The idea that Fascism and Communism share | Yuval Noah Harari and Lex Fridman
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2024
- Lex Fridman Podcast full episode: • Yuval Noah Harari: Hum...
Please support this podcast by checking out our sponsors:
- MasterClass: masterclass.co... to get 15% off
- Eight Sleep: www.eightsleep... to get special savings
- ExpressVPN: expressvpn.com... to get 3 months free
- InsideTracker: insidetracker.... to get 20% off
- AG1: drinkag1.com/lex to get 1 month supply of fish oil
GUEST BIO:
Yuval Noah Harari is a historian, philosopher, and author of Sapiens, Homo Deus, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, and Unstoppable Us.
PODCAST INFO:
Podcast website: lexfridman.com...
Apple Podcasts: apple.co/2lwqZIr
Spotify: spoti.fi/2nEwCF8
RSS: lexfridman.com...
Full episodes playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast
Clips playlist: • Lex Fridman Podcast Clips
SOCIAL:
- Twitter: / lexfridman
- LinkedIn: / lexfridman
- Facebook: / lexfridman
- Instagram: / lexfridman
- Medium: / lexfridman
- Reddit: / lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: / lexfridman
Full podcast episode: ua-cam.com/video/Mde2q7GFCrw/v-deo.html
Lex Fridman podcast channel: ua-cam.com/users/lexfridman
Guest bio: Yuval Noah Harari is a historian, philosopher, and author of Sapiens, Homo Deus, 21 Lessons for the 21st Century, and Unstoppable Us.
The new class struggle is between black and white, women and men, LGBTQIA+ and cisgender. The communists of yesteryear haven't changed their minds, they're simply moving on.
communism was extremely nationalistic(ironically)...... fascism was extremely imperialistic...... but what both have in common, is certainly the similar level of authoritarianism needed to keep both regimes alive
and the collectivization. both believed in trampling the individual.
@@hanklesacks Under communism 30 million russians starved to death. Under fascism italy and germany became top countries in a few years. Lets open those history books again buddy.
@@tuinov6286and crashed and burned in stupid wars
@@tuinov6286 literally not communism, the rulling party was communist (as in wanting to build communism) but the mode of production was socialist, you have not read a book by the looks of it so please before applauding fascists read one.
@@diagorasofmel0s There is no difference. Liberal, socialist, communist, marxist, bolshevik, zionist. There is no difference. Stop lying to people. Go defend israel, take your vacc, defend ukraine, defend gay people, defend blacks, defend muslims and leave white people alone with your clown ideology.
The problem is collectivism. Any philosophy that puts collective values (race, nation, economic class, group, identity, etc.) over individual humans seems to inevitably lead to abuses.
Both prioritize the collective over the individual.
Massive problems can not be solved individually.
i don't thing nazis cared much about the collective, most of the collective which wasn't white got killed.
capitalism prioritize profit over people
Restricting communism to the Bolchevique's party is very narrow, but it's even narrower if you equalize communism with Stalin. Most of Stalin opposition came from the left and also within the communist party itself.
Communism of Karl Marx was opposed by the mensheviks which were social democratic and supported by the bolsheviks. By the time of Stalin's chairmanship, you are referring to bolshevik internal disputes and not any separate group.
And to be precise, there was a communist party in the USSR, but the state was absolutely officially NOT communist, merely socialist, therefore, talking about communism using the example of the USSR and Stalinism as embodied forms of communism is completely incorrect. In addition, Harari, speaking about communism, actually means Stalinism, which, as he already said, was not communism, and identifies Stalinism and Communism as ideologies, which is also completely incorrect. I commented it more in detail above. He can argue that it was the Communist Party, as they called themselves. Yes, that’s what this party called itself. However, then he is not comparing ideologies, but a specific party, whose proximity to true communist ideology can be a matter of debate.
ChatGPT:
You make a valid point. If Harari argues that it was the Communist Party that governed the Soviet Union and that they called themselves communists, it means he is referring to the specific party and its actions. This, however, shifts the discussion from comparing ideologies to examining the practices of a particular party, whose adherence to true communist ideology can indeed be debated.
Distinction Between Ideology and Party Practices
When discussing the Communist Party of the Soviet Union:
Communist Party: The party identified itself as following communist principles and aimed to achieve communism. It was the ruling party in the Soviet Union and implemented policies based on its interpretation of Marxist-Leninist theory.
Ideology vs. Practice: While the Communist Party espoused the ideals of communism, its practices, especially under Stalin, often diverged significantly from the theoretical ideals. This divergence includes the establishment of an authoritarian regime, political repression, and a centralized economy, which are not necessarily inherent to Marxist theory.
Comparing Ideologies
To compare ideologies such as communism, liberalism, and fascism fairly, one must look at their core principles rather than specific implementations by particular parties or regimes. The theoretical framework of each ideology is distinct:
Communism: As discussed, aims for a classless, stateless society with common ownership of the means of production.
Liberalism: Focuses on individual rights, freedoms, and a market-based economy with limited government intervention.
Fascism: Emphasizes strong, centralized control, often with a dictatorial leader, and a focus on national or racial superiority and unity.
The Soviet Context
In the Soviet context:
Communist Party's Role: The party's role was to lead the country towards the goal of communism. However, the methods and policies it adopted, especially under Stalin, were often authoritarian and repressive.
