Tariq Ali vs Steven Pinker: Does politics need violence?

[@TheInstituteOfArtAndIdeas]

Which speaker do you agree with? When and why should we resort to violence, if ever? To watch the full video (with a free trial) follow this link: iai.tv/video/fires-of-progress?KZbin&+comment

[@CarnaubaWax_88]

When it’s not in the name of terror or meaningless misery. It’s actually not a hard question.

[@timeisfleeting2452]

Tariq Ali's contempt for this intellectual fraud is well and truly justified.

[@andreselectrico]

Pinker is an intelligent and articulate guy, no doubt about that, but most of the time, he’s so shallow. He uses nice words to convince us the sky is blue simply because we’re looking at it. I can’t help but lose my patience with the man most of the time.

[@Leonard00000000]

Came here to say that. There's another layer of complexity in Pinker's overall performances that amazes me: the use of official data to mislead social-political oriented arguments. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a science negationist, but using scientific data to imply that social change is only possible by official means is a powerful way of killing thought. It's almost like the numbers gathered doesn't fit in reality but since is catalogue as science it's impossible to challenge, which is an extremely anti-science position.

[@meshzzizk]

well said

[@malikfo1941]

Ali is deep?

[@naayou99]

@andreselectrico well said. He should have stuck to his field. He is no Noam Chomsky.

[@andreselectrico]

@@malikfo1941 I find Ali more accurate.

[@apolloforabetterfuture4814]

Pinker should've stuck with science and not touched politics for his own sake

[@giatonpeonta8071]

Pinker argues that the decline in violence against women did not come about thanks to violence well, violence against women was practically depenalized (either outright not illegal or illegal but not the law was not enforced) and what happened was that social pressure either made that kind of violence finally punishable by law, or triggered the actual enforcement of the law. well enforcing the law is violence and there is violence at least threatened, if not performed there you go, great thinker mr. Pinker

[@dtthrower]

Seems to me like Tariq Ali gave a historical analysis aswell as great answers to the questions raised whereas Steven Pinker said alot without really saying anything.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Pinker's point about reduction in violence against women is a very good one, isn't it? Whereas Ali's point about absolutism in Russia is...wrong.

[@justinbowen678]

@@CurtOntheRadio I think one big thing that Pinker misses is that laws and state structures are in no small part enforced by violence, or at least coercion. A man who is caught abusing his spouse may facce the threat of prison time. Is prison and judicial persecution not a form of violence? I think Pinker is right that a lot of societal change has come about through non-violent means, but those means are still mostly coercive and may contain a threat of violence.

[@markgobrien9791]

Surprise suprise, he's a Canadian psychologist! Can you think of another word salad psychologist from Canada?

[@dtthrower]

@@markgobrien9791 Yeah lol i was thinking the same

[@dtthrower]

@@CurtOntheRadio Well his point wasn't very well explained, he just said that women experienced less violence through non-violent political actions. Not only does he ignore the oppressive structural violence and the protests/rebellions against that structure by women, but he also doesn't really answer the question of the necessity of violence in some instances.

[@OmarO4]

I agree Tariq Ali and I share his contempt for Steven Pinker lol.

[@CCRUEnthusist]

Pinker is one of the slimiest pseudo intellectual around.

[@TracyPicabia]

I'm guessing you haven't read much of Pinker's work. Or learnt how to spell more than about 60% of the words with which you fail to make your point.

[@CCRUEnthusist]

@TracyPicabia I'm absolutely confident that I've read more of his books than you (unfortunately). I'm also 0% surprised that his fanboys think correcting a typo is an epic own.

[@andreimustata5922]

@@CCRUEnthusist It is not that I have a lot of appreciation for Pinker but I find your claims a gratuitously attack. He is just underlining the obvious here, and while not making any deep breakthrough he certainly is an intellectual.

[@CCRUEnthusist]

@andreimustata5922 He's a psychologist and frequently writes books and makes claims about subjects far outside his field of study using bad data, surface level research, and to support wide sweeping claims. All the positions he holds revolve around creating the intellectual justification for Western domination and a billionaire ruling class like his friend Epstein. He's a hack who holds views that confirm and justify his and his friends positions of power.

