Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Political Spectrum
Вставка
- Опубліковано 23 січ 2017
- What’s the Political Compass? What’s a Political Spectrum? This video is an introduction to the two spectrums that encapsulate the entire modern political landscape. Learn about the differences between left and right and collectivism and individualism.
Author: Eoin O'Sullivan
Sources:
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
en.wikipedia.o...
www.politicalcompass.org
Hi kurzgesagt
I was trying to figure out who it was--thank you.
Miss Seaweed your welcome (:
@Alex Ding DADADADADA DADADADAN DA DA DAA
dude he is it lol
Sesameks@@missseaweed2462ggghghgggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggfgggggffffffffffffffffffffffffffffgffffffff
I didn't know kurzgesagt did this stuff
It's a text to speech I think
@@greekmythdude9053 so someone just wrote it down, and had a voice say it like a bot, makes sense
They probably just hired the narrator for kurzgesagt, the person behind kurzgesat is an entirely different person
@@greekmythdude9053 cap
@@greekmythdude9053 no
Firstly, the political compass quiz online isn’t short (in my opinion). Secondly, the quiz has a bit of a left-wing bias in the propositions, making them quite confusing at times...
Lastly, why is it impossible to get in the extreme top right or left in the test?!
It’s rigged I swear I’ve done different answers like 8 times and got in the same centralist place right near the middle
@Daniel von Strangle Isn't horoscope libleft thought?
I agree. There is much bias in this quiz from the website. It said I lean left and am slightly more libertarian (not a whole lot! Actually pretty close to center), but only because it asked such ridiculous questions like "People should stick to their own kind" and things like that. Yeah, I suppose if this is 1843 or something, then yes, these questions make sense. I actually consider myself center-right with libertarian leanings.
Not only, the political quizz is also very theoretical. Because I might agree with some points but it's an utopia just to think that problems can be solved easily with political correctness
It's possible to get into all corners, it just doesn't make sense where some questions put you
0:38 *Nazbol Gang intensifies*
@Daniel von Strangle EVERYONE IS NAZBOL GA-ANG
The “commie and nazi” part in the intro was basically just a summary of every political conversation in America
💯
In politics, the dividing line between Right and Left can be traced back to two obsessions:
- the first (the torment of the Right) is a phobia of elements perceived to be incompatible with commonly used models in society
- the second (the bane of the Left) is intolerance of models that appear to be imposed by society.
In order to capture the meaning of these lines, we need to step back in time and recall the turmoil we experienced early in life as we began the process of blending into society when, as kids, we entered Planet School- or more precisely, Planet Classroom.
Right there in the classroom we’ve all had to deal with a “problem kid”: “bad Johnny”- the student with the disrespectful, smug attitude and less than decent grades, the kid in the back that stole your lunch money, the chronic late-comer who seemed to own a single tattered and over-doodled notebook, the bully you best avoided if you didn’t want to find yourself running home bruised and with a ripped school uniform. The hopeless case that once had the nerve to show his privates to the girl in the second row and who always came back from the boys’ room reeking of cigarette smoke.
No doubt that “bad Johnny” has raised concerns- more for some than for others- within the classroom/society. However, we can’t forget that other classmate of ours who is at the root of perhaps even more devastating issues- “Peter goody-two-shoes”. He came from a good family, he always sat in the front row, paid attention in class, gave a helping hand to less fortunate people, had good manners, dressed smartly, respected the teachers, sported perfect hairstyles and neatly organized books. The one who carefully put his school supplies away at the end of class, who always did his homework, who had the best grades- the one who came to school early each morning and couldn’t seem to wait to get started.
He was a model to look up to, our term of comparison when we sensed we couldn’t be good enough in the world of social competition. In fact, Peter popped up- in more or less obvious ways- any time our parents scolded us or our teacher criticized us.
And it was “Peter good-two-shoes” who really bothered us- especially when we felt his weight bearing down on our heads- a behavioral model imposed upon us by society. It is of the utmost importance to note that, for the purposes of this “treatise”, “Peter goody-two -shoes” should not be considered “good” in an absolute sense- but rather a model society sees in a positive light (not always rightfully so) and, more than that, tries to impose upon us. Similarly, “bad Johnny” does not have to be the bad guy- rather just something society -often erroneously- considers negative. You can see how Peter goody-two-shoes bothers people who are emotionally Left-wing, while an aversion to bad Johnny is the hallmark of Right-wingers.
From the book “La morale del biasimo inverso” (The Moral of Inverse Reproach)
by Gianfranco Ardisson - edited by Nuova Stampa Color
No.
Definition of phobia? LOL!!!!!!!
Right out the bat! This person doesnt even know what they're tlaking about (yes i spelled talking wrong...and i'm not going to correct it).