Socialism vs. Communism: The Soviet Union was officially in a socialist stage, working towards communism. The gap between theoretical communism and the party's implementation of policies is a significant aspect of historical and ideological analysis.
Conclusion
Harari could indeed argue that the Soviet Communist Party identified itself as communist and that this is a relevant point. However, this does not necessarily mean that the party's actions and policies were true reflections of communist ideology. Instead, he would be examining a specific party's practices, which can vary significantly from the theoretical ideals of the ideology it claims to represent. This distinction is crucial for a fair comparison of ideologies and understanding the complexities of their implementation in real-world scenarios.
You make a valid point. If Harari argues that it was the Communist Party that governed the Soviet Union and that they called themselves communists, it means he is referring to the specific party and its actions. This, however, shifts the discussion from comparing ideologies to examining the practices of a particular party, whose adherence to true communist ideology can indeed be debated.
Distinction Between Ideology and Party Practices
When discussing the Communist Party of the Soviet Union:
Communist Party: The party identified itself as following communist principles and aimed to achieve communism. It was the ruling party in the Soviet Union and implemented policies based on its interpretation of Marxist-Leninist theory.
Ideology vs. Practice: While the Communist Party espoused the ideals of communism, its practices, especially under Stalin, often diverged significantly from the theoretical ideals. This divergence includes the establishment of an authoritarian regime, political repression, and a centralized economy, which are not necessarily inherent to Marxist theory.
Comparing Ideologies
To compare ideologies such as communism, liberalism, and fascism fairly, one must look at their core principles rather than specific implementations by particular parties or regimes. The theoretical framework of each ideology is distinct:
Communism: As discussed, aims for a classless, stateless society with common ownership of the means of production.
Liberalism: Focuses on individual rights, freedoms, and a market-based economy with limited government intervention.
Fascism: Emphasizes strong, centralized control, often with a dictatorial leader, and a focus on national or racial superiority and unity.
The Soviet Context
In the Soviet context:
Communist Party's Role: The party's role was to lead the country towards the goal of communism. However, the methods and policies it adopted, especially under Stalin, were often authoritarian and repressive.
Socialism vs. Communism: The Soviet Union was officially in a socialist stage, working towards communism. The gap between theoretical communism and the party's implementation of policies is a significant aspect of historical and ideological analysis.
Conclusion
Harari could indeed argue that the Soviet Communist Party identified itself as communist and that this is a relevant point. However, this does not necessarily mean that the party's actions and policies were true reflections of communist ideology. Instead, he would be examining a specific party's practices, which can vary significantly from the theoretical ideals of the ideology it claims to represent. This distinction is crucial for a fair comparison of ideologies and understanding the complexities of their implementation in real-world scenarios.
The description of Communism offered here is entirely based on the Stalinist prototype popular in the West and is overly simplistic. The idea for instance that Soviet film simply served state propaganda and that aesthetics are unimportant is just nonsense. Any acquaintance with Soviet film makes that clear. Trotsky's essays on art and literature also demonstrate his opinion that aesthetic matters are paramount. No one can deny that he was an ardent Communist, as was Lunacharsky who recognized the genius of Prokofiev and Pasternak. He wrote literary essays on the works of several writers, including Alexander Pushkin, George Bernard Shaw and Marcel Proust. And there is the case of Brecht.
Most people conflate liberalism with leftism. They are absolutely not the same thing.
According to his definition, communism is liberalism.
@@pietervoogt I don't think you were paying attention. That is NOT what he said.
@@pietervoogt
He literally said the complete opposite.
Only in Amerikkk4 is Liberalism associated to the left when in all over the world, liberalism is to the right. Lol
@@UteChewb Harari does not understand communism. He talks about Soviet pseudo-communism. Right to choose your government: communism. right to choose your own profession: communism. Liberty to choose your spouse, live your own life: communism.
These are caricatures he’s drawing.
How so?
@@fafolaw He is right to say that both Nazism and Communism place ideology higher than individual values (in this sense they are similar to religion). However, he extremely overestimate the domination of ideologies in both cases. This is particularly clear, when he mentions aesthetic values.
I don't mean to be too critical but I think Yuval has one minor flaw in his thinking about communism. Yuval says the problem with communism is the obsession with the proletariat class, and that they want everyone to be part of a single class society. Yet Yuval has said before that he doesn't want Israel to be a country segregated into different classes of citizens (in the context of secular Jews and Arab citizens being second-class to the religiously Orthodox).
It seems like the problem with communism isn't the desire for class equality, but the authoritarianism necessary to create a rigidly equal outcomes and the lack of meritocracy that comes with that goal. I think some value should be put on maintaining social and economic equality, especially equality under the law (laws should be blind to race, religion, gender). But it's important to prioritize freedom and incentivize merit and effort as well.
I think an ideal society guarantees the base necessities required to be a functional member of society (life-saving medical care, food, etc.) to the extent that the society can afford (paying to keep someone on critical life support for decades is likely too expensive to be covered for all), and also allows the free market to operate alongside to provide anything not deemed a necessity (ie., owning a personal car rather than riding a subsidized bus). People argue that people won't work unless they need to in order to survive, but I don't think that is true. If people were satisfied with the bare minimum of surviving, no one would work harder to climb in their career. I think if all of our base necessities were covered, people would only refuse to do the worst jobs for the worst pay, so unemployment would only slightly increase as people would become choosier about the work they're interested in doing.