[@BadassRaiden]

The main thing that needs to be addressed is the fact that there has been literally NO successful social, political, or cultural movement in the history of human kind without violence. Any and all movements that attempted to enact change that did not have a corresponding complementary violent movement have never succeeded. The overwhelming majority of scholars agree that the civil rights movement would never have succeeded or it would have taken much longer to succeed, without the violent arm of the Black Panthers. Those same scholars also agree that the reason that the climate movement has been so unsuccessful is because it's violent counterpart was successfully quashed in the 90s and it has for the last 2+ decades, been operating without a violent counterpart. The reason violent counterparts are necessary is because they exist to provide a visceral and intimate alternate reality if the demands of the main, nonviolent social movement are not met. In other words, if you don't want to give into the demands of nonviolent, peacefully protesting black Americans who are asking for equal rights, then violent reality that the Black Panthers represent will actually become the reality. To reiterate, thus far, no social movement has been successful without a violent counterpart. The civil rights movement. Hunger strikes in India. Women's suffrage. The emancipation and freeing of slaves. I could literally list every instance of large scale societal, political, or cultural progress. This of course isn't to say that it is absolutely not possible without violence, but it does suggest that there is a HUGE correlation between the success of a nonviolent movement and having a violent counterpart. To ignore this is blatantly delusional and inexorably in dismissal of history at best, or an attempt to rewrite it at worst.

[@JC-justchillin]

war is politics by other means

[@BadassRaiden]

@JC-justchillin I'm not even talking about war.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

"there has been literally NO successful social, political, or cultural movement in the history of human kind without violence" You go too far. That's an absurdly broad category? Isn't, say, expressive dance a "cultural movement"?

[@JC-justchillin]

@@BadassRaiden i guess it depends on ones definition of war. i take a broader definition...maybe too broad I'll grant you. i agree with your post 100%

[@JC-justchillin]

@@CurtOntheRadio you might want to look up the standard definition of "cultural movement".

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Hmmm. Re Tariq's first point - Russia wasn't really an absolutist monarchy by the time of the revolution which the Bolshevik's rode to power. It was until 1905 but then the absolutism was diminished through several iterations whereby Russia was much closer to a British model than it was an absolutist one by the time the Bolsheviks and others swept it all away. No question, Czarism had been limited and was not 'absolutist' by that point. So Ali is being a bit misleading there. FWIW - there's the 1905 settlement*, the Provisional Government and the abdication of the Czar before we even get to Kerensky. All of that lies between the absolutism Ali spoke of and the Bolsheviks. *From Britannica: "The Revolution of 1905 compelled Nicholas II to issue the October Manifesto, which ostensibly transformed Russia from an unlimited autocracy into a constitutional monarchy. "

[@ahahaha3505]

The reforms forced on the Tsar after 1905 were nearly all rolled back as soon as he felt secure once again.

[@ChannelMath]

you didn't mention anything about ordinary people having power. Did they ever get to vote between 1905 and 1917?

[@CurtOntheRadio]

@@ChannelMath Moving the goalposts? There were elections of sorts and plenty of backtracking too. But the point is the monarchy was more limited. The stronger point in support of Ali would be to argue that violence brought about these reforms, such as they were. And that violence brought about the provisional government, Kerensky and October. Regardless, it's clear that the Bolsheviks didn't replace an absolutist monarchy, as Ali suggested, as that was already gone.

[@naayou99]

Well done Ali. It seems to me there is another psychologist, Pinker like Jordan Peterson of some sort, jumping into a field that they have limited expertise in. I saw Pinker debate with Mearsheimer and he seemed to have been schooled by Prof Mearsheimer. A word for Joran Peterson and Steven Pinker: NOT all of us are Chomsky, great in more than one filed. So please stick with what you do better. Otherwise, you gonna look amaturish when faced with experts. However, I still respect Pinker. JP is now a machine that runs out of control.

