George Monbiot and John Lanchester: How did we get into this mess?

[@Asheanae]

This needs to be recirculated, more relevant than ever

[@nmarks]

This video is just as relevant now December 2019 as it was in June 2016.

[@deanrao4805]

December 2020, as well.

[@dannywindham3295]

@@deanrao4805 in 2020 even more so

[@mns8732]

@@dannywindham3295 and December 2021 - 2025

[@mns8732]

Neo liberalism makes genocide possible. At present genocide is occurring in the U S by way of the covid pandemic., before that by way of opioids through Drug companies, and Drs.

[@dannywindham3295]

@@mns8732 and through homelessness

[@tripzville7569]

Unfortunately the only way things will change will be when humanity is completely overcome by catastrophe on a world scale. You can easily see the storm clouds gathering with extreme weather,mass immigration,geo political madness etc etc.

[@ajs41]

Such as Covid 19?

[@dannygjk]

How did we get into this mess? Answer: Greed. Next question?

[@nmarks]

If you'd listened to the talk, you would have learned the answer to the question: Neoliberalism. The fact you didn't give this answer not only show you didn't listen, but it proves the neoliberals are winning their war against you.

[@estitt1973]

@@nmarks pull back on the reins, fact gasm. What Dan said is as true as George’s neoliberalism answer. Both can be true at the same time.

[@blahdelablah]

It's a bit more complex than greed.

[@tripzville7569]

Love George Monbiot. The simple reason the world/civilisation is in this mess, is we have run all our systems with materialistic principles and the only future [if there is one] is to turn all are systems into systems based on spiritual principles.

[@Deebz270]

What? A 'spiritual' system of politics/governance? What some would call a Caliphate. . That notion would be even more disasterious than the current outmoded system. Spirtiualism is uniquely subjective. You cannot enforce spiritualism on people, with so many differing belief systems, one reason why secularism is vital, in any system. . Whatever system is adopted, it has to be *secular* - Free of any 'spiritual' dogma/indoctrination. . I would also say, that materialism is merely part of the problem. The hegemonic system is primarilly the culprit. Debt, enabled by loan systems, disproportionate interest rates and virtual investments - all part of the problem.

[@MikenNinginThai]

Lmao the solution is spirituality..... yeah that will work out very well lol a war of religous bs

[@estitt1973]

It should be noted that spirituality isn’t necessarily the same thing as religious.

[@onepalproductions]

It invariably saddens me to see the establishment-sponsored tools, such as Monbiot, hoodwinking the masses. It's a testament to how effective state schooling is, as indoctrination into a hive-minded, non-critical-thinking sleep state. _School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up._ Excerpt from: Weapons of Mass Instruction, by 36-year educator, John Gatto

[@carinacockrell-ferre-8835]

There was the USSR where there were none of materialistic principles in it's foundation. North Korea lives with no consummerism in sight, would we want to live there?

[@GG-hu9dn]

There is no alternative, because things are working very well for the 1% as it is - thank you ! Nothing has really changed has it ??

[@wlhgmk]

A very good start would be to outlaw anyone giving money or other considerations to politicians for any reason what so ever. Then we would at least have the possibility of our MPs doing what is good for we, the peasants instead of for the vested interests. Who Pays The Piper Calls the Tune. Nothing is more true than in politics. Then we could have enforceable laws for corporations. I am not allowed to kill, lie to authorities, dump my garbage on my neighbour's land or on the commons, bear false witness and so forth. Corporations and the uber rich get away with all these using laws that their pet politicians have instituted. Election funds must come from the exchequer.

[@brianjacob8728]

corporations need to be dissolved and made illegal.

[@Deebz270]

I've been saying for decades, that the current political paradigm, predominant in anglosphere and other international politics is outmoded. This is the case from central government, right down to the local council level. Much of the corruption exists in both. The much needed and overdue revamp of the political system, needs to work from bottom-up. The people need to take back control of their local governance and then force change up the ladder to national level. . The fact is, that with the biosphere now in a state of flux, civilsation is now directlly in jeopardy. Add to that the loading of a pandemic, the first of many likely to hit our species and others and the situation couldn't be more grave. . An end to the mass accumulation of wealth needs to happen. Conservatism is at odds with the 21st Century and the two-and-a-half party system is archaic and now irrelevant. . An end to oligarchy and monarchy (equally irrelevant... And has been for literally centuries...) I would even add - an end to sovereignty is the most appropriate way forward. . A concertive resolve to regulate the media, at all levels, along with the 'literacy' protocols as per the Finland model must be a priority. Most people are stupid. Ignorant of the facts of how they're governed and myopic to the rammifications. . Abolition of nuclear weapons and a dismantling of the the global military industrial complex is an imperative. . Embracing a more socialist doctrine needs to be encouraged. There is no place for capitalism' or neo-liberal economics on a planet with finite resources, let alone with a biosphere under stress. . I doubt however, than any of this will come to pass. Too many of you out there, with your own invested interests, not wishing your 'comfort bubble' to be burst... To much denial of climatic science, or even too much reliance that human ingenuity will save our species... Fuck all the others... =================================================================================================================== Humans - Either drunk on hubris, stoned on hopium, in a fug of faith or a coma of denial and mostly oblivious to o b l i v i o n.

