Democracy and Its Contradiction (ft. Christopher Mott)

[@GeorgeHategan-b3w]

I love when I get something I had an idea I cannot articulate but find someone that defies it. Democratism as civil religion will be on my mind for a long time.

[@dt6822]

The most astounding aspect of the fetishism of democracy is the complete failure to notice that democracy has established systems of surrogated slavery wherever it has been coupled with capitalism, which is almost everywhere. We are fed an ideological narrative of democratic governance, but simultaneously only the managerial and capital classes are in any way meaningfully free - the rest are enslaved by a system of wage slavery where they are dependent on a master who tells them when to come to work, when to leave, what to wear and when to eat - and they have to ask permission a year in advance to take their allotted time off work as vacation. None of us are even familiar with what actual democracy looks like - we have the means today of being asked to vote on almost everything the government does - technological tools that would make it possible to vote on a regular basis on all sorts of initiatives and policies, but nobody asks for our opinions - what we have is the so called "representative" democracy - we aren't the ones ruling - we elect representatives who themselves vote (ie participate in democracy) in the legislative process - but the executive process is not even something they have a say in most of the time. Democracy is the perfect system by which a select few special interest groups can corrupt the social order in entirety, purchase whatever support they need and influence public opinion. Democracies are ideal at splintering society, dividing people up into camps, and being convenient vehicles by which external agents can sabotage and destroy a nation with its values and its ideals. It encourages criticism and debate and polarization which very rarely if ever has the outcome of producing the best ideas and the best choices and almost always creates the perfect Avenue by which those who wish to dominate it may enter. A United people United behind a cause or purpose, behind leaders, are a dangerous thing. But a splintered democratic society, the so-called open society, Is the perfect system for a handful small group of people to use their influence, connections, power and money, to get for themselves and for their ideology a far greater influence than they would ever demand by their size alone.

[@iyxon]

Always a good day with Prof. Moeller uploads

[@davidduffy9241]

It would be nice if, in a conversation about democracy, more than one democratic country could be meaningfully discussed, in a way less vague than a passing mention of "north-atlantic countries" (whatever that means. Anglo-american + France?). America is not the only democratic country, and certainly is not the most democratic one. I wonder how much of this discussion is relevant for other democratic countries, like Switzerland? Switzerland has democracy as a foundational element of its identity, and yet the majority of the population (and its politicians) also have neutrality as a core value. Does Switzerland exhibit 'democratism'? And if not, why not? This is a genuine question and one it would be nice for Mr Mott to address, as I still don't understand how his 'democratism' doesn't constitute a fairly straightforward critique of Anglo-american neo-liberal values and foreign policy (with a fun new provocative name and 'white paper' to go with it), although I suspect the discussion would be coloured by his clear (and somewhat ironic) America-centrism. It would have been nice to have a concise definition of what is really meant by 'democratism', as this discussion seems to jump from a critique of democracy in general, to democracy in practice, to using democracy-promotion as a reason for invading countries, to using democracy-promotion as a reason for 'not being diplomatic', and, somewhat inexplicably, how this is all mixed up in wokism.

[@AtomiCZlut]

all those other democracies are under US influence, none of them meaningfully challenge US rule, ergo the north Atlantic countries that make up nato and them

[@imacg5]

I think the democratism they're talking about is essentially "Evangelicalism / Proselytism in the name of Demorcracy". It's a secular religious idea / ideology. The whole video is structured on Hegelian dialectics, focusing on contradiction.

[@imacg5]

The "North-Atlantic countries" probably means "core NATO countries".

[@sofistdecaydead]

24:11 Finally, someone sees the connection I see. By unbinding from Ritual and Heritage, and instead choosing a Literal Ideology that can be both packaged and "Sold," protestantism was able to politicise itself without raising suspicion. Evolving towards the Democritism we now observe, and its contradictions. Atheist now, but strongly protestant upbringing. I once had a conversation with a Catholic man that pointed out a similar contradiction. He spoke about how Protestant Churches continuously spoke of "Come as you are." yet its followers are quite prone to judging another's appearance. I sometimes imagine Western Democracy appears that way to other nations.

[@Ravi9A]

Oh, honest and self aware westerners? How refreshing

[@cynicalist5869]

interesting that you generalize 'westerners'.