[@malikfo1941]

Pinker is far from Peterson.

[@jamshedfbc]

9:12 Does she mean that all cultures are not equal?

[@SabaMalik-v8p]

Tariq Ali is a boss

[@MichaelCarmichael]

As a former president of the Oxford Union, Tariq Ali demonstrates what it takess to debate competently.

[@agaperion]

By insulting and condescending to one's interlocutor? His behavior here is an incrimination of the Oxford Union, if anything.

[@muradtalukdar4401]

I love how wrong Pinker is on so many things. It gives me hope.

[@ElkoJohn]

The only problem with justified revolution is that more often than not. The next government also becomes oppressive.

[@CHALETARCADE]

Both France and The USA had violent revolutions, yet both are pluralistic democracies, so sometimes it works out pretty well.

[@yuval5628]

imagine saying this in pre-revolution ireland.

[@markgobrien9791]

Pinker is a pseudointellectual in the same vein as jordan peterson.

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

Brilliant comment. Nailed it. And just as dangerous.

[@saadhasan2300]

Pinker is a one trick Israel firster pony

[@ChannelMath]

No, he's a real intellectual in the Chomskian sense: his job is to defend the status quo. And he's very effective. Much more dangerous than Peterson because powerful people take Pinker seriously. Most people can see Peterson is a clown who only appeals to frustrated young men

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Not remotely so.

[@JohnnyComelately-eb5zv]

@@saadhasan2300 Undoubtedly. He's rather sinister.

[@mrweasel]

Steven Pinker just can't accept the fact that he is an ideologue just as much or more than most others. His work has many egregious examples of selection bias, but he is so mired in his ideology that we live in the best time ever for virtually everything.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

We do?

[@mrweasel]

@@CurtOntheRadio Not really. For instance, not for clean rivers, air quality, biodiversity, wildlife abundance...even precious minerals and fossil fuels, since we are using those up at an exorbitant rate. Also poverty, since the human population is at its' highest in history, poverty is also the highest in real numbers...of course the conditions of many have improved materially (perhaps not in terms of mental health), but even that has come with an unsustainable environmental cost (not to mention huge amounts of labour exploitation particularly in developing countries)

[@user-fy6kr7yr9c]

His book on human nature was very insightful for me

[@CurtOntheRadio]

​@ Poverty isn't the highest it has ever been? On all sorts of measures there has been impressive progress these last forty years. And that argument could certainly be made the other way - the number of people that are wildly prosperous compared to previous ages is massively higher today than in the past. Average folks in much of the world live better than kings of old, in many ways. China has lifted circa 300m people out of absolute poverty across several decades. Look at Indian incomes? Calorie consumption? All sorts of measures are remarkably positive, surprisingly, maybe. I'd be happy to concede there are costs to the environment of that (especially in loss of habitat) but even on this, compared to 100 years ago, say, many environmental concerns are being much better addressed now. I'm not directly familiar with Pinker's book (I certainly don't mean to speak for him) but he is always fully armed with very good data and specifics. And he makes a good argument, imo.

[@robertpirsig5011]

​@@CurtOntheRadioSorry, respectfully I disagree. On a pan global scale your right, but this is largely because of low cost technology like indoor plumbing and running water making improved hygiene easier and thus lowering mortality rates for huge numbers of people in poverty, in places like Indian, Africa and even China etc etc. But you're wrong when taking a look at developed nations which we live in. Massive suicide rates, mental health epidemic, huge numbers of people on prescription and illegal drugs to cope and most of it is caused by the exorbitant cost of the basics like housing, healthy food, and education. All of which were far far cheaper just a generation ago. My parents generation had a house, kids and 2 cars in their 20s as average people. Having an iPhone today matters very little if you don't have a place to live and are struggling. That's a reality for a huge number of people in the western world that is growing by the day. And that's before you talk about the brewing climate castastrophe caused by western nations. Sorry it really isn't the best time to be alive, maybe if you're infatuated with frivolous technology which provides no meaning. But in my opinion it is a lot worse than the previous generation.

