I came across your video posts in the aftermath of Mr. Kirk's murder and have enjoyed all of the ones I've seen.
I just finished watching the video you made where you discuss the "words are violence" phenomenon that has become the bane of sensible discourse worldwide and a precursor to the normalization of political violence.
As someone who studied philosophy as well and who lectured for several years in moral, political, legal philosophy and informal logic before leaving academia, I found your discussion of this topic very useful and on point. Funny enough, just last week I blamed this very conceptual confusion for much of the political violence we see today in private email correspondence with a modern liberal friend of mine.
One aspect of your post I did not find to be helpful, nor accurate, was the spectrum you illustrated between communism on the left and facism on the right. Because I consider myself a classical liberal that celebrates the sacredness of each individual's right to live life as they see fit (with the proviso that they do not violate the same right of others), I found myself wondering where someone of my political orientation would find themselves on this spectrum.
In my view, it would be far more helpful, and accurate, to regard communism and fascism as being on the same side of a spectrum running from extreme forms of collectivism on one side and extreme forms of individualist political philosophies on the other.
Please let me know what you think of this observation.
I think that’s another good way to conceptualize the political spectrum - collectivism vs individualism rather than left vs right. You’re right that political views exist across multiple axes.
My example used the traditional left-right spectrum that most people are familiar with, and is meant to be illustrative rather than comprehensive. So it’s over-simplified for didactic purposes.
But you’ve highlighted something important - there are multiple valid ways to conceptualize political positions, which reinforces why precision in our terminology matters so much.
Thank you for your reply. Although I find it to be fundamentally flawed philosophically, your claim that the left/right spectrum you used is one with which most people would be familiar is undeniably true. That is what I was taught in high school, college and grad school and it is commonplace in media today. So your point that you were using it for didactic purposes is well taken.
I look forward to enjoying more of your precision and nuance!
Well, as a fellow amateur philosopher, I have to disagree with you, if only out of principle.
But you also make a seemingly minor, but extremely critical mistake in this video, and it's your definition of fascism. You seemingly skip over the part of the definition that says "that exalts nation and often race above the individual".
This embodies the core of your own intellectual blind spot. To the point that I felt it necessary to subscribe to your Substack only to leave this comment.
Fascism is not synonymous with authoritarian or totalitarian political ideology as you imply. Most monarchies have not, in fact, been fascist.
Fascism is a manifestation of ultranationalism, the most corrosive class of political ideologies, which is responsible for much of the death and destruction of the 20th century. Only left-wing purity ideologies that implement Marxist-Leninism have killed more people. But even those deaths were contained within nations themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism is one working definition of Fascism that should give you some pause about the current trajectory of your personal political ideology. MAGA is a manifestation of this ideology, which is why there's such a visceral reaction to Trumpism and the movement he represents.
The American right has been increasingly embracing ultranationalism due to the economic, demographic, and cultural pressures on White America, which has overwhelmed its ability to maintain the liberal democratic values that the nation was founded on, leading us down the road of moral degeneracy.
The problem with the left isn't the overuse of identity politics, which nevertheless contributes to the pressures on white America. The problem with the left is that no one is smart enough to realize this is why White people in the country are going fucking crazy, without devolving into calling them racist. White guilt is foundational to the moral fabric of America, so it clouds everyone's judgment when White Americans act tribal/nationalistic.
Squaring that circle is the only thing that will actually save this country from imploding on itself.
You’re absolutely right about the fascism definition - I should have been more precise about ultranationalism vs. general authoritarianism.
That’s exactly the kind of precision I was advocating for, thanks for holding me accountability.
Your broader analysis is beyond the intended scope of the video and I’m not very interested in engaging on those points about MAGA, the left, and white people. I do want to point out you’re making several sweeping claims about racial groups and political movements that would benefit from the same precision you’re asking of me.
Dear Mr. Asiedu,
I came across your video posts in the aftermath of Mr. Kirk's murder and have enjoyed all of the ones I've seen.