[@elainekerslake6865]

Totally agree. While the planet winds down we see Musk and his pathetic course to Mars as some sort of solution. If he had any sense of reality he would be developing carbon capture technology, clean fuels and nuclear waste clean up techno. Maybe the Chinese will come to our rescue with their inovation and industry . Now we can't wait to resume normal life and get on those planes for our two weeks in the sun......forget the consequences!! It's all over for us on this planet but not for the planet itself which will recover in a few thousand years.

[@TheDrisk]

I really enjoyed the talk. I admit I am new to George and relatively new to political thinking in general.. Only recently coming to it, through myself being personally affected by globalization (job going in January) and mostly trying to understand what exactly happening in the political landscape today. I agree with almost all of George's points, I do perhaps think that there can be degrees of an economic viewpoint as opposed to binary.... find a middle way.. maybe Social Market Economy. I still struggle to see a solution in this globalised World, after all the "Market" is King as they can hold a loaded gun to any government that they can up and move, should government switch from serving the "markets" interest as opposed to serving the people. I also feel that humans are in fact selfish and greedy in the main, particularly when distance is placed between the instigator and receiver. Actually I think the Milgram experiment shows human nature quite well really. In the experiment they found up to 60% people would electrocute the person in the other room to levels that would kill, if the instructor told them it was ok and it looked official. It also proved that when the actor being electrocuted was put closer to the teacher giving the electrocutions then most people wouldn't do it. So it shows there is a direct collation to empathy being given an closeness and seeing its affects. The trouble with modern word there is such distance between the "teacher" and "learner" that people don't feel any or little empathy. This is of course exasperated further by the peer group/bubble/echo chamber that the "teacher" finds themselves, telling it is all fine, way of the world and official. This isn't exclusive to the top 10% either but all levels of society. But it is because of this inherent greed that government intervention is needed, as human nature wont do it itself. I think therefore the deeper question is how to remove the loaded gun that the "market" is always holding to politicians heads in this globalised world.

[@JamesOGant]

Short answer is ranked choice vote. It selects for the majority compromise which is in fact not "evil" or net detrimental for the group. Across the board the majority view on issue by issue is also what most experts believe that we should be doing. Viable social democracy means the group is looked after as is the individual. The studies you mentioned are not necessarily indicative of human beings- it is just one snapshot of one period of time in one part of the world. A much larger body of evidence exists which suggests that when people are given collective power and voice etc they use it for net benefit rather than net detriment- they use it for enacted compromise. But what we have done in the western world or the modern contemporary world or the English speaking world even is to say that plurality or popular vote is representative of the majority, we have used really poorly designed election and voting systems and suggested and assumed that the popular vote gives people power and a voice, but it in fact only rewards a few, who then think of their public initiative as the majority compromise when in reality it is the view of about 15% if even that many people. So that's how you get Trump in the US, who won 24% of the population vote, half of whom voted out of fear of the other rather than a real moral choice, and that's how popular vote supports the status quo because another huge aspect of the voting system is the two entrenched parties who often are representatives of the business party who represent about 30% to 40% of the population, and who ultimately back self defeating public initiatives which seek short term gain and control over long term gain and sustainability.

[@danieljones9463]

Good Morning, "TheDrisk". Your comment is stimulating. For example, you wrote: "I do perhaps think that there can be degrees of an economic viewpoint as opposed to binary.... find a middle way.. maybe Social Market Economy. " Would you be kind enough to explain a little more about this comparison of "degrees" and "binary." ?

[@blahdelablah]

@@danieljones9463 Binary in this context refers to having two choices. What the commenter is referring to is having multiple different choices.

