself, a sort of surrender to the hegemony of “policy” and “acceptable discourse”, thus marking a “slide to the right”, since communists and anarchists would spend their time trying to convince moderate socialists and rejoicing in the event of mild (and ultimately insignificant) reforms. Personally I feel like this is not a worthwhile effort, and it corners action into the realm of capitalist structures we are trying to abolish

[@azureScapegoat]

I agree, and I don't believe it is worthwhile for communists to spend their time in that way. I was mostly trying to illustrate the point that knowledge of the overton window can be useful in achieving political goals. Communists ought to be standing on their own, making their own demands, and pushing at the far edges of the window, rather than negotiating with the center.

[@krauelndekaulqappe]

For the algorithm!

[@MylesRoachMusic]

Wow what an amazing video! Understanding hegemony is crucial to understanding why politics in the west seems to be stuck in place. The left hasn’t provided a combative response to neoliberalism so leftists fall victim to just accepting things the way they are and arguing on the enemies turf. The western left needs to build our own institutions that argue for a society that puts people over profit to counteract neoliberalism’s hegemonic law of profit over people. Without out we will remain stuck arguing for “socialist” policies because they’re “more productive”… for capitalism. Anyways enough of me rambling, this was great and I hope there’s more to come!

[@gupyb4165]

10:55 Neolib: My tax money. Socialist: *OUR* tax money, comrade.

[@PlatinumAltaria]

"You expect me to pay for these groceries with MY hard earned money?"

[@Cycrum]

With all this in mind, how are we supposed to combat the right’s attempts to shift the Overton window in their favored direction when they have more than enough connections to dominate mass media? Even if we refuse to utilize their framing, what are we supposed to do when our chances to consistently get our ideas out there is essentially nil?

[@handsfortoothpicks]

Talk about how they are funded by the "elites" or "oligarchs" or slme buzzword that conservatives use. Talk about how what neo libs argue for would help those large corporations.

[@CraigKeidel]

Start locally. Organize and create a mutual aid and self-sustaining local economy. Vote socialists into local office.

[@gljames24]

It's dumb. I'm a Mutualist who advocates for worker cooperatives and worker democracy as a way to reduce the bureaucracy, allow for socialized ownership and prevent private equity from trying to authoritarially buying everything out.

[@smileyp4535]

This is why in the US I advocate for communism/anarchism but usually just advocate for social democracy because it can be done under capitalism anyway, but social democracy is only temporary Edit: specifically I usually talk about being anarchist but that nomatter what we need a universal and ever increasing minimum standard of living for all with garenteed access to housing, healthcare, education and transportation services for all. But I also do argue for this in economic terms usually, but I try to say it as mostly just a cherry on top, to emphasize how there is literally no valid argument against it

[@endrekiss3007]

May I ask would you do a video about deconstucting neoliberalism, or a co-op video about left unity?

[@eleSDSU]

You might want to look up the Deprogram, they do a lot of both deconstruction of neoliberalism and left unity.

[@paulscouten1868]

This is a succinct description of how America got to where it is now. The Left here always tries to paint itself as being reasonable as opposed to the right being unreasonable and this has simply shifted what is "reasonable" incredibly to the right.

[@awesomeeverton7111]

love this vid

[@cxjivnlew8010]

But you can cut the window in half

[@ashutoshtripathi.]

All of this implies either of the parties are interested in a compromise.

[@mirshvern]

Is a conclusion you can draw from this that pushing for reforms can help redefine the debate and bring actual socialism into the mainstream? Great video btw

[@miguelturner7824]

Azure you goober, where ya been? Here's to another great video.

[@TheLazy150]

Babe wake up azurescapegoat just posted

[@KcarlMarXs]

Subjectivity is critical. Mass media is a major component of that, and the left must build democratic and defining channels to shape that. Is that democratic mass media, Is that infiltration, is that more tactical framing? I don't know.

