5. How we know what Left and Right actually mean: who’s who, 1789-1917
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- This episode is for everyone who keeps writing to me to insist that one or the other wrong, incoherent, popular definition of Left and Right is actually the correct one.
How do we know what left and right actually mean?
When we use the terms “left” and “right” in politics, we’re making an analogy to who was on the left and right sides of the national assembly in France in the early French Revolution.
What is it about right wing populists vs. left wings populists, or socialists versus capitalists, or communists vs nazis or anarcho-communists vs anarcho-capitalists that links them to the left and right sides of the french national assembly of 1789?
To answer this, we look at who was considered as being on the left and on the right in three different time periods:
1. The early French revolution in 1789, which is what the whole left-right political spectrum is an analogy to.
2. The 3rd republic in France where seating in the National Assembly was first purposefully arranged on a left-right spectrum, analogous to the early French Revolution.
3. The different branches of late 19th and early 20th century socialist movement, which had its own left right and center.
And then we apply all of the junk cold war definitions - the market vs. the state, the individual vs. the collective, big vs. small government, equality vs. liberty - and we watch them all crash and burn, leaving only the equality vs. hierarchy / class-conflict paradigm left standing.
Apply this exercise on your own to any historical period from 1789 until the ascent of the USSR, and you will get the same results. Now can everyone accept it and move on?
PLEASE SHARE AND LET PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT THIS SERIES!!
I purposefully don’t monetize my channel in order to spare you the annoying ads, and it takes me weeks to make these, so please help if you can!
PATREON PER EPISODE DONATIONS: / whatispolitics
KO-FI ONE TIME OR MONTHLY DONATIONS: ko-fi.com/whatispolitics
PAYPAL ONE TIME OR MONTHLY DONATIONS: www.paypal.com...
FULL TRANSCRIPT: worldwidescrot...
AUDIO PODCAST: www.podfollow.... or search for “worbs” on your podcast app
AUDIO PODCAST RSS FEED: feeds.feedburne...
ALL MUSIC BY *69 starsixnine.bandcamp.com
tweeter: @worbsintowords
This is an amazing video. I saw a comment on Reddit that I saved, which said that the difference between conservatives and liberals is that conservatives believe in “just world theory,” that there is a social hierarchy and that everyone is right where they deserve to be. And that if you filter your view of conservatives through that lens, everything they do makes sense. And for years I’ve done just that and the hypothesis passes all the tests. So then I set about trying to confirm if the hierarchy vs equality theory is really the commonality across right vs left through the centuries, and it’s been extremely difficult to really nail this down. As you imply, someone ought to write a book on it. Thanks for the video!
thanks! i’m going to do a politics 101 book, so i’ll have that in there - one thing to note though: the definitions of conservative vs liberal don’t exactly track with right vs left. need to talk about that and get into those definitions at some point
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Liberals are right wingers, because they want an oligarchy, they only appear to be leftists compared to monarchists, who are the original conservatives. Traditionally conservative has meant right wing, the liberals stopped being credible leftists very quickly because they would not share power. In a real democracy, liberal ideas are never popular, which is why they like to change the meanings of words so much.
When is your book coming out?
Hey! When it comes to defining left and right, I'd say this is your best video yet. At least that's how it feels to me right now, but of course it's been a long time since I saw your other videos so I can't be sure. But I think my feelings are correct. The various historical examples really make a persuasive case. Great job!
thanks! the other episodes were taking for granted the definition of left and right and showing how they’re used or why other definitions are incoherent or not helpful, but for this one i tried to prove why we know hierarchy vs equality is the historical definition.
You're cool!
You are extremely engaging and explain your ideas well. Thank you for this work. It is worthwhile.
i’ll take it! thanks!
Ditto.
This is a great video! It resolves the seemingly conflicting actions of the lefts for me. It also hit me of how complex the problem of inequality is too. Depending on social contexts and existing institutions, we may need different interventions that will equalize bargaining powers for multiple parties. So much food for thought for me personally!
Proud left Market Anarchist and Mutualist here. Thanks for the shout out
welcome!
left market anarchist... that’s a new one. what kind of market? how do you make a market mutualist?
@@geoffdparsons market socialism + anarchism
We need someone really talented to make a bunch of memes breaking all this shit down that we can flood the web with. Great stuff!
I love the idea of centering equality. I think all well meaning leftists want to achieve this and look to the communist projects of past and present as a somewhat successful effort but not at the same time critiquing if this central aim is really achieved (ie. China that has a strict hierarchy and political structure). Its easy to want to support anything that the US wants to destroy as they are (as far as i can see) the undisputed villain of the world. I always thought anarchism was a little goofy as were fed this idea of “chaos” and “disorder” but im really seeing its fruits and its greater revolutionary potential going through your videos.
It got me really thinking and analyzing things through an equality/egalitarian lens that is really helping to shape my politics or a politics i desire. I have to say I really appreciate your perspective (very clear and enlightening, and not muddled about in excessive theory) and thank you for opening up my eyes to what should have been obvious from inception. Its just by chance i caught your channel and it makes me sad that there are others that could use this reawakening but wont be fed your channel.
thank you! that’s exactly what I’m going for. everything is so needlessly stupid and confused. one of the reasons i don’t drift off to the right in reaction to all the stupid cancel culture shit is because i understand what left and right mean, and I think about everything in terms of equality and hierarchy and that just keeps everything in focus. the more people think this way, the more chances of good things happening when a crisis hits, instead of bad things. share with whoever you can!
So gratefulto you for putting in this work. Its invaluable. I hope this explodes
Just started watching this series and damn it's good, immediately subbed when I saw Andrewism recommend you. I was introduced to the equality/hierarchy centered definition by the alt right playbook innuendo studios has been working on for a while now. You mentioned in that you weren't aware of other content creators on youtube explicitly using and explaining this definition, so I figured I'd recommend it if you haven't seen it yet (though you'll probably be familiar with what's covered, iirc neoreaction a basilisk is cited there too). I'd be interested in knowing any critiques you have for it.
haha there’s a lot of worbs i don’t understand in there - innuendo studios is the youtubesman, and “alt right playbook” is a series he’s doing? and what’s “iirc neoreaction a basilisk”??
@WHAT IS POLITICS? oh my bad, I have a bad habit of using worbs without realizing it! Innuendo Studios is the youtube channel, he's a video essayists. The Alt Right Playbook is a series he's been doing about the rhetorical tactics commonly used by the alt right, but it also has videos defining political worbs like conservatism and fascism so everyone is on the same page. He also tries to give historical context for his definitions, such as Edmund Burke's beliefs and lastong influnence on conservatism, so I thought you would have an interesting perspective on it as another creator who discusses the historical context of political ideas. Neoreaction a Basilisk is a collection of essays by Elizabeth Sandifer that looks at various alt right groups to show the ideological similarities that link seemingly different groups together. I thought that you briefly mentioned Sandifer and this book in your video, but I'm likely misremembering. I hope this clears up what I was trying to say!
@@Made_In_Timeland ok i see i’d never heard of any of these so i didn’t understand - ok thanks sounds interesting!
Hello! I'm excitedly watching all of this series' videos in order. This one has been the most difficult for me to follow, because of the rapid succession of factions I'm not terribly acquainted with. I'm gonna have to watch it again to fully understand. Anyways, great work, and making my brain go the fireworks way.
thanks! and sorry it’s a bit hard to follow, i’m going pretty fast….
Love all your stuff. I feel as though I’ve become aware of a contradiction in your schema but it’s still bubbling up at the back of my mind. Thanks again for all you do.
ha, well let me know if you can articulate your critique and point out the contradiction
Did you ever give articulation to the contradiction? I would also like to hear it!
@@TheologyAsResistance I realized I will need to watch the entire series up to this point in order to capture it and haven’t had time yet
Your channel is awesome, and this is a really strong video. I think your definition of left versus right generally makes more sense than any of the alternatives you so rightly trash. But you fast forwarded through the Terror around 20:30! I was curious to see how you would handle it, as it poses the greatest challenge to your paradigm, so was a little disappointed to see that you dodged it. Having said that, again, I love this channel
hi - sorry that i didn’t answer this before - lots of comments seem to get vacuumed up in some youtube robot algorythm nonsense - but i found this one by looking at a “held for review” comments section which I just noticed. How does the terror challenge my paradigm though? Because the left wing party became authoritarian? To me that means it either stopped being left wing on the axis of politics, or you can also see it as someone trying to achieve left wing goals via right wing means. It’s similar to Lenin basically.
An interesting book about the subject from Norberto Bobbio: Left and Right
yes, he’s one of the few theorists who explicitly points out that left and right mean equality and hierarchy. if i didn’t mention it in this episode i do mention in episode 3 or 4 i think, or at least in the bibliographies
Yeah, I'm starting to read the guy now!
The next question is ‘How do we EXPLAIN the feelings, thoughts and actions (and inactions) which occur to individuals, groups and larger organisations? And why there is no equilibrium point?’ Oh yes… and why folks change their minds or are often “conflicted and in two minds”?’ The best shot at this is Grid-Group Cultural Theory, after Michael Thompson, especially.
I had to pause at 1:23 to really ponder that chart...Brainy is a proponent of Papa Smurfism, Papa Smurf is an egalitarian authority figure, Bert is a pro-order conservative and Ernie is a pacifist-anarchist?
I’m glad someone is finally engaging with this important issue! You’re basically correct, but my exact thinking when making that was: Papa Smurf is clearly based on Karl Marx. Bert has all the traits of the Authoritarian Personality as per Adorno. Brainy is an annoying self-satisfied condescending dork like all libertarians. Ernie is is a total chaos mess tornado who can’t adhere to any rules whatsoever but likes to share with his friends.