I disagree. People work harder today because of status. Once you remove that key aspect, no one would care and no one will want to work, but in order to maximize status, you have to tolerate economic inequality as a difference in status means a difference in equality. You can’t have both a non hierarchical society and high economic productivity at the same time.
@@samuelakinsola2039 the carrot and stick argument never goes out of fashion
Let's be honest. Nobody gives a shit about worker motivation in communism. If you study Marx's cockeyed economics, he proposes a universal employment, mooting matters of efficiency and motivation.
The issue at hand is human rights. Communism is an unethical role of state and an authoritarian inversion of the public's economic rights. Our wherewithal to control the means of production we made and rely on is stricken in lieu of the state dictating means of production through brutality.
That's your common grond with the nazis - not so much any fascists (Italy): socialist political economy.
@@soulcapitalist6204 🤣🤣🤣
This is the best explanation of the differences and similarities between liberal democracy, fascism and communism I've heard in a long time.
Too bad he is a fraud and doesn't have the slightest clue what he is talking about. Lol
National Socialism and International Socialism are collectivist and illiberal sister ideologies...
This guy is brilliant 👏
😂
Except that he’s using fashists (which are Italians) when he means nazis (Germans) which were different in their view of race and state. But who cares these days, right? Harari thinks big thoughts and paints large picture. Very large.
Yes but what happens when fascism and communism combine disguised as liberalism? Then what? .....
How can you say you can use the metric of these three questions to determine who is a liberal, when gay marriage was legalized by liberal governments only recently? Most liberals would fail your liberal test, ironically it is Karl Marx who would pass it, who ticks more boxes on what you consider to be essentially liberal than most currently existing liberal governments. Class politics isn't a prophecy, it's a testable hypothesis. It's a theory reached by an analysis of currently existing material conditions and social relations.
Ikr. He acts like history doesn’t exist. Liberals of Today are against many pro-human/pro-individual movements today, just like they were of yesteryear (ie, marriage rights).
Amen, people who make these comparisons are doing so just to misinform and conflate history based on huge misconceptions
The legal recognition of marriage itself is a stupid thing.
@@lookintoit4537 fax. govt has no business regulating marriage. Unless it’s 1 of 3 exceptions. And in a true communist or even anarchist society their would be no marriage. U can’t own/legal claim on another person.
@@newagain9964 There would be marriage, but it would be purely private.
When Yuval Noah Harari speaks it's ways clear, concise and information are very digestable. Great topic to discuss!
He's a fascist tho. Don't listen to him.
If baby formula is what you’re after, sure. Easily digestible. Small pieces. No need to chew.
There is much overlap between the two in every example I've seen. Where I see them truly differentiated is in the spectrum of wealth; the nazis, for their period, were rich, while communist movements seem to spring up in generally impoverished conditions. Same ideology, but each representing a different extreme in behavior and abstracted on the spectrum concerning money/state. Any rebuttal to this I expect will be subjective in nature, for example humanism(church) vs nation(state) which is not a parallel distinction but rather perpendicular in it's comparison.
The communist revolutions were led by upper classes that despised and loathed the middle classes and used and manipulated the working classes.
"That wasn't real communism!" Keep at comrades. The more you say it, the more you believe.
And Ponzi wasn't a "real" capitalist
Except that even stalin and lenin said it wasn't communism, it was what they thought was the best path to it, obviously they got that wrong, they also fought against and slaughtered other communist groups who wanted different paths
@@ErkaaJ No one claims Capitalism ends corruption and illegal behavior. Ponzi was not a state, and what Ponzi did wasn't legal, and he was promptly punished once caught. The mass misery, oppression and iron-booted thuggery of Communism was a direct result of how the system was legally constructed. The problem with anti-Capitalists is that they haven't the faintest clue how Capitalism is supposed to work. It's not anarchy, as so many ignorant people think. It functions in a system of laws and contracts.
@@ErkaaJ Marx proposed a ponzi basis of economics entailing worker inputs and needs-based compensation in an "unequal right" arrangement which was additionally propped up by expropriation of factories in the first place.
Ok now do the similarities between neoliberalism and neofascism since it’s not the 40’s. Most of what he said about communism is retread, nothing original that hasn’t been thoroughly debated and debunked. Lex needs to have some communists on for some balance-I thought he had an open mind yet every guest is anti socialist
This guy came with time machine, from the feudalism time.
He clarified it like a 5 year old would.
Communism doesn't think "in the end only one class should be on top" - communism thinks there shouldn't be class at all so how can one class be on top
Begging the question of how you get to a classless society without mass murder!
@@859902 I don't know if you can make a classless society without mass murder, but I definitely know you can't have a *classed* society without mass murder.
@@859902 Maybe u have to eat the rich (and their minions) because they’ll never cede their power.
FYI, u seem to forget that’s why courts & laws exists. But if the ppl can’t get control of the legal system from the ruling elites…Omelet time.
I think humans are kind enough to wish for that - and brutal enough to fall short of accomplishing it.