[@encouraginglyauthentic43]

Me realizing mass media is owned by the corporations 😢

[@alfredkwaak]

whats wrong in aplying overtons window in the way described is that is reducts whole politics to willpower. In real democracy parliament is the main institution of a society to shape it (to a direction they would want it to become in future instead of just maximising wealth and political power) many countries don't have a left anymore even if the party name has it.

[@Isvakk]

Very well put. I'm from Sweden myself (Skåne). And I can't stand the left defending the right to asylum with arguments like: "the refugees aren't THAT expensive" or: "they can make our economy grow". A wealthy country like Sweden has the DUTY to help those in need. Because they are humans!

[@ru9014]

Its not unfair to say that you should be selective of the people who get let into the country to make sure theyre more in agreement or appreciative of the culture theyre going to in the name of preservations, many other countries dont want to be the one to take over the "rape capital of europe" reputation from malmo

[@Isvakk]

@@ru9014 if you believe in the right to asylum, then yes it is unfair. If you commit a serious crime you can be deported. But to set a maximum number of people that you can accept. That cannot be unified with the right to asylum.

[@ru9014]

@@Isvakk they dont have a right to asylum in our countries, they have a right to have a safe place to be where there isnt war. And theres more places than just sweden for that, i do agree that we should lend out a helping hand but that doesnt change the fact that we shouldnt compromise our own cities' safety for it. And there kinda has to be a maximum anyway, we cant accept everyone

[@Isvakk]

@@ru9014 what I mean is the right to a fair trial for asylum. You can't have a criminal justice system that preemptively sets a maximum allowed number of guilty verdicts. Same is true for asylum cases. Besides all that I think people should be allowed to seek a better life themselves wherever they want. Just as you can move from the country side to the city (even if you are uneducated and bigoted), you should be allowed to move from the periphery to the core.

[@ru9014]

you can have a right to a trial to get into the country, yeah, i agree with that. but unless the system is perfect i dont think its going be fair, otherwise we risk losing the entire reason why people wanna come here. (by the way, if youre referring to article 14 of the universal declaration of human rights, im not the biggest fan of everything in it and even then its not upheld very well at all, during covid article 13, 20(arguably) and 27 were broken for example even in countries that are seen as those who made the doc) with the second thing, to me that ignores the rule of law and willingness to uphold it. within a nation state, thats fine. but outside of it its fully understandable for people to want to be more risk averse, in countries like japan there's such a high expectation for you to be respectful in a certain way that a small minority of the population not caring about them could upend or drastically change a lot of it, which up until now is what has made it such a successful country.

[@Aster-v8j]

1:32 Between mentions of Reagan or the Heritage Foundation I never know if I should drink shots or throw salt over my shoulder. 🗿

[@tuberialolicon-tanuki6533]

At times I've found myself using capitalist framing to try and reach people who take simple stuff like less working hours as unthinkable, never thought it could be counterproductive.

[@alexturnbackthearmy1907]

Unexpected for me as well. One would think that taking your opponent position and slowly lead it to your position is more productive, but why would you do it, if you can simply make another argument about inhumane way this position is constructed. I`il try using that.

[@imperfectxennial3008]

Unfortunately almost every democracy is turning right wing, including the Scandinavian countries. It’s really sad. I’m glad I don’t have children, I don’t want anyone in the next generations to suffer this shit.

[@uninstaller2860]

Time be the annoying leftist in town and argue back

[@mooseymoose]

@Ryan You don’t even know what that phrase means.

[@acf2802]

The "boogie men" on "the right" are also glad people like you aren't breeding.

[@2tuxcat]

Great video. However I wouldn’t use anchoring advice negotiating salary in its pure form. It would work only if I was the only candidate for a job.

[@TheJamonm93]

Came back to say PELL GRANTS we need free education

[@emiliopavongras9185]

So, any ideas on how to solve this? Because just kicking the window into both extremes is only going to get us in a US-Weimar-Polarised-Thing as far as historical examples have so far shown.

[@CraigKeidel]

Unfortunately we may have already gone too far to stop it systemically. Organize locally for mutual aid and self-sustaining economies separated from the existing supply chains. If things break down, we'll need to have the organization ready.