I'd so love if at about the 35 minute mark you went back to "If you like "z" that's on the right, but should you prefer "a", well, then thats on the right ... whatever you want I'm selling it Bro, just don't mess with the power of those at the top" and took that thread to focus on the era from 1945 to present. I know you get to it (bits of it throughout this series) because this is a revisit of this playlist, but you do such a good job of verbal picture painting that a very concise close up on this one point could be immensely valuable I feel.
Thanks for this and all you've done here... from a fellow kid!
can you be more specific, like give examples or something? i dont get what you mean
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Sorry for the lack of clarity. I should have developed and reworked that substantially before hitting the comment button, but was getting ready for work at the time.
That was my worby (I kinda hoped you might 'Grok' my meaning) way of saying that I'd love hearing your breakdown of cold war (and post cold war) perversion of political language and literacy. The chronology, the players involved and why they might benefit, the de-evolution and /or perversion of terms, if/how political 'pudding brain' was fostered (multiple sub-threads to account for people under different political power structures) and the usefulness of mass or pop discourse affected, etc.
Here I see you showing how the terms left and right came to be and developed a coherent, useful meaning. You do a huge service by taking the time to test different takes of left and right by the "four c's" and make a very strong case that Hierarchy vs Equality is by far the best definition. Along the way, you mention several times that after WWII terms get muddied, sullied or even redefined with detrimental effects on public understanding and effectiveness of political action. A well done spotlighting of post WWII propaganda detrimental to political literacy and effectiveness might be a worthy thing. I would certainly appreciate it.
That said, I'm not asking you to do it. You do great work for all your viewers... at least in part because... you follow your passion. If the idea inspires the passion to do it, cool! If not I know I will appreciate what you bring us, because what you give us is some of the best education I find out here between work sleep and work.
I hope this clarifies things. Have a great day!
@@sl-lz3dw oh i see - well there’s no video there because I don’t think it was a conscious decision at all. i think it’s just the natural workings of people at the top of hierarchical institutions to gravitate away from ideas that promote thinking about hierarchy vs equality, and to shift the focus onto other more convenient things. so i think it was just a natural evolution of terms and ideas as they go through the institutions of power, similar to what i’m talking about in episode 9.2 when social justice ideas go through elite universities or when christianity goes through the roman elite in the 4th century. maybe the USSR had some more conscious choice that we can map out, but i don’t know about those, it’d be a very interesting PhD type project.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thank You!
I personally align myself with the Right (at least on cultural issues) but this sounds interesting
Absolutely amazing video. Really looking forward to episode 5.1
Daniel, I think it's obvious you took into account this but I will mention it anyway: Time after time I've seen that your explanation of Left vs. Right as Equality vs. Hierarchy isn't just the most useful but it's too accepted in academia, I mean, Wikipedia agrees with it and offers links to books that justify that, the Britannica Encyclopedia also mentions Equality vs. Hierarchy and certain works I've read from academics imply it.
How is it possible then that it's forgotten in actual politics?
yeah, you see it in some dictionaries and wikipedia etc, and many writers, especially socialists imply it, and like jordan petersn knows what it means - but it’s just totally absent in mainstream media i think because in a very hierarchical society, no one wants the population thinking about hierarchy vs equality! same reason that in the USSR no one was talking about hierarchy vs equality!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 It seems that even Bobbio agrees and he's one of the most cited about that 😭
For an article on the history of terms, see French historian Marcel Gauchet's essay, "Right and Left."
thanks, will check it out
Another great episode! So where is the mini follow up episode explaining nazis vs soviets? I can’t find it
i never did it, but i will do it as an unscripted “brainstorm” episode in the not so distant future. just didn’t have time to add it in to the main episodes cause they take so much time to do, and other stuff always takes priority but now that im doing some unscripted stuff i have a place to put it that wont suck up a ton of time an energy
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 cool I’ll look out for that
It's important to note that the seating arrangement in European legislatures is determined by the parties themselves. Parties want to sit closest to the other parties they are most likely to cooperate with. For example, social democrats are more likely to cooperate with liberals than fascists, so sit closer to liberals than fascists.
A problem arises when people try to develop a formula that explains this phenomenon. It's particularly difficult since left and right alternate on major issues, such as free trade, the welfare state and religious conservatism.
but in france at least, they explicitly arrange themselves from right to left - cooperation probably plays a role in how they choose exactly who goes where, but that’s the tradition at least, still today
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 It is tradition that the conservatives and reactionaries sit on the right. The article I provided explains why that might be.
You might also be interested in an article by Cleon Skousen called "What Is Left? What is Right?" He was the ideological inspiration for much of the U.S. radical right. He gets around the problem that views on government size between left and right have shifted by claiming that the monarchists were left wing, while the Jacobins were right wing and describes anarchists as far right. The article would not be worth reading except that it has been so influential.
@@nickd4310 can’t access the gauchet essay, if you know where i can find it without a paywall, in french or english, let me know at worldwidescrotes via google’s mail service
that skousen thing is total nonsense from the POV of the french revolution! you could (and should) argue that the jacobins shifted to the hard right with robespierre’s dictatorship, but other than that, it makes no sense given what the whole spectrum idea was based on…!
Did the cold war bonus episode ever come out? I can't see it on the podcast episode list, really keen to hear it!
you mean where i explain why stalin is on the left and hitler is on the right? it hasn’t but i want to do a commentary video where i discuss some of the aspects of the russian revolution / communism videos i’ve been doing and I plan to include it as part of that
No idea who are you or what you believe, but as someone with bias towards the right, I can say for myself that I never seen someone explain it that well fundamentally. I got lots of ideas that goes against both in very controversial ways but one thing that I'm trying to study very hard is to explain to these two groups their biases without sounding condescending and disrespectful, I trully believe people are a bit lost, not mentioning when they use the confusion to their advantage I include "my group" in this problem too.
The major mess here is what happens to the left and right wing parties after the revolution, it's very confusing and only becomes more intuitive after Marx come into play and the international unification of factions of these parties, consequently those ideas and critics inspired the new right-wing groups, many of which had nothing to do with the monarchy for example.
The only bad part was the French Revolution being too simplified, I just came out of a potcast deep on every decade of the revolution. The obsession element in any ideology, or any type of violent or negative trait can't be treated as right or left, I think the most effective is to differ the ideas of change and structure to the things they tolerate.
If u mix up the malice and the concrete ideas you blur any possibility by fear, the thing that the church did u know?
Another problem in the video was just talking about the left when the right wing movements changed a whole lot through the decades. Still, great video for the topic of left wing movements, wished you could have explained the Hegel thing.
malice isn’t left or right but hierachy is rght and equality is left - so when the jacobins turned into a dictatorship and stared chopping heads off, that was a major right wing turn, even if it was done in the name of the left and equality. that’s where things get confusing when peopel who call themselves right wingers or left wingers are actually on the other side, often unknowingly. same with the communists under stalin,right wingers in left wing disguise.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 uhm, yeah that's the problem. Hierarchy is a legit characteristic of the right wing people of that time, but categorizing solly on hierarchy that specific way, lots of people who are right-wing would have to call themselves left-wing now, and I don't think they would be welcome by the left at all. It still sounds like using a side to put as a moral ground, because hierarchy is only good to a certain extent, even if you're obcessed by it, I don't think anyone would want to define themselves like that, so one conclusion we would totally agree on, left or right would be used just for being against or pro-something like in the original meaning but we would still seek some way of differentiate ourselves, I think it would be good and less confusing.
I don't think it really even matters anyways, because if we are to speak the truth, the major representatives of all these group became very fascist after the war. Right Wing or Left Wing by their own different definitions of fascism, became too comfortable with this two schools of thought. I don't have a solution either 😅
Just wish there was less paranoia and more effort together, lots of people who think radically different but not on violence but both wanting the best for different groups of people. For example I'm definitely not leftist, not LGBT nor Marxist but even after so much polemics defining groups and instigating us I still defend the reasons and rights to be LGBT, etc.. on the essence they take, or should take care of people who I might not be sensitive enough to watch for.
@@ryushogun9890 i think defining fundamental terms like left and rght based on how people “identify” make those terms into total gibberish. we need objective definitions. hierarchy and equality are fundamental to human politics and have been since the dawn of humanity.
i can identify as the queen of england but that doesn’t make me the queen of england. basing political definitions on identity leads to mush and muddle.
Mussolini in love with Hierarchy while it seems that he's taking left as modernism and right as tradionalism and saying that Fascism is both things at the same time (have in account that Mussolini always knew he was on the Right):
"Whoever says hierarchy says scales of human values; whoever says scales of human values, says scales of responsibility and duties; whoever says hierarchy says discipline. But above all, whoever says "hierarchy" actually takes a battle position against everything that tends in the spirit or in life to lower or destroy the necessary hierarchies. Necessary, we have said, and not only traditional. Tradition is certainly one of the greatest spiritual forces of peoples in that it is a successive and constant creation of their soul. But we cannot accept the absolute thesis that everything that is tradition is sacred and immutable and intangible: therefore also traditional hierarchies. History offers us instead a panorama of hierarchies that are born, live, transform, decline, die. It is therefore a question of preserving the values of hierarchies that have not exhausted their task; it is a question of grafting new elements of life into the trunk of certain hierarchies; it is a question of preparing the advent of new hierarchies. It is in this way that the link between the past and the future is welded.