[@pintupujari70]

so, my friend wouldn’t stop talking about this book called Vibrations of Manifestation, and I finally gave it a shot. now, they’re making these crazy life shifts-better relationships, unexpected opportunities-it’s wild. they swear by the techniques, saying it’s more practical than woo-woo. the only catch? finding a copy isn’t easy; it’s like the book’s too powerful to stay available

[@robertpirsig5011]

Go away Bot

[@GeoffV-k1h]

Lenin - whatever else can be said in his favour - was certainly prepared to used ruthless violence against forces of opposition. This included the use of starvation as a political tool, as evidenced in his writing as well as aa overview of his actions/orders given. That said Abe Lincoln was prepared to authorise ruthless violence in his final years as President, which most would say was justified in the circumstances.

[@begshallots]

This is a ridiculous comparison. You're lost in the weeds.

[@Commonsense-u1h]

I think you just don't like the comparison. Indeed FDR took really controversial decisions in WW2, as did Churchill. I think it's a hard question to answer, i.e when violence is justified. ​@@begshallots

[@andreimustata5922]

I am not sure what can be said in Lenin's favor.

[@begshallots]

@@Commonsense-u1hthe comparison is anachronistic and ideologically misplaced; the question is fine. Yes, Caesar used violence as well. Leninism is an ideology that necessitates violence for very particular reasons and goals. Compare those and it makes less and less sense. Adjectives like “ruthless” are muddying the issue as well. You can go down this rabbit hole: what’s the historical context, goal, quote, etc. But it still won’t be very illuminating because the contexts are so different. But at least attempt this if you want be clear.

[@begshallots]

@@andreimustata5922 yeah, it’s totally bankrupt unless someone feels that Soviet Communism gets a bad wrap. People try to convince themselves all the time that there was no Lenin in Stalinism. It’s B.S. Soviet communism starts with Lenin. It’s an evil system that is meant to be violent for specific reasons. These old guys are still pushing this moral and practical failure.

[@peterz53]

Pinker doesn't explain why violence against women dropped in the US. Just asserts that legislation and activism caused the drop. ?????

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Whatever it was it wasn't the Women's Liberation Front's bombing campaign that did it, is the point.

[@OddityDK]

The point was that it has done so without the use of violence.

[@DmoneyS44]

@@OddityDK legislation is also backed by the threat of violence. The law is nothing without its enforcement

[@yuval5628]

​@@OddityDKthe civil rights era was incredibly violent.

[@petervandenengel1208]

2:17 The theory Lenin used approving, or advocating for violence. As if it is a good idea always. Was the idealisation, under the umbrellla of scientific reasoning, of something which in his view was at the time inevitable. Because elites do not go unvolantarily. * He only rembered what had happened during the French revolution. Which advocated for revolutionaries, leading the people. Because they were too incompetent to rule. Illiterate. However had he realised before communism would fail, because the momentum he was in was only about economics and not politics anymore (the French revolution was about taxes and not about how laborers felt) he should only remove the Tsar and leave policy to the people in democracy. Communism was just another word for that. Laborers should only have organised strikes for better circumstances only. And not against the state. But now the revolutionaries wanted to take over the economy of the country by themselves. Which they could not. By disowning the oligarchs they ruined the country. Because now no one could invest in the industry anymore. And they had no clue about economics. And apart from studying revolution, they had no clue about representative gouverning. They made three horrible mistakes. Not guiding to the question if physical violence is ever legitimate. The presented question whether violence can be approved of rationally or from academic idealism, does not address the core issue. That was not about the three essential mistake they made in their thinking. Because the people were set up to revolt, they created violence themselves. Where authorities could not react differently to than with suppressing violence. So, then the theory answers itself: what must be inevitable, becomes inevitable. Generated by circular reasoning itself.

[@ChadKovac]

But keep up those peaceful protests guys they're really working and get out the vote.😮😅

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Where? In the US the person with most votes won. What do you expect to happen?

[@Stevies_Precog_Gym_n_Spa420]

​@@CurtOntheRadio You aware of how many people abstained out of principle?