[@MrOpiumDubs]

Great content well done very applicable to dutch politics

[@chicagonotactuallychicago]

LOVE AZURE!!!!!!! (Algorithm pls give him more views)

[@Luna-qf5vi]

this is so interesting thank you

[@benge1309]

Sorry, but I don't really agree with the idea that this concept is useful for the left, or that this concept is very sound in the first place. I'll provide counter-examples, drawing one from history and one from the modern day. The clearest counter to the concept of the Overton window is what was the decaying shell of the Weimar Republic. Here, we see a gradual abandonment of the centre (the breaking of the overton window in half), as both the KPD and the NSDAP (far-left and far-right) gain huge popularity. To draw from modern days, lets turn to France, where we see a increasingly unpopular centre, in contrast to the continual growth of the left and far-right fringes. Not to mention the countless Latin American socialist parties that broke through and smashed the corporate centrist/right wing parties. They didn't do this by trying to defend or get slightly better things gradually. They organised, they built up their movements from the grassroots. Real political power doesnt come from having some vague concept of "acceptability" on our side, it comes from joining unions, engaging with people. If we are to engage in reformism, as is what is essentially being advocated, it must be done through building real political power amongst the people. The game of trying to push this 'window' solely through policy is a loser's game for the left, because thanks to the mass media, it will always shift towards capital's interest (the right)

[@PlatinumAltaria]

Radicalisation doesn't refute the overton window, it demonstrates it. It is caused when politicians become out of touch with the interests of the public, usually due to flaws in the democratic process preventing centrists from leaving power. This causes the general public to flee further from the centre without the overton window moving. People simply abandon the idea of "acceptable". Real political power does not come from anywhere except belief. It's a fiat currency. No amount of work will guarantee success.

[@wastelandranger6021]

Incredible video!

[@ZayanWentronPG47]

Welcome back.

[@AP-ym1lo]

So I am curious to press you on one thing related to the idea of the left using neo-liberal terms when making arguments. Is this more a reaction to the rise of neo-liberal ideology and that hegemony, in the attempts to be able to keep relevance? Or do you see this as a weakening on their positions? Cause to me, it seemed more as a natural reaction when engaging with the new dynamic of the 90's in Sweden. Like if we were to divide the left in Sweden in the 90's into 2 groups, those that used neo-liberal terms and those that didn't, would you find more engagement and long-term membership among those that listened to the left that used neo-liberal terms or those that didn't? Let's go a bit further, let's say that those that don't neo-liberal terms had longer commitment and loyalty to the left, what is the general mobility of people to vote for different parties of the years, ect? Would those that use neo-liberal terms have a mobility rate that was similar to the general population, or worse, or better? I also curious as to what solution there is to this. Cause I am not convinced that the avoidance of neo-liberal terms and comparisons is useful and it seems like the use of them is more a reaction to a desperate situation that was foundational. The rise of neo-liberalism as mentioned, didn't seem to come from debating outside of the Keynesian hegemony that existed in Sweden, but come from astro-turfing and from creating media apparatuses that consumed the political culture from the ground up. Even then, that seemed to be a gradual process that likely needed to originally make some weak appeals to the Keynesian hegemony.

[@azureScapegoat]