[@shelleywinters6763]

It's curious, you seem to be in agreement with my position, but I find myself disagreeing with what you say. I know that people are born with empathy, only sociopaths don't have empathy. Then you are talking about distance between the teacher and the one being taught? School teacher? parent? media providing information? internet? who's the teacher? I don't remember the exact findings of the experiment, documented hillariously in Ghostbusters by Dr Vakeman. But I thought they concluded that people will continue with the experiment cause of the supposed ligitimacy of the white coat, blindly following instructions, even though they could stop at any time. There is a detachment when you see plight of people in another country, which is why fundraisers show individuals to raise funds for the aide required. Then if there was no empathy, that tactic wouldn't work either. Most people have empathy. I think the most powerful tool is grass roots organisation of society. Individual councils could improve their jurisdictions. I know that Camberra have electric cars for govt vehicles, the rest of the country doesn't do that. Some parts of the UK have a methane production hub, everyone gives their food waste to the hub to power the electricity for the small suburb. Small successes can spread bit by bit as people see the benefits. Even large company's have switched to keeping water in their production and have found it saves them money, the lazy and polluting way they were doing it before, wasn't the cheapest way. People just need to be given the opportunity, some govt loans or funding and support and organisation. Groups can come together and become organised, through spreading the word on how they can improve their small town. It's a fact that when you divide people into teams in a competition it's the team that cooperates that wins. Selfishness, selfish individuals in a team cause a team to lose.

[@danieljones9463]

24:38 "Studies of Children" "Development of Moral Codes" I would love to see some of this work. I wish there was more of me. "Moral Code" > One aspect of a Good Moral Code System might be the determination and utilization of voted on and constitutionally established "Standards Of Decency" for an entire social construct.

[@venusexpress2084]

We all know what we're evolving toward and we all understand how to get there and we all realize what's stopping us getting there.

[@Confucius_76]

i don't

[@brianjacob8728]

people are not as unified as you pretend.

[@mattgumbley6080]

Nuanced and insightful. Thanks

[@shabang2]

Class and privilege is ingrained in the English mentality, even if they are poor.

[@juangris2935]

Upatairs Downstairs and all the other shite that's drooled upon.

[@Travie_Law]

Enjoyed this talk

[@mabli2]

At 20.50 George mentions someone called Vahaggi (?). Does anyone know who this is?

[@maxmuller132]

@Elena Moses: He's talking about Paul Verhaeghe, a Belgian professor of clinical psychology and psychoanalysis. He wrote a book called "What about me?", which describes the effects of the neoliberal system on peoples' mental state and mood.

[@mabli2]

Max Muller, thanks!

[@danieljones9463]

"Investment". at about 16:16 "Two different kinds of investment." > That which enable something new for prosperity purposes and that which "milks" something already established in an economy." I have never had what I would call, a good understanding of this word and concept. I believed it was about giving up some of One's wealth, in order to increase that risked asset, as it came back to me in "dividends". That's about all I think I knew about "Investment". I need to know more about how this concept and fact of "Neo Liberal Capitalist Life", is misused...or abused. Question: Is an investment that, is placed in an already existing profit structure, really a part of a "pyramid" business model? A model that solely relies on more investment in order to exist...or grow? What are some good examples of this kind of investment model?

[@danieljones9463]

at about 15:40 , the discussion touches upon "selfishness" and "non-selfishness" as Human attributes. George Monbiot declares that "We" are not that way!. ("selfish") We should try to remember that the "We" is constructed of many different degrees and levels of selfishness and non-selfishness. This varies according to Individual Personalities. I think that Our Collective Challenge as a "top tier species" is to minimize "selfishness" and maximize " non-selfishness"...but NOT totally. This is the touch point of Morality and Self Preservation. Selfishness serves Us as a kind of cautionary signal, as We, as Individuals, seeks Balance and Equilibrium in Our Lives...in relation to the Lives of Others. Our Moral Mandate (as an Intelligent and Evolving Top Tier Species) is being able to determine just how much Individual selfishness is Good for Our Social Construct...and how much non-selfishness is Good for Our Social Construct. But this mandate extends to the rest of Nature and Our World as well.

[@JonS]

I'll repost what I wrote in reply to a comment above... We should be called Homo Cooperans. The cooperative ape. Our individual physical traits were inadequate to survive. It was our cooperation that led to our survival. A lot of the ideas about selfishness being our strength have been revealed as false. One such example is the idea of the alpha male that was taken from observing wolves. Now the author of the book that created the trope tells people not to read it. What was going on was he and his team were observing captive wolves who were not from the same family, and had been forced to live together. Their behavior was completely unnatural. In the wild wolf hierarchy is simply based on age. The oldest (most experienced wolves) lead the pack, who are all related to them. What's more, there is no infighting and jostling for leadership. The pack cooperates, and so survives.