@@Magicwillnz 20th century history has answered that question 🙄
Some of those referenced institutions providing checks and balances currently appear to provide more partisan propaganda than balance. Legacy media, for example, seems to demand some kind of political adherence, whether genuine or feigned.
Stalin & Hitler are in the thumbnail......so national socialism & communism....not fascism.
Fascism was propagated by Mussolinj
What it called when a bunch of people get together and try to breed a race out of existence for revenge for something that happened before most of us were born?
You mean genocide? Jewish people like Moses Hess wrote books about how the jewish people should make white people disappear. Karl marx the jewish rabbi called it holocaust. He wanted to do it to slavs basically russians.
I don’t think Communists believe that the proletariat should be on top, as opposed to the simple idea that class should not exist, which is what terrifies the ruling class so much.
The Nuevo Communisto now believes in a new class struggle, and they pick them from the alphabets
And to be precise, there was a communist party in the USSR, but the state was absolutely officially NOT communist, merely socialist, therefore, talking about communism using the example of the USSR and Stalinism as embodied forms of communism is completely incorrect. In addition, Harari, speaking about communism, actually means Stalinism, which, as he already said, was not communism, and identifies Stalinism and Communism as ideologies, which is also completely incorrect.
ChatGPT:
You are correct, and this is an important clarification. While the Soviet Union was governed by the Communist Party, it never reached the stage of communism as described in Marxist theory. The Soviet state considered itself socialist, which, according to Marxist theory, is an intermediate stage on the path to communism.
Communism and Socialism
In Marxist-Leninist theory, several stages of societal development are distinguished:
Socialism: This is the transitional stage from capitalism to communism, characterized by public ownership of the means of production and resource distribution based on the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work." During this period, elements of the state and class struggle remain, but class differences are reduced.
Communism: The ultimate goal described as a classless society without a state, where the means of production are commonly owned, and resources are distributed according to the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In this society, there is no exploitation of man by man and complete equality prevails.
The Soviet Union
The Soviet Union called itself a socialist state and viewed socialism as an intermediate stage on the path to achieving communism. The main characteristics of the Soviet Union included:
Centralized planned economy.
One-party system with the rule of the Communist Party.
Collectivization and state ownership of the means of production.
Political repression and control over society.
Conclusion
Thus, using the USSR and Stalinism as examples of implemented communism is incorrect, as these regimes represented socialist states in the process of achieving communism according to Marxist theory. This clarification helps avoid confusion and highlights the importance of distinguishing between theory and its historical interpretations.
Your remark that Harari's argumentation may lack a clear distinction between communism as a theory and its historical manifestations is quite valid. Let's look at this more closely.
Harari's Argumentation
In his works, Harari indeed discusses ideological and political movements, including communism, fascism, and liberalism, often in the context of their historical manifestations. In Harari's exposition:
Communism is often described through the lens of its historical manifestation, especially in the context of the Soviet Union and Stalinism.
He emphasizes how communist regimes demanded absolute loyalty to the party and sacrificed personal freedoms and truth for ideological goals.
Harari also draws parallels between communist and fascist regimes in terms of their authoritarian and totalitarian practices.
Absence of Distinction Between Theory and Practice
Harari's argumentation may indeed give the impression that he does not make a clear distinction between communism as a theoretical concept and its specific historical manifestations. Several possible reasons for this:
Focus on Historical Reality: Harari often focuses on how ideologies influenced real history and society. His aim is to show how theories were implemented in practice and how this affected people's lives.
Critique of Totalitarian Regimes: Harari may be focused on critiquing the authoritarian aspects that emerged in communist regimes like Stalinism and using this as an argument against utopian ideals that can lead to repression and dictatorship.
Distinction Between Theory and Historical Practice
The question of the distinction between communism as a theory and its historical forms of governance, such as Stalinism and Bolshevism, is indeed important. Communism as a theory proposes:
Social justice and equality.
Absence of private ownership of the means of production.
Collective management and democratic processes.
Stalinism and other authoritarian forms of communism included:
Centralized power and a cult of personality.
Political repression and suppression of dissent.
Strict planned economy and state control.
These historical forms of communism significantly differed from the ideals proposed by Marx and Engels.
Conclusion
Your observation that Harari does not make a clear distinction between the theory of communism and its historical forms of governance is well-founded. Harari likely aims to show how ideologies can be implemented in practice and what consequences this can have for society. However, to avoid confusion, it is important to distinguish between the theory of communism and its distortions in specific historical contexts such as Stalinism.
Globalist socialism vs national socialism. George Orwell famously wrote in his journal during the Spainish civil war, when fascists and commies caught each other, they flipped sides immediately, having most of the same beliefs
Is this similar to the 'horseshoe' theory where the far left and far right are at opposing sides of the open end, and closer in their (fascist/totalitarian) beliefs than the moderate left and right?
I recall reading somewhere that the National Socialists said that one of their most fertile areas of recruitment was former communists who were already somewhat ready to accept another similar group.
@@Itsmespiv4192 Ok, I did a little search and found this quote from Wikipedia, "Beefsteak Nazi (Rindersteak Nazi) or "Roast-beef Nazi" was a term used in Nazi Germany to describe communists and socialists who joined the Nazi Party. Munich-born American historian Konrad Heiden was one of the first to document this phenomenon in his 1936 book Hitler: A Biography, remarking that in the Sturmabteilung (Brownshirts, SA) ranks there were "large numbers of Communists and Social Democrats" and that "many of the storm troops were called 'beefsteaks' - brown outside and red within". The switching of political parties was at times so common that SA men would jest that "[i]n our storm troop there are three Nazis, but we shall soon have spewed them out"."