[@generischgesichtslosgeneri3781]

Interesting, can to point to self-aware easterners or middle easterners?

[@Ravi9A]

@@generischgesichtslosgeneri3781 easy, every one of them that is not promoting globalisation.

[@Ravi9A]

@@cynicalist5869 correct.

[@kennybrhouston]

Sounds like cultural chauvinism to me. Over generalisation and anti western bigotry

[@johnshaplin]

‘Opinions are to the vast apparatus of social existences are what oil is to the machines. but one does not go up to a turbine and pour machine oil over it; one applies a little to hidden spindles and joints that one has to know.- W. Benjamin

[@comradetrashpanda8777]

I really need to read that paper about the confluence between woke progressivism and neo-conservatism. I have been ringing the alarm bell about that for nearly 6 years now and everyone thinks I'm crazy

[@noahlenten8360]

angloboxed

[@ImpendingRiot83]

Spread it around once you’ve read it, it’s super-important. Tons of people I’ve heard talk about it on vids or podcasts or whatnot have been very enthusiastic about it; personally I love it. It’s very good for offering a lens into the real motives behind the haze of rhetoric we get swamped by daily for people who haven’t quite connected those dots themselves yet.

[@moonlitseacapeandthedesert7167]

Hit the nail on the head there!

[@JHimminy]

Excellent discussion. Thank you.

[@rockugotcha]

YAY my nectar

[@staxmigler4383]

I would really appreciate it if you could go into more detail about Niklas Luhmann's concept of social systems, and perhaps explain some of the societal subsystems, like the art system. It would also be very interesting if you could discuss symbolically generalized communication media, such as love.

[@Djordj69]

the world working class must ,in my opinion ,win the battle of Democracy , not for Democracy as i believe K. marx said or at least implied. This may sound dogmatic but it does point to an important dynamic.

[@travisbrinson848]

Most excellent discussion, thank you both!

[@ericknunes2360]

cool video, will watch soon greetings from brazil

[@alexanderleuchte5132]

The German unification aka the evolution of "Sozialistische Einheitspartei" in the East towards "Demokratische Einheitspartei" for all

[@zainmudassir2964]

Good thoughtful video

[@DavidWhite-n5e]

Great analysis, thank you! A bit off-topic, but I wanted to ask: My OKX wallet holds some USDT, and I have the seed phrase. (alarm fetch churn bridge exercise tape speak race clerk couch crater letter). How should I go about transferring them to Binance?

[@Sue-q4q]

Is your next book gonna be how to systematically try to drive a person crazy, how to create a reverberate resonance box of horror????? That would be a genuine book written by you.

[@LorenzoManildo]

While I find the critique of democratic peace theory and the concept of democraticism interesting, I am less convinced by the rest of the interview. Particularly with regard to the Russia-Ukraine war, I believe that the analysis presented is partial at best. Regarding the supposed Western ideological refusal to compromise and negotiate, that too can be seen as profoundly realist. Negotiations are always informed by the balance of military forces. And in order to obtain favorable grounds for negotiation, Ukraine has all the interest of maintaining, both in words and (where feasible) in actions, its maximalist aim of regaining full control of its territory. Moreover, from the interview it would seem that this anti-realism is a typically Western sin. But one has only to remember the appalled faces of the members of Russia's security council when Putin announced the start of the (very unrealistically called) "military operation", to understand that Russia is at least as ideologically-driven as the West. The war has been presented by the Kremlin as a metaphysical struggle for the soul of the Russian people, to which Ukrainians supposedly belong, willing or not. It is being presented as a war against the ultimate evils of Nazism, of LGBTQ culture, and of western contamination of the "purity" of the Russian world. Not to mention Putin's domestic profile as a devote orthodox Christian. This is not to say that Putin is, in his heart of hearts, some kind of nationalist crusader. But that it is not easy to distinguish between ideological and realist motivations. The two are always dialectically tied, one supports the other. And the attempt to neatly separate them, to do away with ideology and adhere to the true realism of force and power, doesn't seem to be too distant from the purity of Protestantism and of Kantian reason.