We do not intend to deny the past. We would deny ourselves. We are already past, by the mere fact that we live in the present, in comparison with those who will come; nor do we intend to close ourselves off from the paths of the future, since our present is, in itself, a future in comparison with those who have preceded us. All this not only from a point of view that could be called chronological. Faced with the words and concepts that are tied to it of right and left, of conservation and renewal, of tradition and progress, we do not cling desperately to the past, as to a supreme plank of salvation, nor do we throw ourselves headlong into the seductive mists of the future. Our philosophical and political position is that of a vigilant control, of a meditative discipline intended to determine a synthesis or state of equilibrium that will allow us to emerge from the stormy sea of the world crisis."
Btw, this is from the introduction of the official magazine of Mussolini's regime properly named _Gerarchia_ o Hierarchy.
ooh great quote - thank you, i’ll use that in the future - particularly if someone tries to tell me fascism is on the left…
: How do I become a leftist?
: ItS NoT My JoB tO EdUcAtE YoU
: it’s WHAT IS POLITICS’s job
That “Soviet Union Spring Break” poster had me cracking up
Nayib Bukele, President of The Salvador, stated in a recent interview with TIME that Left & Right are anachronistic outdated terms, he doesn't view himself as leftist or rightist and his government policies aren't based on left or right.
He just happens to be an illiberal authoritarian conservative democrat who loves _mano dura_ and ensuring he and his party are always the government with all the state power in their hands. Befriends people like Tucker Carlson or Javier Milei, assists to the CPAC, changed his views on abortion from three causals to none, likes to talk about Christian religion, etc. He has some background on the "left"... A diluted Marxist-Leninist left nonetheless!!!
Here it's the complete text:
"I definitely don't consider myself to be left-wing or right-wing. That division originated after the French Revolution. It's essentially as basic or absurd as saying, "Those who supported the most revolutionary ideals sat on the left side of the hemicycle, while those who favored the most monarchical ideals sat on the right. Thus, they were labeled the left and the right." Since then, all countries have been influenced by the seat distribution established in France.
"Which, to me, made some sense at the time, of course. One learns and understands things better, but a division originating from the French Revolution no longer makes sense to me. It's not even classical enough to say it comes from human civilization. Nor is it modern enough to say it's still in effect. It's an archaic definition that isn't even old enough to be considered classical. It makes no sense to define things in terms of left and right.
"Additionally, I have many friends on the right, and we may currently have more support from right-leaning sectors than from the left. However, I don't consider myself aligned with either side. Our government policies are not designed to lean right or left. I think this is largely due to some coincidences. From my perspective, as someone who was once on the left, it seems that if I were to analyze things from an external viewpoint, the left has lost its way across the world. I’m no longer interested in those definitions, but that’s my observation. They don't even have clear models or prominent figures.
"If I were part of that camp, I'd say, "We have a serious identity crisis and need to act quickly before we lose all elected offices," because people no longer see any clear direction on the left. Despite its anachronisms, the right is at least setting a course. I'm not the only one saying this; scholars on the left and many others also note it."
yeah, the ones who say ‘we’re beyond left and right’ are always the ones who don’t want us to think about class conflict, and want to present right wing ideas as popular or benefitting the general population
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 What is crazy, as showed in the interview, is that he defined what Left and Right meant during the French Revolutions as "revolutionaries vs monarchists" which means I could argue he's a monarch, in the sense of being an authoritarian executive with the control of state power, and not a revolutionary (people who wanted liberal democracy) so his own version of term isn't as outdated as he thinks. Like, with his N name saying he's not Left & Right he's some kind of Salvadorian Napoleon who also like to brag about popular support and that he wasn't a king but an emperor, a term with republican connotations in the epoch like president, to differentiate himself of the other monarchs.
Well, he's in the First Consul stage without being the part fo being it for life yet but even when Napoleon was First Consul the tsar of Russia at the moment thought of him as monarch in everything but name.
I've recently come across this conception of left and right:
Left: believes human nature to be moldable.
Right: believes human nature to be immutable.
He then exemplified by saying the left usually will use the State or any power position to try to mold the social structure, whereas the right will try to make things as close to human nature as possible.
Interesting definitions, but it seems the basis for this definition is not political, since it's hard to relate this to "decisionmaking in social groups". Do you think so?
that definitely doesn’t work for me - i really believe in human nature, and believe in socialism *because* i think it’s compatible with human nature! and i’m certainly not on the right.
i think it’s much more useful for us to think about hierarchy vs equality of decision making power because it makes us focus on who is for or against democracy at all levels of society, government, workplace etc.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thank you. I've told him about equality vs hierarchy and he said it doesn't make sense because historically all "left" regimes became political hierarchies. What do you think?
@@gabrielshigueo2959 when you say you asked “him” who are you talking about?
it’s not true that all left regimes became political hierarchies. You have the USSR which became a dictatorship (which is a right wing form) and then all the other communist countries copied the dictatorship model on purpose, so they never tried to be really egalitarian.
You had many revolutions with genuine left wing character, but they were all crushed by USSR (Georgia, Hungary, Czech, Spain) or USA (Chile) or France (the paris commune).
You also had the french revolution which turned into dictatorship - but the intention wasn’t dictatorship - they ended up betraying their stated intentions.
So you have 2 failures, but the rest got crushed.
you have most human societies were egalitarian societies without authority for most of human existence, and they don’t turn into authoritarian regimes.
it’s much more useful to think about hierarchy vs equality than stability vs change. what kind of change?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 He's a libertarian political scientist here in Brazil: www.youtube.com/@cosmopoliticaeigen. I asked him his definitions of left and right after he affirmed fascism, nazism and national-socialism were on the left.
These egalitarian societies are the "hunt and gather" societies which you talk about in your 6th lecture? If so, i don't think it's possible to go back to those ways of living without enforcing it through a hierarchy.
Sorry for so many questions, it's difficult to think about these things. In one day, i consider myself a leftist, in another, a rightist. It's just too much accumulated knowledge through history lol.
@@gabrielshigueo2959 the idea that fascism or national socialism are on the left are ridiculous - i’m sorry but i think this guy is probably an idiot. if he’s a libertarian it makes sense, because to him, he only thinks about state power or lack of state power, but libertarianism is foolish, because it ignores the power of owning property over the people who depend on that property.
i don’t think we need to go back to hunter gatherer life - the point is that we can use our understanding of how material conditions affect social structure in order to design institutions for equality in civilization.
if you read about the spanish anarchists you can see very interesting forms of egalitarian organization in civilization which seem to work
Well... On the RIGHT.
YYYYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY!!!
i’d have to agree with that. see also episode 6
This is very interesting! Well, the whole video was interesting but this stood out to me. Do you know any other examples of this?
28:32
and also some success in pressuring
28:33
non-socialist governments to pass
28:35
socialist policies
28:36
for example aristocratic conservative
28:39
chancellor otto von bismarck in germany
28:41
implemented the world's first public
28:43
health insurance system in 1893
28:45
as part of a failed attempt to take the
28:47
wind out of the sales of the growing
28:48
socialist movement of his day
ooh good question! bismarck is the go to example for that period and I can’t think of a different example from that time, but the New Deal in the USA in the 1930s was in part a reaction to growing labour activism, and motivated by fear that if there weren’t major concessions made to working class and poor people, that communism and revolutionary ideas would lead to revolution. that’s why they say FDR saved capitalism.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks.
Love your videos, buddy, keep up the great work.
Freedom is a lot more fuzzy and hard to define than (I think/assume) many people think it is. My opinion is that freedom is all about finding the right compromizes between people. My freedom ends where your's begin. politics is all about finding that mystical boundery between my and your freedom, which is a pretty hard task. Individualism=egalitarianism. You can have extreme liberty for some, but not really for all I think. The end goal should be a sustainable, non-agressive, type of liberty for all, not unbounded liberty for some.
Hey I was wondering where you would place the early American political parties on the left right spectrum? Like the Democratic Republican party, the early Democratic party, the Anti Masonic party, Jeffersonian Democracy, the Whigs, etc
don’t know enough about them to have anything intelligent to say about it!
That's pretty easy, just check out what their goals were exactly and make a comparison.
I reviewed a bit of them in Wikipedia...
1. Democratic-Republican Party: At the time was practically a Left-Wing party.
2. Early Democrat Part: This one was Right-Wing.
3. The Whigs: Left-Wing.
4. Anti Masonic Party: Left-Wing.
5. Jeffersonian Democracy: Left-Wing.
All of them would be more right-winger today for certain details, but all the left-wingers mentioned definitely was at the time trying to foster Equality in some manner with only the Early Democrat Part attached to hierarchy (other that you could have mentioned it's The Federalist Party that was also Right-Winger).
now i cant not think gurbmint. thanks
EDIT: would love to hear your critique of Kolodny's Anderson critique: Help Wanted: Subordinates
haha, love big gurbmint or hate big gurbmint, but always call it big gurbmint!
i dont know that book - give me a short summary as i have 3000 things to read and people recommending me things all the time, so i need to know if it’s worth it for me to investigate
Best video on Left v Right I've seen!
Honest opin-oin: "SMOL GURBMINT" graphic is probably good enough to make this whole position statement authoritative.
science!
Another top notch video! 👍
It really helped me understand the left/right dichotomy on the Left!
In the end, I theoretically fall on the anarchists left of the Left, but practically, in the year of 2023, I fall firmly in the middle with the revolutionary party due to the fact that the capitalists OWN the world's biggest and most power force in history: the US Military.
Therefore, the idea that we can achieve global socialism via a physical revolution is near insanity imo. No one, and I mean NO ONE can take on the US military and the capitalists know this.