Ah, those SA guys, what a sense of humor. But this isn't where I originally read about it.
Nope. The Nazis never seeked to abolish private property.
@@alexkat8297 But they did steal plenty of private property from their victims.
Democracy in a monoculture societies creates different outcomes than democracy in a multicultural society. The only difference between favoring families over class+groups or parties seems to be size of power base and obviously emotional attachment. Having power in any system creates a struggle even on the size scale of a family eg King Lear. The only argument l hear for having check-balances is utilitarian and to save lives. But isnt it a matter of whose lives are saved? It comes back to "killing one to save many" or "killing many to save one". Throughout history it was usually protect self/family/friends(usually same class)/tribe/nation but as individual power wained it became more (not less) important for larger systems to take care of collective needs.
I would use the term “democracy” instead of “liberal” because within a democracy we have both liberals and conservatives who all affirm the three questions he asks.
No. You clearly don’t understand what all the words/concepts mean at their core. Only establishment definitions.
The his is just opinion.
Fascism is the merger of corporate and state power. That is the actual definition. It’s corporatism. The nation is just the boundary of the state.
People that have never read Marx with dumb opinions about Marx. If you didn't read his work don't assume that you know about him enough to criticize.
Yeah his work fooled a lot of nations during last century buddy
Communism and Fascism are basically the same thing. The root of the ideologies is materialism. The opposite to these would be a spiritually based philosophy.
Thanks Yuval for that simplistic views of 20th century history.
6:00 "Ethics, aesthetics, truth, they don't matter..." Does someone see the similarities to the topics of today?
one thing should be pointed out: while National Socialism is one, and therefore cannot be confused, the forms of "communism" are many; in this video, for example, we talk mostly about "Stalinist communism", which obviously comes from the right wing of the Soviet Communist Party of the time, and has almost nothing to do with for example "Leninist communism", not to mention real Marxism, of which it is perhaps one of the most distant things at an ideological level
Before civilization there were tribes and now with civilization there are governments and religions
a superb deduction.
He’s brilliant! Great interview! ❤
that's curious, I didn't know Yuval Harari was an anarchist .. so suddenly I have the power to decide what kind of country I live in? geez what a bunch of nonsense.
The use of a framework of hierarchy with an emphasis on nuance was/is the genius of liberalism. The simpler the system, the more pathological it inevitably becomes as it is forced to rely upon steeper hierarchical arrangement as a consequence. Complex problems call for complex solutions. Oftentimes, the most dangerous people are the ones claiming monolithic knowledge/understanding in regard to all things. We have to be very careful about how we connect the puzzle pieces and about what we purport to be true about the overall image of the puzzle.
Yuval needs to do research on Marxism.
Thx Lex & guest
Alot of communists coping in the comments.
That's nothing new. Anything that makes communism or socialism look bad they perform pathetic mental gymnastics to say "iT wAsN't ReAl CoMmUnIsM!"
And a few hidden admirers of National Socialism.
@@vhufeosqap not me, fuck all form of socialism.
These are just ai bots, don’t worry
How do you tell that they are communists? Or just to be funny?
Great breakdown
There is a lot of falsehood in what Mr. Harari claims, as usual. One of the examples is his trying to characterize socialism or communism (which has never happened, by the way) by some peculiarities of Mr. Stalin. The idea of socialism does not imply informing against parents. It was Stalin's paranoia that caused informing, not socialism. People are weak, pretty easy to be tempted and deceived creatures. The same happens in many societes, but stalinism was, of course, the champion. Stalinism, not socialism. And... the Art, another example. I grew up in the USSR, and we were taught classical and world art much more than the Soviet Art. And - you know - taught without prejudice.
By the way, where were the interests of the individuals during the Covid pandemic in liberal societies? The "interests of the nation" came above all. We were to vaccinate our kids even though injection threatened their health.
Regarding belief in infallibility. How long has Klaus Schwab been the President of WEF? Is that organization and its goals and principles still suitable and worthy?
"Forces" don't have central nervous systems.
I think Harari confuses humanism with rationalism, which are both offshoots of the Enlightenment. Humanism was never totalitarian, it was and is primarily anti-religion or at least secular and pro-science. You could argue that both Nazism and Communism have their roots in rationalism, cause they have a facade of pseudo-scientific ideology, but not humanism. Neither Hitler or Stalin would call themselves 'humanists'.
Brilliant explanation of both ideologies.
Id doesn't hold water nowadays, when "liberals" kill milions of babies to protect the class of oppressed women. Or we should say that the "libs" of today are not the liberals he is talking about
They have the same planners and funders. Answer these 3 questions for yourself: 1. Who's behind "bank of England" and funded VV2 w/ loans? 2. Who authored the "Redbook"? 3. What do those people, u included have in common? :-------)
Can you explain?
Like Bloods against Cribs i see. Both same but hate each other.
Lieber gott who the hell can listen to Yuval Noah Harari in 2023? His most important works arent history at all, its anthropology. Read it, cannot see one specially interesting point.