[@JHimminy]

You learned about international relations after Russia invaded in 2022, didn’t you. Those of us who’ve been studying it since the mid-90s have no problem here: the US is a revolutionary power, bent on overthrowing any perceived opponent government, seeking “full spectrum dominance” economically, politically, militarily. It is not a responsible global citizen. It is a belligerent child.

[@LorenzoManildo]

@@JHimminy I didn't write a word about the US. I am using the case of the Russia-Ukraine war to question the conceptual distinction of "(democraticist) ideology vs realism" which underlies Mott's argument.

[@JHimminy]

@@LorenzoManildo Russia is as realist as it was under the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. They can couch their actions in (Eastern) Christian terms, but their incursion into Ukraine is obviously “realist.” There’s nothing ideological about not letting yourself be strangled.

[@LorenzoManildo]

@@JHimminy This idea that Russia was under (I assume) NATO threat remains baffling to me. The members of Putin's security council did not believe this was the case. Nor did Prigozhin, who pubblicly opposed this idea just days before his failed inssurection and his "plane accident". Morover, just remember what was the situation before the start of what you euphemistically call the "incursion" into Ukraine. Russia was fully integrated into the European economy and the number of American troops in Europe was at an all time low. Now Russia has lost its European ties and pushed Finlands and Sweden to enter NATO. Call this realism, if you want, but it is a bad one a that. However, I am not interested in going down the rabbit hole of the NATO threat hypothesis and I will not pursue this line of argument further. I am interested in the ideology/realism distinction. You say that we should interpret Putin's nationalist and Christian propaganda as an irrelevant coat of paint for his profound realism. Would you agree that the same could be said of the USA? That all the democraticist ideology is a mere façade for their realist strategy to maintain military and economic hegemony? Is there something wrong about that? What would the alternative be? I am personally willing to entertain Mott's critique of (in this case, American) democraticism. I just wanted to make the case that it is not clear that the West is the only ideology-driven actor in this conflict, and that I don't find this neat ideology/realism distinction useful to understand the present moment.

[@lowersaxon]

On point.

[@Liisa3139]

The word Möller uses around 27:15 is détente. Just for clarity.

[@tsenotanev]

..and he means reducing tensions with east germany in particular.. and the east european commies in general..

[@Sue-q4q]

Who's 'true investment' in their profile can you think of that was built up? Can you think of why or how? Can you think of the consequences of the consequences? Diplomacy my shite

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

Damn what sort of anarchists Christopher interacted with. AnComs so tend to be… authoritative

[@ericschambion6838]

I agreed up to the reference to "Russia Gate Conspiracy". It will be difficult for me to take Chris Mott seriously after that. And, most importantly, very disappointed to hear Prof. Moeller give his 100% approval. But I will listen on.

[@gh0s1wav]

Oh he did? I didn't notice it but yeah Russia definitely tried to influence that election. I imagine most governments nowadays attempt to do something like this to a degree just because it's rather easy to do with the internet.

[@dine2028]

I was also disappointed by the generic media illiteracy displayed by this guest. I think prof. Moeller is trying out more interview formats and therefore the quality of guest is, we might charitably say, commensurate with the size of this channel.

[@TheWay-u1n]

Russia is the catalyst for multipolarity which is hostile to movement and thus voting

[@theflyingkaramazovbrothers6]

But he's referring to the illegal laundering of ginned up "intelligence" to justify surveillance of Trump's campaign in 2016. It was all false and everyone knows it. The pathetic FB ads were not significant and we'd have to believe that Russia has also influenced the entire west (why not China, odd) to a populist shift. But that ignores how we had two preceding populist movements (Occupy and Tea Party).

[@Robofussin23]

Do you also believe in “Havana Syndrome” as well?

[@Liliquan]

I’ve never seen someone wear headphones quite this stupidly.😂

[@jabuknesselviech6673]

When you talk about parties in Germany being overly scrutinized and called undemocratic, are you referring to the AFD or BSW?