In the end, as much as I hate to admit it, we have to go the slower and steadier course of first waking up the workers of the world(AGAIN), and then slowly but surely(or quickly when opportunity presents itself) taking over our governments both politically and economically, else we anger and make aware the capitalists and they then rain down missiles and nukes on us😅
But then add the 800 ton gorilla named Climate Change in the room, and you realize that we don't have THAT much time to dilly dally🫠
Buckle up, Comrades! We've got a long and hard century in front of us!
yeah, with or without the insanely powerful militaries of today, you can’t have socialism unless you have the fast majority of the population on your side so the strategy will always have to be an economic organizing one and education, outreach more than anything else
I also want a book that tracks the meaning of words over time
yes, that would have made it a lot easier to make this episode!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 luckily we have Newspeak to solve this.
That’s etymology I believe
I just realized that a god serves as a projection of how hierarchical societies relate to the world, by inserting a parental middleman to justify their goals.
gods serve different purposes in different societies but reinforcing hierarchy is most definitely one of the big ones!
What about 3rd position? Would you classify them on the right or they're actually a "3rd position"?
i think i have a video where i talk about this but i divide things up by issue. so they would be right wing on all the cultural issues, right on political orginzation, left wing on economics, but for only their nationality, so right wing on economics outside of the nationality, right wing on international etc.
Goldman gang.
George Lakoff has his own right Left and Right: Nuturant Parent Model vs. Strict Father Model. It's not very good at all 😔
haha, anything to get away from hierarchy vs equality!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Technically G. Lakoff admits Leftists are egalitarians and Rightists are pro-Hierarchy, his main point was to explain why they are like that (biased on a USA context of progressive vs. conservative and swinger states) so he told himself one day "well, egalitarian people are nurturant parents while hierarchical people are strict parents, so those internal universal foundational frames about family care in ou r brains are the reason for being left-wing or right-wing" but didn't think of a lot of way of being a "nurturant parent" or a "strict father" that could lead to people of both categories ending being leftists or rightists, or considering himself leftists or rightists when they aren't, and so on. He literally come up with the worb "biconceptualism" to talk about people who have both internal frames on their brains, so swinger states are explained by this, because there are a lot of "biconceptual" people there.
Maybe and just maybe I'm being a too bit harsh on him but all this sounds like crap even if his book has interesting points outside his MAIN point.
@@davidlahozgil oh i see - well that makes a bit more sense. i bet there’s something to parenting style and political orientation, but ‘biconceptualism’ is a big muddle…
Wait, from which perspective is literally on the left or right? From the 'kings' eyeview, his '(Right)hand' is his favorite. Where 'right' is also referencing the 'correct' truth as official to the king, all the rest are 'Left' behind (from past tense root, "leaved"). Which view are you referring to? It looks as though you are presenting the outside observer's perspective of the 'king'.
in politics the terms left and right that we use today come from the french revolution, not what you’re referring to
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I was unsure which perspective you were referring to. I think it is from the view of the 'speaker' but you did not clarify it (unless I missed it here or from prior vids?).
The mention of the roots of the directions , 'left' and 'right' I suggested relates to how the terms shifted from "right" = official king's favorite and thus 'official correctness', and "left" = "those LEFT behind (the commoners as the majority), ...to refer to directions. The status quo of the King is what is 'Right' regardless of the particular beliefs. I agree that the USE of the words originated as you said to politics but their own borrowing came from what I mentioned. "Right" relates also to 'rite' and even math's use of 'right' angled for straight up from level ground (perpendicular).
You welcomed suggestions that might help, ....right?
@@scottmayers2438 sure - the association people have culturally around left and right in history and around the world are super interesting - but i’m just talking about how they’re used in politics and where they come from in that context
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I'm saying that they relate directly to your position (as is mine) regarding heirachy and equality: hierarchy is to kings' hierachal RIGHTs ( etymologically relating to rites or rituals) as equality is to those of or on the LEFT who are without the king's grace or power, which will tend to be the relative majority (of those allowed to be represented in the contemporary legislator's domain). So expressing the colloquial etymological roots may help others connect the evolutionary dots in understanding what you are arguing without bias. Can you see at least how this may enable interpreting a CONSISTENCY in the past understanding of terms by others rather than to opposing (apparent) INCONSISTENT meanings of the same terms, thus giving charity to those with alternate views?
@@scottmayers2438 oh i see, yes that is relevant
Love this video, partly because it confirms my opinion that the quadrant of Grid-Group Cultural Theory is a much better model for political theory than the traditional left-right one. In fact you focus on the Group axis. Also, GGCT takes things further by saying that optimal solutions involve all four viewpoints and that what causes stability in a group is instability and vice versa. In fact, all groups are in a state of flux (maybe echoes of Yeats's gyres?)
See Thompson (2008), Organising and Disorganising
The architects of Grid-Group insisted that it didn’t distinguish political ideologies, but rather, ‘forms of reasoning’. I think each political ideology probably contains two, three or four of these forms of reasoning so they are never quite settled. For example, the UK Tory Party has embraced radically contradicting policies over time. The way Regulation benefits(!) Markets is sometimes grasped and then forgotten, causing ‘surprises’ like the 2008 global financial crisis which followed deregulation. This vid is great at debunking characterisations of Right and Left. All forms of reasoning succeed and all of them fail, sooner or later, sometimes in similar circumstances and sometimes in different circumstances. Oddly, a given thought style can both succeed and fail in almost the same set of circumstances. It’s important to be alive to the next nasty (and nice) surprise and adjust one’s reasoning dynamically. Grid-Group is useful for providing both an inventory of solutions and of problems. It is also helpful in enabling protagonists to understand each other’s reasoning. I don’t think Hierarchy v Equality is a good enough dichotomy. I think this vid leaves out Fatalist reasoning, unfortunately. The other lines of division get a reasonable outing, but without EXPLAINING how they originate in sociality.
don’t know anything about grid group - but i think that looking at political stances through the lens of hierarchy and equality is extremely illuminating, and to move away from that opens the doors to so much manipulation and confusion that I don’t see any reason for it
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 No! It simplifies it greatly 😉 Grid-Group Cultural Theory, to give it its full name has a horizontal dimension Low Social Solidarity to High Social Solidarity (left to right) and a vertical dimension, Weak Social Regulation to Strong Social Regulation… it being a social theory for feelings, thoughts and actions. This matrix provides for four equally reasonable, conflicting and mutually provocative ways of thinking (‘Thought Styles’). Running clockwise from top right Hierarchical, Egalitarian, Individual, Fatalistic.
Hierarchical ‘We need Rules and Punishments. We can trust each other if you and I obey the Rules’ ‘The problem is Deviance’. Moderate Risk Appetite
Egalitarian: ‘Nobody should benefit unless everyone benefits. The problem is the System which requires changing’. Preparedness to act very bravely in the face of existential risk.
Individual: ‘I don’t care about you. I’ll do it my way and competition will discover who is right. The problem is stupid ideas and stupid people’. Very high risk appetite.
Fatalistic: ‘Trust nobody. Save yourself. Survive. Keep your mouth shut. If it isn’t broken, don’t fix it. The problem is naivety.’ Very low risk appetite.
You will find these distributed across and within political ideologies.
There is no equilibrium point.
History does not repeat. It rhymes
@Stephen Smith i can imagine that this can be a useful tool (though reading the above doesn’t really make particularly interested in it) - but either way, it’s certainly not a replacement for left right / equality hierarchy, it’s just another tool.
hierarchy and equality dymamics are central and we need a vocabulary for them
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Equality-Hierarchy is exactly half the picture (the right hand side of the GGCT typology. However you introduce Individualism (the bottom left hand cell in the GGCT matrix). Individualism and Hierarchy are particularly provocative to each other (being opposed both in terms of Regulation and Solidarity). And yet Hierarchy in the form of Regulation is highly beneficial to the viability of market competition. The global fiscal crisis of 2007-8 shows how unregulated markets tear themselves to pieces. The other diagonal opposition Fatalism (top left) and Egalitarian reasoning (bottom right) are also doubly opposed and violently opposed. And yet, Fatalism prevents doomed projects and helps defeated armies recognise defeat.
The four thought styles also have their pathologies:
Hierarchy… an ever expanding rule book, rule fetishism.
Egalitarian…bloody sectarianism and violent disputes about the true path to emancipation and the promised land.
Individualist… environmental catastrophe.
Fatalism … utterly fearful paralysis and treachery.
Politics!
Where's the bonus episode?
havent made it yet - it just takes so damned long to make these, that i been sticking to the bigger topics - but i think i will include talking about it in the episode i’m working on now
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thanks for the answer. I'm interested in your take on the fascism/socialism question because it's a nicely controversial subject, in that it typically serves as a good test of the author's political affiliations as well as a compact showcase of the method of analysis. That's what I see as most important in a political theory, more so than the claims and the conclusions.
@@user-mf3oc6mj5l i’m not sure what you mean, but the basic answer is that fascsism is a far right ideology, because it openly called for extreme hierarchies and then it delivered those hierarchies. communism is a far left ideology because it professes and advocates for equality in every sense - but the USSR delivered the exact opposite, and ended up producing an extremely hierarchical state similar to fascism in various respects (with some important differences, such as the fascists kept the old elites in power while the bolsheviks replaced the old elites with new ones from the worker, peasant and intellectual classes, soviet imperialism was much milder than nazi imperialism or even american imperialism etc).
so the reason that fascism is on the far right and communism is on the far left even though the USSR and nazi germany resembled eachother in some important aspects, is that the USSR delivered the opposite of what it promised, while the nazis delivered very close to what they promised.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 That's a good take. I still disagree, but at least it is consistent. It does look like a version of "communism has never been tried" though with corresponding objections. Is a socialist society even possible?