I just finished watching the video you made where you discuss the "words are violence" phenomenon that has become the bane of sensible discourse worldwide and a precursor to the normalization of political violence.
As someone who studied philosophy as well and who lectured for several years in moral, political, legal philosophy and informal logic before leaving academia, I found your discussion of this topic very useful and on point. Funny enough, just last week I blamed this very conceptual confusion for much of the political violence we see today in private email correspondence with a modern liberal friend of mine.
One aspect of your post I did not find to be helpful, nor accurate, was the spectrum you illustrated between communism on the left and facism on the right. Because I consider myself a classical liberal that celebrates the sacredness of each individual's right to live life as they see fit (with the proviso that they do not violate the same right of others), I found myself wondering where someone of my political orientation would find themselves on this spectrum.
In my view, it would be far more helpful, and accurate, to regard communism and fascism as being on the same side of a spectrum running from extreme forms of collectivism on one side and extreme forms of individualist political philosophies on the other.
Please let me know what you think of this observation.
Best wishes for continued clear thinking,
Francisco Villalobos
I think that’s another good way to conceptualize the political spectrum - collectivism vs individualism rather than left vs right. You’re right that political views exist across multiple axes.
My example used the traditional left-right spectrum that most people are familiar with, and is meant to be illustrative rather than comprehensive. So it’s over-simplified for didactic purposes.
But you’ve highlighted something important - there are multiple valid ways to conceptualize political positions, which reinforces why precision in our terminology matters so much.
Great comment, thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Dear Mr. Asiedu,
Thank you for your reply. Although I find it to be fundamentally flawed philosophically, your claim that the left/right spectrum you used is one with which most people would be familiar is undeniably true. That is what I was taught in high school, college and grad school and it is commonplace in media today. So your point that you were using it for didactic purposes is well taken.
I look forward to enjoying more of your precision and nuance!
Best always,
Francisco
Well, as a fellow amateur philosopher, I have to disagree with you, if only out of principle.
But you also make a seemingly minor, but extremely critical mistake in this video, and it's your definition of fascism. You seemingly skip over the part of the definition that says "that exalts nation and often race above the individual".
This embodies the core of your own intellectual blind spot. To the point that I felt it necessary to subscribe to your Substack only to leave this comment.
Fascism is not synonymous with authoritarian or totalitarian political ideology as you imply. Most monarchies have not, in fact, been fascist.
Fascism is a manifestation of ultranationalism, the most corrosive class of political ideologies, which is responsible for much of the death and destruction of the 20th century. Only left-wing purity ideologies that implement Marxist-Leninism have killed more people. But even those deaths were contained within nations themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palingenetic_ultranationalism is one working definition of Fascism that should give you some pause about the current trajectory of your personal political ideology. MAGA is a manifestation of this ideology, which is why there's such a visceral reaction to Trumpism and the movement he represents.
The American right has been increasingly embracing ultranationalism due to the economic, demographic, and cultural pressures on White America, which has overwhelmed its ability to maintain the liberal democratic values that the nation was founded on, leading us down the road of moral degeneracy.
The problem with the left isn't the overuse of identity politics, which nevertheless contributes to the pressures on white America. The problem with the left is that no one is smart enough to realize this is why White people in the country are going fucking crazy, without devolving into calling them racist. White guilt is foundational to the moral fabric of America, so it clouds everyone's judgment when White Americans act tribal/nationalistic.
Squaring that circle is the only thing that will actually save this country from imploding on itself.
You’re absolutely right about the fascism definition - I should have been more precise about ultranationalism vs. general authoritarianism.
That’s exactly the kind of precision I was advocating for, thanks for holding me accountability.
Your broader analysis is beyond the intended scope of the video and I’m not very interested in engaging on those points about MAGA, the left, and white people. I do want to point out you’re making several sweeping claims about racial groups and political movements that would benefit from the same precision you’re asking of me.
Fair enough. Any analysis that is nationalistic in its framing with suffer from the imprecision you mention.
Nevertheless, national groups exist, and act in roughly predictable ways, and running away from that fact won’t lead to a healthier America.