[@okafka5446]

"Evolving" - could you explain how exactly we're evolving?

[@claratate1567]

@@okafka5446 Good question, O kafka. I see Our advanced technology, civilization and more Personal abilities. More Humans than ever before read and write and become skilled in the digital sciences. But it is also True, that very little progress (Evolution) is being made in Our development of social and cooperative skills...as a species. We have Evolved to a very dangerous stage where We have more power than We can wisely and caring use.

[@shelleywinters6763]

He's very passionate in this video :-). I always thought that some of the people I run up against in the comments section, are being paid to gaslight people, some I suspect are trolls and then there's the brainwashed who join in on the party. I thought the deal with climate deniers was like the tobacco company and like creationism. I find them exascerbating to interact with. It's been good for me to engage with these people though, I've learned to not take it personal, even when they make personal comments. I just decide, troll.

[@tripzville7569]

Excellent work unknown friend. Like you , I have found it a learning process. Love is our weapon of choice ?.

[@Lolalai]

George has a very enticing laughter

[@danieljones9463]

What "wall" did "Keynesianism" run into? 3:33 on the red line.

[@Caldermologist]

Globalisation.

[@danieljones9463]

@@Caldermologist Thanks, "Caldermologist". Now I can try to figure out how "Globilization" is a "wall" to Keynesianism.

[@Caldermologist]

@@danieljones9463 It is not that complicated. When the Keynesian economy was used countries were separate economic entities. With fixed exchange rates and very limited trade across borders, companies, who could not relocate, could be taxed harder in good times. The government could then use that money and hand it out to consumers in bad times, thus stimulating the economy and bring unemployment down. When the borders were opened, when neoliberalism was introduced, companies could relocate, thus removing the effect of stimulating the economy. It also meant countries were forced to compete about where companies would invest, by limiting the cost of running businesses.

[@danieljones9463]

@@Caldermologist Thank you for your explanation, "Caldermologist". Question, if you will please: Your explanation makes it seem like the Keynesian Economy was successful. But what made it possible for "Neoliberal" ideas to be introduced? And did these Neoliberal Ideas contribute to some kind of failure of "Keynesianism"?

[@nmarks]

In the UK, you had the oil crisis, industrial unrest, rampant inflation, the three day week, power cuts and borrowing from the IMF. Result? The neoliberals were in power for the next 17 years.

[@necaacen]

this whole idea of neolib consumerism that competition and selfishness are the natural drives of human beings... why are we not still living in the wild hunting food then? didnt we form tribes which are groups we no longer compete with by co-operate and share with, and as a result our lives became a lot better right? and then we formed kingdoms, and then nations, and then bigger nations, and then groups of united nations, and then world wide institutions. all the while our quality of life has improved vastly with each step towards co-operation and away from direct dog eat dog competition with each other. the history of civilisation, which is the natural history of human evolution, is a move away from competition and towards a co-operative shared way of living, and its the best thing that ever happened to a life form on this planet in terms of that life forms success.

[@JonS]

Indeed. We should be called Homo Cooperans. The cooperative ape. Our individual physical traits were inadequate to survive. It was our cooperation that lead to our survival. A lot of the ideas about selfishness being our strength have been revealed as false. One such example is the idea of the alpha male that was taken from observing wolves. Now the author of the book that created the trope tells people not to read it. What was going on was he and his team were observing captive wolves who were not from the same family, and had been forced to live together. Their behavior was completely unnatural. In the wild wolf hierarchy is simply based on age. The oldest (most experienced wolves) lead the pack, who are all related to them. What's more, there is no infighting and jostling for leadership. The pack cooperates, and so survives.

[@titabell360]

Companies today in the now are extremely diversified

[@TobiasCBrown]

How does he make a link between Keynesianism and Neoliberalism (globalization)? Does he think there's no Keynesian role to stimulate and slow the economy? That would seem rash, if so.

[@debralegorreta1375]

Someone ought to list all the think thanks to the tune of major general.

[@nityatimsina4409]

My take on neoliberalism is a problematic of power/knowledge in our time which has thrown us into a world which is not ours!