@@user-mf3oc6mj5l why do you disagree? “real” socialism actually has been tried many times, but each time it was it militarily crushed by outside forces - most of the time by the USSR ironically, but once by the USA, and once by France. The only time it failed on its own was in Russia.
given that most human societies were communist since we emerged as a species until a few thousand years ago, it seems pretty clear that socialism is possible.
JBP would say: on min 1 you stated if you oppose inequalities (hierarchies) that youre on the left , and if you want to keep them them you're on the rights.
Just by stating that you've created a hierarchy of values. so I see a critical flaw in step 1.
yes, peterson would say that - and this is where peterson (and most people) are confused: left and right refer to *political* hierarchies, not hierarchies of competence, hierarchies of taste, hierarchies of values etc. those types of hierarchies have nothing to do with political right and left unless those hierarchies are also associated with more decision making power.
remember that the term “politics” refers to decision making in groups. so when we’re talking about political hierarchy or equality we’re talking about hierarchies of power, not values, beauty, talent, skill, etc.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 so isnt political hierarchy just the party that got most votes?
@@NidalSamaradokhtar well having representatives in the first place is a political hierarchy - and a majority ruling over a minority is a hierarchy too - but of course left and right are a spectrum - on the farthest left you have direct democracy anarchist socialism without representatives and which allows non conformists still do their own thing, etc - doesn’t mean it works, but it’s a spectrum.
I actually guffawed at the Bert & Ernie, Papa Smurf / Brainy Smurf political compass. Hilarious!
You're on fire! The BDSM / Orgy, Missionary / Hoverhands one is also brilliant.
haha i forgot about all that stuff - finding the images is like a whole other project on top of the scripts
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Time well spent :D
Do you have a reading list?
not for this partcular episode - you kind of just have to read whatever you can about all of these periods, there’s no good text covering this stuff as a whole (that i know about)
Where's the other video you mention?
you mean a bonus episode where i explain why fascism is on the right and communism on the left even if they have a lot in common? i never made it, but i’ll likely do that in the next episode i put out about kimberle crenshaw’s intersectionality article
Thanks!@@WHATISPOLITICS69
I figured out many of these perspectives after reading Oreskes and Conway's The Big Myth, which explains the history of industrial propaganda in the US. It's amazing how well the authoritarian ruling class in the US has effectively erased itself from public perception and how much this project has shaped our culture around itself.
interesting, i’ll have to take a look at that one
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 REALLY enjoying your series on Dawn of Everything, you're a fantastic lecturer! So nice to see my old idols getting thoroughly roasted, too 😁😁 love the analysis!!
@@johncaccioppo1142 critique of chapter 4 coming in the near future…
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 YAY!! 😄🖖
DUDE. Dude, where's that episode on fascism and communism. You're leaving me with blue balls over here.
im doing a big QnA episode next where I’ll explain all sorts of things relating to episodes 1-7 including why fascism and communism are on opposite ends of the spectrum despite similarities between nazi germany and USSR. I’ll also be doing full separate episodes on fascism and communism in future episodes.
my god your videos are so good, you are such a fucking chad
i’ll take it!
Mind blown, holy damn
I'd very much like to hear a conversation between you and TIK history, I think it'd be interesting at the very least hahaha
dont know who that is, but set it up!
I want to like this series more, but you criticize the lack of clear consensus on these concepts while coming up with your own definition devoid of any citation! Please look into just adding the list of sources used for your series, mostly speaking about past ones
there’s a bibliography in the notes of every episode… and if you want to understand how i come up with my definitions see episode 4.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 It might just be my incompetence but I cannot find the bibliography for your early videos?? I only see the transcript and links to the podcast. Even on Spotify I checked the episode and there is no biblio link
@@nathanm6050 oh shit you’re right - i wasn’t doing bibliographies until i think episode 6? sorry about that. the closest thing is that in earlier episodes i show certain books on screen if i’m quoting the author or citing some ideas from someone else in particular. otherwise it’s stuff im synthesizing myself
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 ya I noticed the more recent videos had their biblios but I was looking everywhere on the old ones for it! At least I know I'm not crazy now 🤣. Would you ever be interested in adding some type of biblio for these old ones because I would love to look more into the ideas presented
@nathanm6050 outside of the book covers that you see in the videos, everything is from me, synthesized from general knowledge or just knowing a bunch of stuff over the years, without any specific source to credit … so all i’d be doing was scrolling through the videos finding the book covers, which i don’t have time to do anymore! if you want to do it for me and send me the list, id eventually post it …
After the recent plague and current instability in American life, with new concepts usurping old, it is apparent that we are about to enter a stage wherein the mass collective of folks may sense that they have greater bargaining power. Especially in the turn of public opinion regarding the atrocities in Israel/Palestine, which are becoming more widespread.
that’d be nice if people start feeling their bargaining power - but it still seems far off - like here in quebec the government just passed a law that screws over tenants, and people protested a bit, but the response was so tame people are just depressed. no one is even throwing eggs at the minister responsible for this…
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 That's a bummer, for folks in Quebec, that law passing like a fart in the wind. The plague woke me up to that feeling of collective power, and I've been trying to learn more about it ever since, your videos have helped me very much. I do understand what you mean about the apathy in activism lately, with folks seemingly more divided and less interested than ever, but maybe we're much closer to the edge than we can currently see, maybe just one national disaster or economic recession away from a cultural awakening, after all, like never before, we are all connected with social media and this may be a game changer in the next uprising.
@@r.w.bottorff7735 yes things can flare up very very quickly out of nowhere - like we saw in 2020 etc - it just needs direction and focus and not be yelling at the wind
Suprise!: Bobbio prefers to say "equality vs. inequaliy" instead of "equality vs. hierarchy" because he sees the first simpler and more direct while the second it's deemed as not so direct and a contrivance to not include liberalism on the right based on opinions of a political scientist named Elisabetta Galeotti (who spouses the E vs. H distinction; he's criticizing her reasoning). To me, it's like, cool, but I don't see how that allows liberalism being cleaned of right-wingism at least we restrict the concept of hierarchy and also I could argue that E vs. I is told from a left-wing perspective, from the right it would be Hierarchy vs. Anti-Hierarchy, i.e. Hierarchy vs. Anarchy that sounds bad for right-wingers as in the same way inequality sounds bad for left-wingers. I will be reading more, but I think you should know this, Bobbio also has a opinion I found weird about the extremes and the moderates, but it's a bit more complicated to explain.
i thought bobbio’s book was convoluted and not super interesting!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I wouldn't say it's convoluted, it's very straightfoward and gives interesting references along neccesary context. Also, he practically does the same exercise to demonstraste that Left vs. Right is Equality vs. Hierachy (Inequality) as you did in this very same video giving appropriate context from left-wingers and right-winger and making comparisons but also exporing certain things beyond. Like, you did a part of his book in video format!
@@davidlahozgil ah - i guess i forgot - i did read it before doing the video and took notes, and i remember thinking it was better then most of the other crap i was reading on the subject, but still found it a bit meandering or something … maybe i was more influenced than i remember!
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 That makes a lot of sense! Also, feel proud of your work here because your video does a far better job than Bobbio to explain Left vs. Right as Equality/Horizontality/Anarchy vs. Inequality/Verticality/Hierarchy. For example, you touch the context of the French Revolution a lot more while Bobbio barely does or your exercise of comparing different definitions of Left vs. Right to see what makes sense with differents contexts are pretty neat where Bobbio didn't go too far, etc.
Like, this video could perfectly "replace" Bobbio's book because the argument is more focused in the Equality (Anarchy) vs. Hierarchy (Inequality) and goes deep enough. Maybe it could be better if we had the citations or a summary of where exactly was the first "Left vs. Right" and how was used after that in the newspapers at the time. Or references to other academics as Bobbio does that one can revise. Or comparisons between far right movements as the European neoconservatives of the 20th century and the fascists, that reminds me, if you ever go to make a video about Fascism I recommend you The Nature of Fascism by Roger Griffin that already did a pretty good work at your level of good work (and probably even more!) defining Fascism. This is other term people use in a too loosely way to describe any far right they see or just hard right or any military dictatorship, etc.
Have you written the book yet??
which book?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I just started watching your videos but have heard you mention the absolute void of books on this subject several times - it seems like you have what it takes to fill that void
@@meyaomeyao ooh i see - i think i might try to sythesize all my lectures into a book once I do another 4 or 5 to cover some other important topics and finish up the russian revolution and dawn of everything etc
Marxism-Nixonism assassinated Lumumbism-Trumpism, lol.
exactly
I may have missed the part where this video is within the microscope of the far left socialists only. In that sense this is a great video. Mussolini himself viewed the political landscape in these terms as well, which is why he referred to fascism as right but also as to the left of democracies.
Would just like it clear that the Revolutionary American spectrum lay almost entirely far, far to the right of any political theories presented here.
Where Mussolini said that fascism was on the left of democracies?
@@davidlahozgil glad you asked. Google deletes me now if I post the whole quote (suppression of rational discourse anyone?), but let me try, and if not I'll post a text string for you to search for yourself.
@@davidlahozgil
“Our programs are definitely equal to our revolutionary ideas and they belong to what in democratic regime is called “left”; our institutions are a direct result of our programs and our ideal is the Labor State. In this case there can be no doubt: we are the working class in struggle for life and death, against capitalism. We are the revolutionaries in search of a new order. If this is so, to invoke help from the bourgeoisie by waving the red peril is an absurdity. The real scarecrow, the real danger, the threat against which we fight relentlessly, comes from the right. It is not at all in our interest to have the capitalist bourgeoisie as an ally against the threat of the red peril, even at best it would be an unfaithful ally, which is trying to make us serve its ends, as it has done more than once with some success. I will spare words as it is totally superfluous. In fact, it is harmful, because it makes us confuse the types of genuine revolutionaries of whatever hue, with the man of reaction who sometimes uses our very language.”