This guy talking about disinformation campaigns while he sits at the right tip of the WEF is ridiculously hilarious.
It's scary how many people adore this guy. He is gaslighting the millions of people who buy his books.
Nevermind, he will burn
He is such a fraud who has no clue what he talks about. 😂
please explain
What planet are you on. He’s not in the WEF he made a speech WARNING PEOPLE AVOUT THE DANGERS OF THE FUTURE AT THE WEF. Lol Jesus Christ. No idea where these conspiracy theorists get their moronic ideas.
Truer words have never been spoken. Thank you, Lex and Mr. Harari.👍
You never asked him about the wef
They are both jewish talking about communism that was made by jews. Why would they talk about the wef?😂
@@tuinov6286 The most prominent anti communist theorists were also jews including guys like Milton Friedman
@@Anurag-xe2jp not really
The definition he gave for a liberal, choosing government, occupation and spouse are supported by every conservative I've ever met. Perhaps these words are used differently in Israel but in the US his definition doesn't hold up.
that was his point. with all the differences between liberals and conservatives, they are still fundamentally on liberalism side. he's right.
I hate to break it to you man, but its the US definition that doesn’t hold. Liberalism is a right-wing ideology, just not as right wing as fascism
Everyone who thinks free-will is real is genuinely insane.
Did you choose to say that or did someone/something force you to?
@@officialthomasjames Define "choose"
@@officialthomasjames your material reality makes the choices possible simple as .
Isn’t he the guy from the WEF that wanted to euthanize “useless eaters”?
Citation needed.
Thank you, yes he is.
Brilliant. So necessary at this juncture, a clear explanation about complicated clunky political economy ideas that are actually stupidly simple.
Too many people think Hitler was a 1 in a billion evil genius, rather than a tedious cowardly child man with a grotesque sense of entitlement because he felt so abysmal inside and needed help so badly. As did his millions of supporters. Ressentiment.
YNH needs to spend YEARS with indigenous people, listening and NOT TALKING. 🙏🪶
What a crudely simplified view from Yuval. I hoped for an insight and got a lecture for kindergarten.
I feel the same, he is way more biased than i expected
I'm with John Lucacz on the matter of any conflation of fascism and national socialism clearly establishing that a presenter is deeply incompetent on the topic.
Consciousness, the logos is the ultimate reality.....duh dude:
Arguably the oldest verse in a 2,000+ year old book is cutting edge neuroscience today 🤦🤡🤷
“In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God” (NIV).
The New English Bible translates: “When all things began, the Word (Logos) already was, and the Logos was God.”
6:00
That is scary.
You say that you don't believe, but yet you just described Hell. As if I had walked through it and you walked behind me describing what we saw.
lol.
You don't need checks on some kind of genius.😂
I prefer science.
It is the ability to understand that you can make mistakes, and the willingness to correct them when you diacover a mistake that makes you infallible.
Does exist some bad thing in Liberals? Or everything is perfect? He tells all bad things about comunism and fascism. He could say bad things about the other part I think.
If this man had spent one hour of his life actually trying to understand marxism, he would know it's endgoal is a classless society, the abolition of classes, and not "one class on top of another".
Of course, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a famous phrase, which many communists strive for as a first step towards a classless society. People hear the word dictatorship and cry havoc but never once read it within its original context, in which the phrase is first and foremost meant as the opposite to "the dictatorship of the bourgeosie".
Neither the dictatorship of the proletariat or bourgeoisie refer to "dictatorships" in their modern autocratic sense.
Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie refers to a capitalist society where capital-owners own the means of production (capitalism), dictatorship of the proletariat refers to states where workers have seized power and where workers own the means of production organized through democratic councils in businesses, industries (socialism).
So if Yuval is referring to this then he has either stripped its from its context and missed the point, or, just ignored it all together.
Even the terms proletariat or bourgeoisie are not totalistic terms and not even communists believe there are only 2 classes. If you actually read historical works by Marx such as "the civil war in france (on the paris commune, the first "dictatorship of the proletariat") ,or, "18th brumaire of Louis Bonaparte" - this false dichotomy of bourgoeisie-proletariat melts away, and a much more nuanced image of "communist interpretation of history" emerges than what Yuval makes it out to be.
You can disagree, but why lie or manipulate history?
Also,
"artistic values there is nothing like that" I guess he has never heard of the explosion of art in the immediate post-revolutionary years in Russia, or futurism and dadaism more generally.
Pretty horrible record for someone who calls himself a historian....
His book "Sapiens" is full of theories ripped from the works of other famous historians (who actually had a career and put in the work) which he does not cite properly while pretending the insights are his. (and bending them to fit his neo-liberal narrative)
Pretty despicable behavior and frowned upon within the historical community.
P.S. Yes, Stalin was cruel. No, Stalin is not just "one bad apple" and did not come out of nowhere (no individual comes out of a vacuum) and, yes, the problems of the USSR were much deeper than many leftists like to admit - but maybe thats because neoliberals push this kind of propaganda which already throws nuance out of the door.
If anyone is actually honestly interested in learning from this history, read Yuhal and read some Rosa Luxemburg or literally anyone who calls himself "communist" before making up your mind of what a "communist" is or believes - and THEN make up your mind
You communists fail to understand a real basic principle of evolutionary biology. You can't mold society into a classless state it's impossible you can try as hard as you want have the most perfect utopian society and eventually it will decay and rot and change into something that won't be inherently equal or towards an equilibrium if you involve humans especially.