[@chalo7694]

@@CurtOntheRadio sure, idiots have increase, exponentially.

[@champagnebulge1]

I remember watching a prideful RT program on the hundredth anniversary of the October Revolution, in 2017. Seems to me they celebrate the Russian Soviet period just fine, even if they respect that which came before it too.

[@Commonsense-u1h]

8:00 yeah good luck trying that under Salazar

[@AndosaGosabu]

defining structural violence as deliberate is problematic...being preventable seems a better, not the only, criterion...victims of structural of violence may not know they are victims, the purveyors are almost always unaware/deny they are doing so.

[@Skunk106]

Oh, but it's a complex and multilayered topic. There are certainly circumstances and cultures where what you say is true, but for the most part, people very deeply understand what freedom and oppression mean. This is why, in this context, we struggle violently so often. How people become conditioned to either accept or perpetrate violence and oppression is another matter. It seems, very sadly to me, that fear of violence and suffering are still the biggest preventatives to violence. Most people will suffer great injustices before they will resort to violence for relief. Conversely, it takes relatively small numbers of willingly violent people to keep the masses in check. Still I can't argue that large swaths of people are raised and conditioned to believe they are inherently better than other people, despite being concurrently raised with religions that preach the exact opposite. Experiments prove that very few are immune to the slippery slope of becoming the oppressor. Your statements rank among the highest of comments that I both strongly agree with and take contention with. My best to you!

[@malikfo1941]

Look, here's the real deal. Ali talks about revolutionary violence like it's some noble cause, but let's get real. The Chinese and Russian revolutions? They left mountains of corpses. Pinker calls this out, and how do people respond? By attacking him personally instead of actually listening to the argument. It's classic internet behavior: instead of thinking critically, folks just pick sides and start throwing mud. They're more interested in feeling righteous than understanding the actual complexity of political change. Ali might be a respected thinker, but he's not some untouchable pope. His ideas can and should be challenged. The tragedy isn't the disagreement-it's how we've forgotten how to have a real conversation. We've replaced rational debate with tribal chest-thumping, and that's a problem way bigger than any single argument about revolution.

[@CarnaubaWax_88]

Tariq Ali lives in Trotsky’s lakeside house in Turkey. Facts. Swag god. T-Ali.

[@champagnebulge1]

Tariq Ali is noticeably grumpier and more dour than Pinker.

[@ChadKovac]

This is like listening to a brainwashed propagandisy talk to a actual historian

[@andreimustata5922]

What did you hear that sounded as "propagandisy"?

[@andreschang8526]

Hey, look! Steven Pinker! The guy who was on Epstein's island & still teaches at Harvard!

[@locrianmode-g9n]

this is clickbait rather than informative in the way people expect from a curated clip. The guests just seem agitated and are bickering

[@CurtOntheRadio]

Pinker doesn't do bickering?

[@ChannelMath]

maybe it was representative of the whole "debate"

[@NorDixonSkiSchool]

Both opposing Pinker were so rude saying "I think it's important to understand our perspective before making these arguments." And "It's important to know one's history before debating these things" (not direct quotes). He knows his stuff and those comments were so rude

[@GingePlaysMinecraft]

@NorDixonSkiSchool I think Pinker himself would recognise that he is not as educated on the history of those revolutions as Tariq. It's a public debate, showmanship is part of the deal; it's one of the reasons I find these debates fairly inconsequential, the aim is the approval of the audience. They are fun to watch!

[@martinneal5240]

Pinker makes lying claims , without even feeling the need to know the history...Statistics can only mean something if they are rooted in history and context...his is the worst kind of contempt and rudeness. Tariq Ali treated him very politely but puts him in his lying box. Pinker is a mere ideologue for empire posing as an objective man. Sadly.

[@kimcarsons7036]

@@martinneal5240 exactly Pinker cherry picking number games have been for decades an apology for western imperialism, western racism, and general dehumanization of non-anglo-european. Its elite arrogance without anything to back it up.