Mussolini
@@davep7849 Give me the source.
@@davep7849 I mean, write the source title in simple text so I can go check it out.
If we use the French Revolution, then Napoleon was a Leftist... Which is absurd given how the definition used in the video is about the "Left" reducing heirarchy.
left and right are relative terms, like cold and hot. napoleon was just another form of monarchy so he wouldn’t be considered to the left, except in terms of abolishing the social orders - and he was considered to be part of the right wing reaction to the revolution.
@WHAT IS POLITICS? Thank you for the response.
The Napoleon faction was physically positioned on the left after the coup, the right was absent. The revolutionary basis was pretty direct in the Left v Right being Left = New regime and Right = Old regime.
@Quant Geekery yes, but you have to judge him based on what he did when he actually took power, which was an outgrowth of the reactionary movement. it’s like Stalin. He was waving red flags and talking about socialism, and advocating for left wing goals, but in power he created a right wing regime ultimately.
and the “restoration of order” that napoleon came to power on was a right wing movement, relative to the goals of the revolution.
it was the business class consolidating its power away from the priorities and aims of the lower classes.
It was to the left of the initial monarchy but became the right.
@WHAT IS POLITICS? We may be talking about different events with different definitions.
The "Left" in revolutionary France was occupied by the faction that took power, regardless of their position.
That definition is coherent:
Left = New regime wielding power
Right = Old regime trying to keep power
@@quantgeekery6358 no, those definitions are not coherent or useful. that means that Francisco Franco was on the left, it’s nonsense. Hierarchy and equality of power have been a central struggle in human history, and in fact that struggle is in part how we became a human species.
This seems like verbal gymnastics
elaborate?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69
Moving the terminologies around does not change the concepts. "A rose by any other name, is still a rose." (W.S.)
@@SteveSpears-Kuhlah well, i’m going into how they were used historically - and noting that that original usage actually makes sense, vs current use where there are 4 different definitions, none of which make sense - so you can use whatever definitions you like, but i’m not playing with words
@@WHATISPOLITICS69
I appreciated the history lesson.
@@SteveSpears-Kuhlah thanks!
Hi! I'm trying to develop a similar channel to yours and I believe your content is great! Maybe we can do some collaboration in the future and coordinate
thanks! we definitely need more accessible basic political theory that ordinary people can understand - i dont know of i have time to work on anything on top of what im doing already but my email address is in the last minute or so of each show, so write to me if you have something in mind (i wont post it here to avoid spam)
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 noted, I'll let you know
"Left" means what "Right" used to and "Right" means you're all for the worker, except when it interferes with employers' rights. In other words, the Left/Right paradigm is broken.
which is exactly why i made these videos, to unbreak it
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Even though the Democrats have become war-mongering pawns of the bankster, people will still be calling the "Leftists," and as Trump slowly transforms the Republicans into a party of pinko socialists, they'll be called "The Radical Right."
@@ThatsMrPencilneck2U people will say all sorts of stupid things, and always have, and we need language to actually mean something to avoid being manipulated by nonsense. speaking of which, trump and the republicans will never come anywhere near socialism… another word that gets abused and badly defined so that no one knows what it means anymore. using the state to funnel money to rich people is not socialism, though it is the original concept of the term capitalism, which was a slur word invented by socialism to describe exactly that.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Trump just defied the regular Republican move to privatize SS, and he seemed to be inclined toward an actual national healthcare system. The rest of the Republican Party just wasn't about to go with him, and he wasn't trying that hard, anyway. He was picking up people that remembered the old union positions of protectionism and nativism, that the Democrats had forgotten, so I thought it somewhat humorous to suggest that he would take the Republicans full circle to where the Democrats were in the 1930's.
Loyal Democrats go insane, whenever you mention Trump, so I can't write anything very serious at it. I mean, if Trump justifies the results of the last two Democratic primaries in someone's mind, then you cannot trust their judgement.
@@ThatsMrPencilneck2U haha yeah his promise of healthcare of everyone was hilarious - if only he would deliver on that… he said all sorts of things, but at the end of the day was too lazy to actually do anything, and ended up mostly doing stock republican things aside from a couple of ineffectual protectionist measures.
i bet he would go full new deal - if it didn’t involve raising his taxes!
I agree with the critiques of the left and right models you showed but the alternative you gave, even though much more useful, doesn't make a lot of sense either in some cases. How are the interests of the petites bourgeoises free farmers in the revolutionary USSR left to the interests of the workers' councils for example? The proposed societal hierarchy of the Bolsheviki, the dictatorship of the proletariat with the kolchos land reforms did pose a real threat to the liberties and material wealth of the free farmers. The working class had to suppress all the bourgeoise forces in society though to build and defend the revolution. It would be strange to argue that the political views of the kulaks etc were left wing as they were fighting for their rights and against the hierarchy which was about to strip them from their liberties.
the initial democratic workers councils were not against the peasantry. they were building alliances with the peasantry. but after the october revolution, once the civil war got going and the economy started falling apart, Lenin replaces all of the workers councils and factory committees with party members and eliminated the democratic organizations and made them top down hierarchical organizations. This is right wing not left wing behaviour, even if his ultimate ideology was left wing goals.
It’s important to note that when Lenin destroyed the workers councils, he never said “this is temporary until we win the civil war and rebuild the economy, and then we will return power to the soviets” - he just said ‘workers don’t know what they are doing, they need direction from above, they love direction from above’ and he implemented taylorism and all the capitalist methods of control of workers by bosses. all of this is right wing not left wing.
the bosheviks may have had left wing ideals and beliefs and ultimate goals - they wanted everyone to be equal - but they were building a very right wing power structure, and right wing methods.
85% of the country was peasants, and most of those peasants were not rich. the bolsheviks essentially were at war with the entire peasantry not just the rich, and they were making the peasantry subjects of the urban centres.
the bolsheviks may have started out as a party of working class people and middle class intellectuals, but they quickly turned into a party of bureaucratic elites for various reasons.
a lot of it was just the total economic collapse because of the civil war etc, but part of it was bad decisions on the part of Lenin and Trotsky etc.
They had a very urban conception of socialism which was not compatible with a rural poor country.
They were expecting all of europe to have revolutions and they thought this was the only way russia could have socialism. When european revolutions failed or did not happen, they could have chosen to adapt their socialism to have a more rural focus (and they did a little with the NEP, and Bukharin’s long term plan would have done this to an extent) but especially after Lenin died, Stalin took the route of total war on the peasantry in order to build the cities and industrialize.
There was nothing egalitarian about this at all, besides the words and symbols and language. THe practice was pure hierarchy and power.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 So Lenin was right wing and the white guard was left wing?
@@winnetoukim3795 no, no, not al all - the white guard was 100% right wing in every respect. Lenin was right wing in terms of the way he organized the government, but he had left wing goals, and many left wing policies.
The easiest way to think of this is divide politics up into four categories, Decisionmaking Institutions, Economic Distribution, Culture and International Relations. Lenin’s government before 1918 was mostly on the left in all four categories.
But after april 1918 it became more and more right wing in terms of decision making institutions while remaining more or less left wing in terms of the other categories.
Stalin later on became much more right wing in decision making, and more right wing on international relations with his imperialist comintern trying to control all the worlds communist parties, and stalin turned a bit to the right on culture as well, encouraging more patriarchy than under lenin etc.
It’s important to keep in mind that in time of war it’s almost inevitable to turn to the right on decision making, so i don’t fault lenin so much for that during the civil war, but i do fault him for not having any interest in returning to worker / peasant democracy after the civil war.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Ok, but weren't the free farmers who fought against the forced collectivization of farm land and took arms against the working class, fighting against the hierarchy of a state which was ruled by the working class and suppressed the interests of the petite bourgeoisie? Doesn't that make them left wing? The Jacobins were left wing petit bourgeois revolutionaries who fought against the nobility and many famers who fought against the red guard were petit bourgeois (counter)revolutionaries who fought against the working class. They both fought against the class which was on top of the hierarchy in their given states. Doesn't that make them both left wing?
@@winnetoukim3795 oh i see, i was thinking about the organizing powers of the whites, and forgot about the little farmers who joined to defend themselves.
ok, so it does get complicated, i would break it down this way: the people in charge of the white forces clearly wanted to just re-establish tsarism, or some form of capitalism with the traditional powers on top, the wealthy, the nobility, the church, etc. so that is 100% right wing.
Now many small peasants were joining the whites because they saw the bolsheviks trying to steal their grain and resources to the point of starving them.
those peasants were joining a right wing force (the whites) to defend themselves from another right wing force but which had left wing ideals (the bolsheviks).
often people with left wing goals will join a right wing movement, either to fight off a common enemy or just out of confusion - like today so many republicans in the US believe in taxing the rich or universal health care but they vote for the republicans for all sorts of reasons.
again i don’t think it’s correct to say that the bolsheviks = the working class. Much of the working class in russia had one foot in the peasantry, and after the economy collapsed, almost all the urban workers returned to live with their families on their farms. There was almost no working class anymore.
Lenin was complaining that the working class ceased to exist, and this is how he justified the dictatorship of the party. He said there are no more workers, the party is the substitute for the workers basically.
But the workers who were in the party at that point were no longer proletarians, they were bureaucratic middle class elites now, and Lenin complained very bitterly about the bureaucratization of the party in the last years before he died, though it was largely his own fault.