This is why this will always be a dream and never be something that can realistically ever happen.
Communism supports the forced abolition of the private means of production. No thanks to that 🤮
Go back to Portland, pinko.
Be that as it may, communism belongs on the ash heap of history, rotting below the remains of the First Vegetable and the woketards!
Cope, seethe, mald
Communism has the highest bodycount, most attempts and invariably the most failures
Needs an All Happy Medium.
On GOVT: Of the PPL w/ COOL PARENTal Guidance. Not Grandparent. PARENTal Guidance.
On WORK: It's Only A JOB. APTitude not ATTITUDE. Just Gotta GIT UR DONE, Suckaaaaz! Quick N Easy, Then GO Have FUN!
On A MATE: Be Intelligent. Know yourself too.
Which one is israel🥸
The summary of this 9 min 22 secs is I am a liberal.
It's a bit disingenuousness to lump socialism in with communism. For instance, Spanish socialists during the civil war refused to take guns from communist Russia... Because they already understood what Yuval is saying in this video, and what Orwell's animal farm is about
Yuval’s description of communist is the ridiculously simplistic.
What's the less simplistic description?
@@quintrankid8045 he probably thinks you need to live it to get it.
no thanks!
Christ is king
He a liberal
As are most conservatives by his definition. And it seems like a reasonable definition, and valid historically.
CONTROL .
This guy is a terrible political commentator
Right, because capitalism would never sacrifice lives for its bottom line 😂
He believes the Soviet Union was communist... then he fell for American and Soviet propaganda. Very sad.
Source for this ridiculous claim?
Stop it, every time when communist countries fuck up. People always say cause they are not real communist countries. If that’s the case then I am sorry but “your ideal” communist will never exist as a country because people tried none of them worked.
If USSR wasn’t communist then we’ve never had a communist country in history. The reason for that is it only works in small closed off communities.
@@timon20061995 Every time people work in a democratic structure rather than a structure that is repressing and exploiting, communism works. Just USA has 40.000 cooperatives. There is experimenting going on all the time with many governing structures of these cooperatives and there are many successful examples. But sure, go on believing that exploiting your fellow man is the best way to live.
@@user-oi9bg6fx5t Communism is not really interested in countries, countries come and go. Communism is about democratic economic cooperation and its opposite, hierarchical exploitation. A communist society can be seen as a society where most people choose to work independently or in a cooperation, rather than exploiting other people or be exploited.
Peas in a pod
The only part I push back against is when he states Western people sometimes place importance on relational identities. Liberalism is so comprehensive now that people do not believe in natural obligations or that relational identities exist at all. For conservatives, that includes families, local community and church life. A major problem with western society is that we believe in Rousseauian radical free-will self autonomy. That’s fine but it’s self-evident non-sense.
Yes his ‘divided loyalties’ to whatever you like is how liberal societies are fragmenting, and individuals have no relationship to anything greater than themselves. Zero trust societies with no principles and no identity.
‘Promote diversity’ is hardly a guiding principle for a civilisation.
Altruism and socialism, anti-Semitism as jewish culture teaches the virtue of self inteterest and hard work , both of those attributes tend to generate wealth.
the horrible solo mustaches tell you everything you need to know.
This guy is brilliant 👏
After explaining all this it would be interesting to hear how he sees the changes that are set in action worldwide concerning enforcing special right for trans persons, the confrontation of children with LGBTQ+ an mainly trans content in schools against their parents will, changing(lowering) the entry requirements for all kinds professions like judges, barristers, physician and pilots as an example. Why he fears a right wing coup from the top in Israel will the WEF seemingly is staging coups in democracies worldwide showing there are already too many uncritical little gears in all those systems doing everything they are told no one knows if the would ever denied an order. Those specially trans rights for the transitioning whiteout a second thought (of even children) that are basically eugenics in action if one does believe that the are genetical factors for being gay or trance? Does believe there is a genetically cause for being trans or gay how big he thinks is the group of gay and trans persons set freed by these new policies and does that justify the neglect in the analysis of the individual case and the colateral damage that causes? In Canada at least on of those “collateral damages” was offered maid medical assisted dyxxx as thensolution.
Yeah, I highly suspect he would overlook the fact that modern American cinema (including children's movies) has similarities with his criticism of Communism, though it's in service not of economic class, but race, sexuality, and gender
mustaches
עם ישראל חי
He's so wrong here on the ideologies it's embarrassing.
Enlighten us please.
This tool should rewire himself and leave humanity ALONE. Stay in YOUR sandbox Yuval… you got PLENTY to work on YOURSELF.
What did he say that upset you?
@@quintrankid8045
ua-cam.com/video/3vrkTl9Sv6Y/v-deo.html
@@quintrankid8045 that pile of human cells is Klaus’s lap dog
@@One-way " that pile of human cells is Klaus’s lap dog" Who is Klaus?
He does not understand what communism is to begin with, and soviet Union was not a communist society.
Ok, what was it?
It was ill. An I'll union.