I'll quote a few paragraphs of Dr. Sunnercrantz's thesis where she addresses this: "Neoliberalist articulations were not alone in creating the conditions for the hegemonic process that I have observed in the Swedish debate on privatisation. In fact, the left and social democrats in particular also played an important, if perhaps unwitting, role in this regard. Whereas the neoliberal discourse coalition focused on a moral line of argument, social democratic spokespersons, along with various economic experts tended to favour arguments centred around “efficiency” - even in contesting privatisation policies. Perceived oppositions between the private and the public sector; between private and government power; and between market and state were key to this line of argument. Private sector firms were discursively constructed as efficient, rational, and diverse, while the public sector was described as inefficient, incompetent, arrogant, and bureaucratic (with few exceptions). This was supposedly so, because of a large centralised system managed by a policy elite that believes itself to know better than individual people what they need and what is good for them. Within this framing, even from a left-wing perspective, the choice is not as one might perhaps expect, between taming private economic power through increased state power on the one hand, and tolerating extended private economic power to limit the state’s reach on the other. Rather the question comes to be about the extent to which the power and reach of the state should be limited; a choice between the mere transformation of state enterprises into joint-stock or into limited-liability companies; of contracting out only certain services or of launching complete privatisations. Whereas these kinds of argument are often regarded as neoliberal, in this case they were articulated from an unlikely broad set of subject positions - a gift served on a golden platter for the neoliberal discourse coalition. The primary proponents of privatisation policy thus extended far beyond the enunciate positions of neoliberal radicals to include expert economists, parliamentary politicians of various committees, business executives, and spokespersons for various associations. A less obvious proponent of privatisation policies and neoliberal politics are the various representatives of social democracy. For spokespersons from the social democratic sphere, a technical, administrative argument for privatisation was very useful as it did not deviate from the ideological foundation of the party. One could argue in favour of more efficient solutions to public sector problems and still be a Social Democrat. Even those who wished to partake in the social democratic discourse to oppose privatisation were forced to argue against such efficiency arguments with the same technical terms. Because this is a long-term study of the debate, precisely such developments of reframing arguments over time can be revealed. In short, the efficiency arguments in the debate on privatisation emanate from the subject positions of experts and spokesperson, while public intellectuals who argue on behalf of moral values are pushed out of mainstream debate fora. This is a tendency that cuts across the left-right political divide. Both followers and outspoken antagonists of neoliberalism argue in terms of costs and efficiency." (pp. 284-285) "Along with the rest of the political left, TLM fail to present a unified front behind any political demand. TLM’s confused role and identity as an intellectual organ is noticeable especially in the early issues. No clear-cut political frontiers against a common enemy are being articulated even among the contributors of this clearly defined group. TLM is not perceived as, referred to or able to act as one actor; instead, the various demands made appear disparate. Differences and contradictions between various fractions are exposed but undealt with." (p. 272) Full thesis available here: lucris.lub.lu.se/ws/portalfiles/portal/35264503/e_spik_Liv_S.pdf

[@Generic_786]

This HAS to be one of the MOST important political video I've seen. I couldn't have said it better myself. This perfectly incapsulates why centrists and right-leaning democrats are dangerous (or just democrats in general). Well done!

[@handsfortoothpicks]

We need to encourage "leftists" to break away from the Democratic party. Or just abandon the West for the third world

[@Screech9]

holy fuck azure uploaded

[@willtheoct]

black panthers 4 potus

[@jasonblok7360]

Epic

[@johnsmiff8328]

Accepting an opponent's values to bring them over to your conclusion MIGHT be rhetorically effective, idk there's probably a balance to reach there. I guess I havent really seen an argument for socialized benefits outside of the neoliberal framework, although I'm sure there is one. Would anyone like to share?

[@justinlindfors8512]

To start off with defining the neoliberal framework, an argument for socialized benefits would involve capitalism through the free market. We dont want to rely on capitalism to achieve socialized benefits because you can't put a price on public services like healthcare and education, and besides that, what would the right argue for here? Cant prosper without buying everything? Speaking of the right, there's no convincing the right to adopting socialist ideas without capitalism which defines neoliberalism so work is cut out for the left here, a real doozy. But, what should be argued here is that any policy or idea that the right promotes can be framed as ridiculous especially when you consider the natural conclusion that the right wants to make money off of everything which means if you want to be healthy and well educated you need money which isn't very simple obviously. Same thing goes for anything that helps the poor or working class aka socialism. And in case the right tries to argue there way out of this one, if I propose we have free healthcare and education in America and the first thing you ask is how we pay for it, I say ask the rich. You'd think the rich would love to help society by gibing there money to help public services be free but naturally that be against their interests for some reason, aka Capitalism.

[@Bei-Abedan]

HEgemony not heGEmony. The stress is on the first syllable.

[@princeofchetarria5375]

Wait so how can the left use this?