A very good book on this from a pro Lenin perspective is Leninism Vol 2 by Neil Harding.
The answer is non dualism
Apparently your videos are my fetish because this is better than porn.
haha, i guess i should upload some of these to youporn
Gaming
say what?
I have one criticism to this video. The main reason of fall of the Old Regime was the rise of gunpowder and the rise of commerce being a secondary one.
First: Without gunpowder the military would be dominated by aristocratic cavalry and Royal Swiss mercenaries. This would result in the third estates being not powerfull to defeat the alliance of crown and nobility and instead stay with the king and keep the alliance against nobility.
Second: The military of middle ages was based upon two parts 1. Aristocratic knights and peasant levies they brought and 2. Royal mercenaries. Due to the first being threat to their power the kings of France after 17th century based their military upon the second category which drove them into bankruptcy and caused Louis 16 to call the Estates General.
Third: The rise of commerce was partialy caused by gunpowder. It help to keep order in Europe and open new markets in Indian ocean.
that’s very interesting, i wasn’t aware of how gunpowder changed the balance of power so drastically. i guess then commerce was the impetus to push for change, but gunpowder made it possible to actually win. new inventions and discoveries like this have enormous consequences, like the printing press, and internet. does guns germs and steel talk about this? i read it ages ago - if not, where did you read it?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I disagree that gunpowder was not also the impetus (more like cause of the impetuses aka English parlametary system and American revolution).
English parlamentary system: Without gunpowder Charles I would not only face oposision from bourgeoisie but also from nobles which would make him stop striving towards his absolutistic dreams or never even atempting.
American revolution: With aristocratic knight cavalery being the wonderfull against raiders, Thirteen colonies would be by 1750ties probably as if not more acristocratic than Europe.
Well printing press and other technologies would still be invented and reformation still happen and probably even be more sucsesfull, but all of thease things would be intergrated within the old regime and thouse who could not be like everythink industrial would be crushed in its infancy.
For guns germs and steel I don't remember it eighter.
For books I read it simunteniasly in
"War in human civilization" by Azar Gat (unrelated since part one is about warefare amoung hunter gatherers I would like to know your opinion about it)
"The rise of the west" by William H. McNeill (since it was published in1963 please forgive some outdated terms)
@@janvancura8412 i’m not sure i understand - how could ancien regime co-exist well with enlightenment and reformation? and without gunpowder, the bourgeoisie would still resent being 3rd class commoners and not having privileges given that they have all the economic power and would surely leverage that power to get changes they want given that monarchs were so indebted to them. For the Azar Gat book i read it when it came out and don’t remember the details. i think he glossed over the palaeolitich very quickly if i remember. i do believe that there was conflict in the palaeolitic, but i disagree that it was constant. i think authors like this are too quick to dismiss that current immediate return hunter gatherers resemble our palaeolithic predecessors without specifying why or how they wre different and how this would affect social structure and conflict etc.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Well reformation can be intergrated rather easily as seen in Prussia and other German states.
With enlightenment first with much less powerfull crown it would be much weaker (the founder of were nobles pissed off with their liberty disapiering), second without English and American examples it would be seen as ridiciouse.
Yes the bourgeoisie would resent it, but they wold be powerless to do anythink, might have economic power but military is the on that rules them all.
Well my idea why they discard that current immediate return hunter gatherers resemble our palaeolithic predecessors is that they live in wastelands where it is much harder to fight over hunting grounds
@@janvancura8412 well economic power *is* military power at the end of the day. with the economy shifting towards cash, the military and knights and mercenaries will want cash more than land fiefs etc, so the bourgeoisie would eventually control them over time. i think you could definitely keep monarchy in a bourgeois régime (many liberals preferred monarchy) but you would have to eliminate the privileges of the 3 orders over time, the bourgeoisie would simply have too much power vs the clergy and nobility. And for palaeolithic war, yes that’s the argument, but I don’t think it stands up. The Ituri rainforest is not a wasteland, it’s just not interesting for agriculture. And the Kalahari desert and Tanzania steppe are not wastelands either, even though the desert might seem like one, and even though it might not be the most bountiful environment that exists. In australia you did have more conflict among hunter gatherers. But in the palaeolithic I think it would have been cyclical. the climate changed very rapidly in that period, so every couple of generations new territories would open up and much more room to expand, in which time you would have no incentive to have war. And then in stable times foragers reproduce very slowly so you also wouldn’t have much pressure. But in time when the climate retracts and ice caps expand or uninhabitable deserts expand etc. *then* you would have competition and war. So it was almost ceratinly a mix. The Azar Gat types are very attached to a worldview of misery but i dont think the arguments are very strong.
Breaking down the beast system. Know thy enemy
14:35
The committee of public safety was not a dictatorship.
how was it not a dictatorship?
As much as I agree with the principles of the anarchists, I cannot agree with the complete dissolution of the state. If humanity should see existential troubles, it would be necessary to have a spearhead, a core representative of humanity. For example, aliens, should aliens arrive it would take extreme coordination and unity of the entirety of humanity to properly deal with the situation. Anarchists don’t take into consideration non systematic, non human factors.
Why does this "spearhead" or "representative of humanity" need to be a state for us to be able to combat something like aliens or other externalities? Why does it need to be a power elite dominating everybody else throught force, instead of a popular army freely chosen by the people to fight the aliens or anything else, that can be dismissed at any time if the people choose so?
So you create an imaginary scenario, that doesn't even workout now under the state? We wouldn't be able to agree now who or what approach we should take because of the multitude of states we have. While in reality, I don't think the states are even currently doing something to address an existential threat even in their own dominions to deal with climate change and the destruction of the enviorment. This is because the state is thoroughly entwined with capitalism, and any action to mitigate such would be detrimental to their bottom line. The only actual solution is the states dissolution and indigenous/community based values
😂 if aliens invade we are done for. States wouldn't matter lol
It doesn’t have to be aliens, it could be climate change, a giant comet, or a big volcano blowing up, etc. Should it come to it I don’t think any Anarcho society could efficiently coordinate and execute a plan for dealing with a large scale disaster.
@@seaside3218 You don't seem to understand anarcho-society then: They would have a state but an egalitarian one, anarchists just define State in a hierarchical fashion, so people get confused.
Economic inequality is not political inequality as long as the inequality is not very big.
Someone who makes twice my income doesn't have more rights than I do. But someone who has the money to lobby, does.
Don't oversimplify things...
Also, it really sounds like you've never operated in a fair hierarchical system.
I have, when I was in the Dutch army.
And when I came back to much less hierarchical civilian work and living environs, the chaos and inefficiency was appalling.
The good thing about hierarchy is that those in power are held accountable, while a hidden hierarchy within an outward equality makes for crooks at the top.
i forget what exactly i said in this episode, but yes, having the money to lobby pits you in a completely different class of people, but you do have political effects with smaller differences of wealth sometimes, like being able to outbid others for important resources, and being able to dedicate more time to political activity.
you might have a less noxious hierarchy, but that’s entirely at the whim of the people on top. it could easily turn around and be oppressive and you would have no inherent rights to be involved in that process pf decision making. and if you were, it would be a democratic hierarchy vs a dominance hierarchy, which is a very different beast.
i agree that hidden hierarchies can be especially noxious, but over hierarchies are certainly not accountable. is the king of saudi arabia accountable? was the fuhr of germany accountable?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69
Well... sure... there are bad hierarchies.
For me it was kind of a nice feeling that even as a sergeant I could, if I'd wanted to, escalate anything upwards through the echelons until at the end I'd escalate to the king. Now... that might have something to do with the fact that the Dutch king isn't a direct ruler and also presents himself as a bit of a lovable goof.
And that's maybe my point mostly... A well set-up and agreed upon hierarchy is very soothing.
I later worked as an RN and half of the time when I escalated something, the manager or whatever claimed to be not responsible, because it was a group decision or some other excuse, which made it very hard to get things done.
As to money, the first part of your answer. Yes, if someone is surviving, they are effectively grounded.
Really good job!!! To help promote equality consider using more women in the illustrations.
I think you can get them licence free from HiSLut.com but they're only 'R' rated unless you pay.
thanks! i do give that some specific thought but maybe not enough? i don’t know if you think that critique applies to all the episodes or if you’re referring specifically to this one, but this episode in particular being a historical episode you just have less material of women because they were excluded from official politics and therefore the art about politics for 2/3 of the periods covered. I did find and use some drawing of female sans culottes participating in the french revolution, and talked about emma goldman and rosa luxemburg and made sure to include photos of women spanish anarchist brigades, and french communards. how did you find this series? and please tell people about it if you can! thanks!
oops, replied before clicking on that porn website, which is clearly indicated by the title... duh. very advanced stealth marketing
divine right of kings -> divine right of polititians = the social contract = the state.
Don't believe me? Let me ask you this, is social democracy left or right?
i don’t know what that statement means, but right and left are relative, so is social democracy left or right, relative to what?
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 relative to most extreme points of left/right you can imagine
@@swedishancap3672 that doesn’t really mean anything to me … it’s left in terms of economic distribution of wealth and rights for employees vs employers, right in terms of the state subsidising and supporting large businesses at the expense of small ones - but again relative to what
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 I see what the problem is. I am operating under the assumption that people in a stateless society would resort to bartering/trading goods and services with each other (what I call market/capitalism), this in turn under stateless conditions would create price signals which would lead to a truely meritocratic society. In that sense I think what I was trying to get at is nonsensical. I was trying to figure out if my ideological framework is left or right (hence why I clumsily expressed the concern of politics as unjust, comparing it to feudalism), but it seems kind of that it is niether, or not applicable to the framework of left/right that you have put forth (?)