[@johnshaplin]

Eric Hoffer warned about the true believer during the Cold War. utopian aspirations, MAGA right and left, while maintenance and stewardship of what has been built deteriorates and crumbles

[@tsenotanev]

well since he's dismantling such notion as "democratism" it's pretty clear what kind of audience he's addressing.. pretty clueless people... but really would it be too much even for clueless people to say that, for example, if george w bush says he's "born again" it doesn't mean he's religious but means that he's trying to appeal to people who see religiousness as an advantage ... i don't think even pretty clueless people would have a problem with such assertion.. yet he just takes it as given that W was a devout christian or something .. and that's just one such naive point from numerous others within his discourse... so naive really that he himself comes out as clueless ... and anyway .. even a relatively superficial marxist analysis of the subject reveals what the whole pretense of democracy is all about.. but i guess a marxist analysis would be too shocking a revelation for many people...

[@tsenotanev]

yeah but really... what's the problem with accepting that this exporting of democracy narrative is only being used to justify interventionalism ... and that probably very few of the people who promote it really believe in it, and really value democracy.. or think it's even something acceptable.. in view that a true democracy probably wouldn't leave a living millionaire about... knowing what people make the overwhelming majority.... if it's even supposed to really mean "majority rule"... go figure ...

[@RyanAuty1]

OK nice conversation but I don't feel you properly represented other powers attempt at influence.

[@Liisa3139]

Is Macao real China?

[@JimJonesWasStoned]

Lots of vibes very little substance, not to mention data. The amount of cognitive bias, some sound bites that I've noticed and a little research into the guest himself and his sources leave me deeply disappointed and questioning prof. Moeller's judgement, impartiality and neutrality. I sincerely hope prof. Moeller is not getting caught up in an algorithmic drift. I feel the video should have been left unpublished SAD

[@kasperrandsbaek3004]

Dear Møller You critique religion a lot. How do you understand religion in a complete context, pros and cons of religion. Can you imagine an a-religius society

[@Liisa3139]

I wish you had been more concrete about accepting diversity in how societies are governed. That would mean that all refugee policies could/should be stopped and it would be required that all countries take responsibility of their citizens. No need to care of whatever is done to women or children or whoever outside your country. Isn't there anything wrong about placing the whole blame of instability on developed countries? I don't see democratic efforts to create stability in Africa, middle East etc in as cynical view as you do, as a missionary campaign to perpetuate dependency. If only someone would start discussing what is the responsibility of underdeveloped (I could'n't find a neutral term here) in their own fate so that people will stop fleeing from them. We should bring to the common diplomatic table the fact that whole populations can't move to another country without bringing with them the very same things they are escaping. It should be put to the table too that different countries receive very different kind of immigrant flows. Africa attracts some Chinese today, but China itself does not attract anybody. Islamist countries don't attract any women from outside. And how do you negotiate with islamists? At the table they may say nice things, but they will not give up their ultimate goal of converting the whole world into Islam.

[@aerobique]

this ignorance^ holy shit don't even know where to start

[@JHimminy]

@@aerobiquehow about the mirror?

[@BlackMantisRed]

From my Nietzschian perspective politics is bad for people’s mental health as it makes people focus on the ascetic ideal in result making them resentful for this reason I think we are better off getting rid of democracy. I am not advocating to bring back an older system but instead wanting to see something new. Though having an authoritarian government is not bad either as it would allow us to live the hero’s journey we always fantasise about in our media.

[@Sue-q4q]

Disgusting.

[@sunnymon1436]

This actually felt like a very lazy and superficial critique to me. It honestly felt like two guys avoiding taking a serious position - or offering any of their own world views or intentions/desires for future engagement/goals. A lack of political agenda in this regard sort of just feels like two people yelling from the peanut gallery about how they don't like the show, whilst offering nothing substantive of their own (no show of their own, no implementation). Cheap. It felt cheap, bland, and slightly out of date. I know it's popular among rogue youtube academics from across the spectrum, from Douglas Lain, to Jordan Peterson, to complain about Woke politics, or censorship, but that was 3 or 4 years ago now. So this kind of missed the boat. Most of all I found it boring, there was just mild mealy mouthed agreement between the two - what's the point? Two old parrots squawking at each other in the same voice? BOOOORRRRINNGGG...

[@Sue-q4q]

If only he had had no show of his own. Too fucking late now

[@alexanderleuchte5132]

Ideological Anti-statism is not self dtermination without a ruler, ἀν ἀρχόν. Online it seems anyway the Anarchy symbol is just a very vague " for freedom" symbol often combined with hippie pacifist and identity virtue signaling