[@okafka5446]

37:07"....we don't have an agenda of our own. We are reactive, not proactive, we are oppositional, not propositional." Part of neo-liberalism's success is due to their organisation and funding structures, however "...we haven't really got it together to assemble a network of funders in a way that could have been done, and still could be done." The neo liberals had " a clear political and economic philosophy, were well funded, highly strategic and very long term in their thinking." 43:18 "We have to determine whether we have the system in theory, and then we have to just, really get behind it and get this rolled out, because otherwise we're just going to remain oppositional." "We have to have our own clearly worked programme, and a strategy for promoting it, otherwise we're just gonna lose, lose and keep on losing: that's why the left is in such disarray today, it doesn't know what it is/what it wants/where it's going, all it can do is fight itself..." Anybody arisen since (or before this) who can answer this demand of Monbiot's and can counter the continuing hegemony of the neo-liberal status quo? The only things I've come across which signal a kind of answer, are citizen assemblies and the deliberative democracy. Isn't it time that people who raise problems/questions/issues such as those expressed here, also proposed possible solutions and opened the dialogue about these, instead of a litany of description and what is in a way, complaint. Also, what would it look like to no longer have to use words like opposition and offensive, and to no longer live in a world where the highest funded ideologies have the best chance of success?

[@drdrwoland]

Monbiot's analysis is sitting on an assumption that the needs of people are defined by the current culture, so he is just playing with ways of changing the economic basis of all that, whereas to undesrtand what is really necessary to dig us out of all this we have to ask why people (psychologically, historically, sociologically?)have to have all the goods and systems which are sold to them. Why do people want power and riches? That is where to begin. George is trying to analyse the system from within it.

[@guitartopro]

I believe that we need a massive sea change in our species we should all be working towards freeing humanity of the trap we found ourself in when we first domesticated ourselfs when we invented aggreculture we have the technology coming to free us all from low paid terrible jobs, we could us AI to do most of the work and free us to be creative but it will mean a totally new economic system where the massing of wealth would be band, we will need to use the wealth of the human race together to free us all.

[@hinteregions]

Good God it's John Lanchester :o Until now I could not have accepted that The Debt to Pleasure has a human author XD

[@ozbizbozzle]

some more think tanks like The Taxpayers Alliance, The Countryside Alliance, that the BBC espouse both of which dont represent taxpayers or the countryside.

[@amaramichaels2064]

Interesting analysis and insight, however George, given the ruthless nature of the control network you describe, have you ever turned your attention to the question of why you, and your family are thriving and well ?

[@seenee6416]

I hope everyone who does earn above poverty wages does think about why.

[@smartiepancake]

"How did we get into this mess?" - easy, we let Georgism be forgotten

[@danieljones9463]

"Monbioism" ? But, then again, maybe it is time to stop naming Thought Systems after Individuals? I wonder what key word of what George Monbiot is developing and advocating (along with Others), could serve as the identifier of the social philosophy that is emerging in all this?

[@nmarks]

@@danieljones9463 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

[@kadran3263]

Guy Debord: Society of the Spectacle.

[@Kiyarose3999]

We have 1 dominant economic system that is responsible for where we are environmentally and socially, the ‘Growth Economy’,

[@titabell360]

Different policy and buying behaviours, Bank of America after the war gave forgivable loans to individuals who had working hands. Documentary on PBS or otherwise Archives will provide you with National Film Archives in USA Sounds like a profit sharing, Japanese Business Module. Love your background complete with books and knowledge Ignorance is dangerous

[@titabell360]

Banks are in the Business to loan money and money has no emotion

[@dannywindham3295]

The mmt movement is making a lot of Headway.

[@TobiasCBrown]

I expect that Monbiot is wrong that Keynesianism no longer works. Just like the likely false idea that capitalism no longer works. What Adam Smith wrote about is not the capitalism we have today. Bad Kenyanism is likely mis-applications of the approach.

[@Suburbangeek]

I think that George has said - perhaps not here - that Keynesianism relies upon governmental control of an economy, which is no longer possible in a globalized economy. Secondly, in common with the Capitalism myth, it relies upon the belief that Economic growth can continue infinitely - when the Environment (or the way that Economic growth impacts it) says NO.

[@fractalnomics]

He's a Marxist; there is no other view. The world is flat to him. Or should I say equal.

[@GG-hu9dn]

there is no alternative to the "shitshow"? Yes. how does that work??

[@carlroberts5933]

The. Ideas. Theries. And ideologies. That. Is. Being. Used. Is. To. Govern. By. Is. Reversed. From. Roam. And. Not. One. That. Was started. From. Scratch. So. You had England. Started. A. Sequence. And. That. Is. How. Democracy. Started. Off. With. Inequality. And all. That. Followed. From. Then. Until. Now reply

[@robertjsmith]

I want western BUDDHISM

[@johnsimons8775]

Oh dear more promoters of mediocrity