Also I disagree with the notion that economic "power" is political power. They are different in that one is systematically enforced using violence or threats thereof, whereas the other is something that happens due to (at least theoretically but not always in this society because of the state) productivity and value contributed to society, value being defined as the subjective value theory in the austrian school of economics. Essentially, what I am trying to argue is that "equality of outcome" if you want to call it that, would be unfair becuase not everyones work is equally valuable for society and does not require the same amount of effort/skill etc.
@@swedishancap3672 if you’re in a society with a state or without a state, if a person can control resources that other people need to live, that person can control those people who depend on that resource. that’s political power. it doesn’t make a difference whether it’s via violence or control over resources (which ultimately is also violence because you have to defend those resources with violence).
also in a stateless society that allows infinite hoarding of wealth, the wealthiest people would just end up forming a state to protect themselves from competitors.
also a person who inherits a bunch of money and wealth did nothing to earn it .
the only way for a free market to work the way it’s supposed to instead of generating enormous disparities of wealth and power is if resources are owned by the people who depend on them rather than privately.
Pretty subversive to pretend to be explained a subject, yet favoring on side in your explanation. Conservatives (the right) are in favor of free markets and less government. You claim their in favor of hierarchy. It’s disingenuous to claim on side is focused on hierarchy. It’s factually a ‘left wing’ ideology/worldview.
way to ignore everything in the video…
you favour free markets and less government and you think you’re on the right so you made this stupid comment and ignored everything in the video, and instead of making an argument about why i’m wrong you’re just farting out your identity in my comments.
like i explained, it’s not being “focused” on hierarchy - it’s whether or not the ideas you promote end up promoting hierarchy. libertarians think they care about “freedom” but their policies promote hierarchy. stalinists think they care about equality but they actually promote extreme hierarchy. the whole point of this video is to take a step back from how you identify and think objectively about political labels.
you get zero.
You didn't understood the video: You're a neoliberal conservative that favours hierarchy based on property, market success and wealth. That's your hierarchy! (well, also the strongmanship of Trump but that's the vulgar way of thinking about hierarchy that I'm trying to dispel...)
Lol we supposed to call you dad too or what, calling people who watch your videos kids. Lmao
2:50
>lenin in the middle
Cringe
sorry for disturbing your leftism / communism as identity politics
Egalitarianism is a scourge
your mom is a scourge
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Average mental maturity level of a leftist ^
@@Kirasupporter1 meanwhile you’re on the extreme high maturity level for mongoloids who eat their dad’s turds
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Thank you for proving my point, Hopefully you will grow up some day but I won't hold my breath
@@Kirasupporter1 arf arf arf honk honk honk
If you want a egalitarian society, you must have some kind of hierarchy (the state) to enable. Anarcho socialism/communism/syndicalism are all oxymorons, because socialism and communism (which are synonyms to each other) requires a state. Socialism is central(state) control of the economy. Capitalism is about the private sector, the non-public/state sector of society, thus non-hierarchical. I know that many Marxist claim that after the workers state is established, the state will then ‚,wither away“ and so we will have a „socialist/communist“ utopia. OK, so let’s say for arguments sake that one’s the next Lenin or Stalin are in power they and they goons will just disappear (even though that will never happen but let’s just that expect it). OK, so the public sector hierarchy just dies away, what we have left? Individuals without a state? Anarcho Capitalism LOL.
You say that you are OK with a state as long it’s ordered by Democratic decision and so on. But Democracy ( no matter what Form of) is hierarchical, because I must applies the democratic decision no matter if I want or not. If the majority of people decide to enslave the minority, that’s hierarchical, exploitive and slavery.
People who believe in free-market like me do not believe in equality! I am not equal to you, and your are not equal to me we are all different.
We are all individuals that should be free to make individuals choices without the government/state to intervene in our life’s. But that means you have to respect others people property, thus I find it funny that there are people out there who has the opinion either we organize the people in a Democratic way rather than a totalitarian way (both are totalitarian but whatever) and are pro (state) taxes especially for the rich ,regulations, welfare, social programs and so on are OK. Great, but there is a problem no matter if you redistribute via the state, or socialised/Nationalised whatever and however you want to call it, there are all hierarchical.
Hierarchical and egalitarian aren’t opposed. The goal (in theory at least) by the socialist/central state is to redistribute the means of productions equals towards the people, but you have still the central state (which is obviously hierarchical, they must have hierarchical control to make everyone „equal“ (which is by the way impossible to achieve, that’s why socialism always results in poverty and starvation and state politicians who are ending up very rich).
For capitalism you don’t need a central state, your are free to do what you want to do ( as long you don’t hurt others of course). There is a difference to have voluntary interaction with individuals (and you don’t have to apply with them, for example you don’t have to work for your boss/capitalist, you can go if you want, but you have no rights to claim higher wages from your capitalist (otherwise that would be a hierarchy, and this what you don’t want to do right? At least claim to do), and being forced to supply the collective,to pay taxes, expropriation, „ social welfare programs‘‘ and so on. And I love how so many Anarcho socialist/communist out the who wants the abolition of the current state, and then talking about a new federal state which is according to them anarchism in their minds. This is Orwellian double-speak at its finest.
If you have total anarchism, than you would have every individual control of his own economy. Individual control of his economy is capitalism.
I left my mark here with this.
No - look up “immediate return hunter gatherers” which are the type of society that humans evolved in, and most of us probably lived in that type of society for most of human existence. No state, no authority, extremely high degree of power and economic equality. Enforced simply by the fact of there being an equal balance of power between all members of society (see episodes 6 and 7 of this podcast).
What’s an oxymoron is the idea that capitalism is non hierarchical. Hierarchy exists when one person or group of people controls resources that other people depend on to live. In order to access those resources, the people who don’t control them have to enter into a hierarchical servitude relationship with the people who do control the resources. That can be slavery, serfdom, or a wage labour contract. It’s all the same thing, just different in degree.
Laughs in anarchoegoist
Theres no right or left, just grifters.😜
great thinking there dr. professor, right up there with andrew yang and mussolini.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 Ad autorictas as mockery followed by a down stream to ad hitlerum. Well played but you forgot about adding some ad populus.
No State, no lord, no God.
Lords includes politicians and their thing, politics, same dog different tag same game.
There's just no left Vs right paradigma, it's just you and (your allies) against the others, since inequality is just a social construct, it is subjective, therefore falls into you Vs others paradigma, anyone trying to push in one or other direction is just a grifter trying to push his own agenda.
I recommend you to get into any political party and you will understand or create one yourself and you will get the same result, you will fall under the oligarchy rule of iron (or copper idrc) and get the same result, your interest Vs the others interest. And if you think your interest are the other interests is just because you're allies and you or them can change interest, you can be in the same trench but you're never the same (don't get possesed by the collectivism or individualist spook)
You did forget about Max Stirner when you did the video :)
omg you are fucking pompous on top of stupid.
Nothing you’re saying in all of this idiotic masturbatory blather is relevant to left and right.
if you think inequality of power is a social construct you are a 12 year old with no life experience. Even then you would know your mommy has more power than you because you depend on her for food and shelter.
I agree with you about political parties, but you’re such a wanker that you think you’re telling me something i don’t know…
Boring boring , stupid stupid, wanker, wanker.
i spend time responding to people on comments because it helps me and them learn, but you are A GIANT WASTE OF TIME go away please
@@maxstirner6143 Bro, you weren't supossed to be egotistical, what the hell are you talking about? Go study Politics for real, please.
The problem is the narrator trusts the typical history book and believes the "coincidences" mentioned in those fallacious books. Failing to mention the names of those who initiated the "left" on the left protects left being viewed as they really are. Emanuel Sieyes for example also known as Abbe Sieyes a priest. Notice how the narrator mentions high clergy to cover up the "lower" clergy that initiated the leftist movement that resulted . Regardless of what the narrator suggests the powerful have always understood that extreme positions create voids ready for reactionary forces and powers that use subversive infiltration to maintain control . Hegel might have said something like , "take any idea or position to it's furthest extreme and it will naturally create the opposite position;an example of this would be, the pope being the vicar of Christ to todays belief that science is a infallible replacement of God. The replacement for Christ(vicar)would obviously not be offended by Science in place of God because that sets his bar much lower as honest people know that neither the pope or science are infallible. The left certainly does not seem to be the least bit offended by academia which religiosity has controlled completely historically for over 500 years;if the narrator has the courage and honesty I'd have zero problems proving this.
garbeldy garbeldy garbeldy glork…
Not complicated dude, equality of decisionmaking power vs hierarchy of decisionmaking power.
It’s either that or a bunch of convoluted gibberish, which you seem to be fond of spewing.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 your narration was much longer than mine. Who is convoluted. I suggested that the left is controlled by the authoritarians and always has been. You suggested that left was formed to protect the individual which it never has done historically . I'll take results over "intentions"; if your rights come from men or governments than you have no rights only allowances.
The left has managed to change the tax sheltered from clergy and nobility to clergy and academia way to go leftists I can see how they changed everything. Leftists are only pretending to be anti hierarchy. Leftists always have leaders and they even want to vote for them so "everyone" agrees. Leftists pretend to be tolerant for political clout tokens which they always leverage into totalitarian regimes.
@@joemccarthy4270 You're pretty confused.
@@WHATISPOLITICS69 decisionmaking isn't a word. Hierarchy Vs Equality . Equality doesn't exist people are different in their abilities Hierarchy are often not informed depleting their ability. Your narrative is false. You intellectuals keep defining things wrongly that is why things are the way they are.