[@dilutioncreation1317]

In Pinker's book about the decline of violence throughout the world over time, he excludes WWII as an outlier

[@SurgyanDavi-z2q]

i didn’t take manifestation seriously until i noticed my friends making moves after reading Vibrations of Manifestation. one landed their dream gig out of nowhere, and another found clarity to start their own business. it’s not some overnight magic, but the way they talk about aligning their energy makes me think there’s something real here. it’s hard to get a copy though-it’s like this secret everyone’s trying to keep under wraps.

[@EzraSisk]

You all should know that is the wrong question

[@andrewtaylor9799]

Steven Pinker loves to justify the status quo that he and his friends benefit from.

[@bryc528]

Has Pinker ever read history ? Lmao

[@ceekay4649]

Pinker is an ignoramus when it comes to the discipline of history.

[@champagnebulge1]

"Structural violence" is violence committed by those deemed too right-wing. Other violence is different.

[@celorfiwyn8193]

And as usual, nobody gets the basics of what Pinker is saying and only comes back with anecdotes and straw-men...

[@davereynolds3403]

Pinker speaks eloquently but can’t make a point … it’s as if he’s unclear how he feels about his own past. Tariq is clear - throughout history, the ruling classes never gave up power without a fight ! how big a fight ? we’ll, in my country, South Africa we had few deaths - like 10 000 who were activists … comparatively few civilian deaths. when ireland wanted the british out it was many waves too, but nothing like the khmer rouge or the current gen0syde in gaza. lsrael. let’s get to the point. we’re talking lsrael. a failed experiment for which The West needs to apologise. We did it… the Anglo-Saxon Oligarchs created the Balfour Declaration and General Allenby invaded Palestyne in 1917. there’s been no single day of peace since. somewhere a Palestinyan is being beaten down every day since 1917 and the British started it … “mowing the lawn” they call it (not my words) for the coming of the lsraelites in 1948.

[@andreimustata5922]

Yes Tariq's point was clearly made and he was wrong. Pinker gave counterexamples but didn't have a complete answer because reality is complicated.

[@mojrimibnharb4584]

Pinker is intelligent, articulate, and shockingly ignorant of history.

[@TheWayofFairness]

Politics does not need violence. It needs The World Fairness Agreement.

[@duleymark80]

There is no difference between politics and violence

[@mojrimibnharb4584]

WTF?

[@bjarterundereim3038]

This person Tariq Ali seems to use negativity and sideswiping irony as a techniqe of debate and as a substitute for argument. The clear and temperamental neutrality of Steven Pinker is a much refreshing contrast.

[@aasemahsan]

Karensky government

[@yuval5628]

macaroni salad

[@wantAvote]

Violence, threats of violence and especially political violence is always an act of profound impulsive ignorance. The only logical and acceptable reasoning for violence is in defense of imminent mortal danger. The wish to bring about social cultural or political changes by any and all means available is a ridiculous sentiment and lacks all reasoned and/or considered deliberation.

[@BadassRaiden]

The idea that, say for example, the Black Panthers actions stemmed from a place of profound impulsive ignorance is remarkably stupid. They were organized, systematic, and knew exactly what they were doing and why. Quite literally the opposite of impulsive ignorance, and this is important because most scholars agree that the civil rights movement would have taken much longer, or would not have succeeded at all, without the violent counterpart that is the Black Panthers.

[@CurtOntheRadio]

@@BadassRaiden Well, we don't (and can't) know that. We have evidence and argument, not proof.

[@someonenotnoone]

The world we live in was shaped by violence in defense of property. Not imminent mortal danger. The world we live in is unjustified, and violence is used to keep it the way it is. If people aren't ready to discuss big changes, they shouldn't be surprised what follows.

[@ChannelMath]

I'd really LIKE to believe that. So if you'd like to present an argument for it, I'd like to consider it. thanks!

[@ajaypande6391]

Pinker is head and shoulders above the others in terms of knowledge and quality arguments. The others two use obfuscation and fallacious arguments,

[@ceekay4649]

Nope

[@aidoskashenov4532]

I see her for the first time that Stephen pinker doesn't know history