@@johndallara3257 by definition communism refers to a post capitalist socio economic structure. No one in the modern age has ever achieved that. The Soviet Union was a state capitalist society ruled over by a cult of personality via the communist party who originally had plans to force about communist transformation. But Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and by extension of course Marx all envisioned a different pathway. Marx and Trotsky were fairly anti violent in their opinion, but Stalin was brutal, and Lenin recognized this before his death. So basically the Soviet Union was state capitalist with the odd brutal communist policy that clearly wouldn’t work (there are brutal capitalist policies also), but they are labeled as “being communist” because it is much easier to mobilize the masses and increase military spending if the enemy is painted in a simplistic way where the color red=bad, and everything you disagree with in life that is brought about by your own government = “must be those commies”. I mean the governing political party right now in Vietnam is a communist party, and they are fairly pro American, but that doesn’t = the communist is bad narrative so no one talks about. In fact people love traveling to (communist) Vietnam.
@@johndallara3257 Communism is about abolishing repression and hierarchy and it wants the end of the state. So a dictatorship can never be communist. Soviet Union was just a dictatorship with ideological theatre.
ill, Like an illusion. in some circles, usion was a union with a devine life.
An interesting discussion would be “ An idea capitalism and satanism share.”
Sure: Capitalism and Satanism share the idea that humans are individuals with free will to choose . . . and that they are rewarded or penalized for the choices they make.
Capitalism is the ultimate alchemy. If you want power you have to serve others interests. It's the furthest thing from theft possible...
Bruh. Ur comment is being read by a bunch of simp pro-capitalism worship $$/the elite drones….They won’t get it!
The Satanic Temple has seven fundamental tenets:
One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one's own.
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
I would trust a Satanist over a Communist/Fascist any day.
Lol this freakin' guy... Why stop there? iF yUo aRe cApiTaLiSt yOu dOnT cArE aBoUt tRuTH oR bEaUtY oNLy pROfItS!!!
I don't think u understand the modern day liberal bud
Everything this man says is flawed.
Why should he be different? Do you have a particular issue?
I unsubbed for wef shills
Well said. These two ideologies still poision lots of people nowadays
Not really. One is pushing lgbtq and anti-white propaganda, the other one is illegal.
Stalin was the greatest human of 20th century. He is the one who dismantled colonial empires of Europeans and Anglo Saxons, hence the heart burn . Remember that Churchill after starving 22 million Bangalis got a Nobel Prize.
Stalin is a murderous dictator who killed and oppressed millions
Tell that to the Ukrainians who died of starvation in the holomodor.
Stalin is a fascinating person and was definitely not one dimensional. Kotkin’s biographies of him are incredible if you’re interested in getting inside his head. Never forget that people of the past lived in a very different world, but also that this does not diminish the horrors they permitted, prevented, or caused.
@@alandworsky8926 So , why was Churchill given a Nobel prize huh? And English killed more Chinese with Forced opium peddling, do you apologize for that?
@@alandworsky8926 it's not about being objective for him, it's just about shilling fir the ideology he's emotionally invested in. I can find vices in all historical figures, and so can he. But he's willing to look the other side when it comes to '' his side ''.
@@alandworsky8926 >> Stalin is a fascinating person and was definitely not one dimensional.
That's debatable. Bazhanov in his memoir "I was Stalin's secretary" says that Stalin wasn't that special. Just the power-hungry guy who happened to emerge on top of the power struggle.
Lmao, I think capitalism and communism have a lot more in common: especially the JQ
The goy know shut it down!! Delete this guy who broke free from our social engineering
Don’t be a coward, speak clearly.
Lay out the same old ideology that has failed before.
" I think capitalism and communism have a lot more in common:" Can you expand on that a bit please?
You're laughing your arse off. Meanwhile the holocaust and the pogroms *actually happened.* (and in case you didn't realise it, they did not happen in the UK or the US).
@@quintrankid8045 Capitalism. Where the new god is money. Who controls the money? The FED. Who made the FED? The richest bankers in the world. Who are they? J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller family, Rothschild family. What did these people do with their money through history? Learn about ww1 and ww2. European union and the future world government. Its extremely anti-white and pro jewish but hey they are the protected group right?
This is reductive and weird
This is a pessimistic perspective of communism. Sure, you need to sacrifice a lot of personal liberties, but at least they actually get things done. Thank the Soviet Union for satellites and Maos China for the phones and cameras used in every aspect of your life. As well as your prosperity and the past 2 decades of low inflation and a stable economy. (Australia is done now for pissing off China). Show humility and truth. Not just the negatives in your opinion.
"Sure, you need to sacrifice a lot of lives" FTFY.
"Thank the Soviet Union for satellites and Maos China for the phones and cameras used in every aspect of your life." But reading many of the other comments here, those societies aren't doing communism right.
Ah yes lets forget the millions of russian dying because of collectivization.
We can say then to chill with thw holocaust because germany made mercedes and volkswagen and new technology.😂
@@tuinov6286 doesn’t even come close to the death toll caused by western colonisation
5:20 Same thing you are doing now for decades with the Jewish owned channels...
"Jewish owner channels.." but u arent an antisemite! only antizionist! lol
5:50 Same thing you are doing with the Palestinians
Same side. Same result.
Moustaches?
This guy found Lex's stash. Little brother makes no fucking sense and his understanding of these complicated topics is a Marvel movie.
Tikhistory (UA-cam) 👍