@@MrMedukneusha You are definitely right. I am not offended at all by your comment. I am Italian and my knowledge of the English language is very bad. I simply want to help spread a new meaning of the RIGHT / LEFT political distinction. I can understand that it is not appreciated. I simply want to make people think.
@@gianfrancoardisson953 Oh no, i appreciate a good argument. I was just being extra about the word "phobia". The left uses that to escape debate.
@@MrMedukneusha Thank you for appreciation. I am sending you other considerations which confirm my theory
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND LEFT POLITICS
CONFIRMATION OF “Peter goody - two - shoes” THEORY
- The idea that humans are intrinsically good belongs to the Left. In this case, “bad Johnny” is not a great danger to society. Leftist ideology borrows Rousseau’s belief that people are good by nature, even if at times they are led astray by society. It is noteworthy that “Peter goody - two - shoes”, the Left’s obsession, represents society and the model it demands to impose.
- The idea that some people are naturally diabolical is Right-wing: this belief derives from the suspicion that anyone could be a potential evil “bad Johnny”. In the Right’s vision, inspired by Hobbes, humans are evil by nature. They are always out to swindle, subjugate or rob others: hence the "Homo homini lupus" (man is a wolf for men) idea. In this case, it becomes society’s job to correct “bad Johnny” at any cost, if necessary by “sufficiently persuasive” means.
The “Peter goody - two - shoes” theory is therefore a sociologically relevant construct which delineates the meaning of the dichotomous conundrum afflicting each and every one of us in our relationship with society as a whole:
- On one hand, the refusal of models society itself endeavours to impose;
- On the other, the perception of elements not in line with the dominant paradigms as alien to society.
2:20 how fricking objective are ya?
Thanks for the video, sums it up nicely. Also just found out I have the same coordinates as Ghandi. Not quite sure what to do with that.
I am right next to him and Mother Theresa too. I suggest you carry protection, because criminals see nice people as suckers and will try to violate your rights. When you tell them no, they tell you that you have no right to say no because they saw you as a submissive pushover and feel they are better than you. Being kind does not make somebody stupid or a pushover. So carry pepper spray and don't be afraid to call 911 if somebody tries to rape you. This is my personal experience telling you this. Stay safe. Criminals look for soft targets and who they think won't fight back.
He is gandhi
I tried it and i was one sqaure away from Gandhi seems legit
Why do I all od a sudden whant to turn Earth into gold
Where does being a chad with a sigma quadrillionaire grindset put someone in this spectrum?
Collectivism vs individualism is literally like right and left making it redundant imo. It should be authoritarian vs libertarian!
thomas Hooper that's what I thought, I hate it when people try to make there own political map.
thomas Hooper No it should be authoritarian vs liberalism with social liberalism and classical liberalism
Well the thing u can be authoritarian and be right when u believe thta giverment should intervene in peoples social life like banning gay marriage and abortion and ect and uf u support theocracy for example ure authoritarian right
thomas hooper
no indivdualism vs collectivism means nothing this is not an antagonism, else for bad analysis.
progressism , historic socialism, including Marx's philosophy are indivdiualists, defend emancipation of the individuals, thisi why they denfed rights and freedoms for women, ethnics and racials minorities, , defend freedom from religious power, fight against slavery , defend the workers agaisnt the arbitrary of hungry capitalism.etc...
sexists, racists, fundamentalist religious, etc.. are authoritarians on the other side.
"indivdidualism vs authortarianism" is included inside left vs right, with "universalism vs particularism".
the good axes are :
indvidualism vs authoritarian ( autonomy vs heteronomy )
universalism vs particularism (equality vs inequality)
At least this political map fit with more scientific analysis.
analysis centred on liberalism are bad, because to egocentric, and can't understand the real antagonism left-right that goes around the world. economy is just one side of the politic antagonisms.
Disagree slightly. It should be authoritarian vs. anarchy. One extreme is all, and the other is none. From there I think a proper map can be laid out.
The drawings are placed in the wrong quadrants.
Left or right is about hierarchy. If you want it (right) or not (left).
Wrong. Every political ideology is inherently hierarchical. You cannot magically escape them. Even in Communism someone has to be part of the Central planning group instead of just being a normal worker. It's more of a question are these hierarchies justified or not. If anything, logic dictates that you get less hierarchies when going to the right, since people on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role - and especially the power - of the government is minimized.
Right people only think so in our modern capitalistic world, because they know, that a weak democratic state means, that you have more power if your rich. (The poor cant make laws against you). They only want freedom of them self - and for the others the freedom to work for them.
But when it is in there interest they can change from one day to the next to support a brutal dictatorship.
If the people that a leading a group are voted by the group and can be exchanged by the group its not a hierarchy in the strong sense. And that would be the case in communist states.
Just remember that the so called communist states, were states who wanted to overcome their feudal system and to get a strong industry. And they were all dictatorships. @@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.
Free market capitalism isnt the most right. There’s anarcho capitalism which has no government involvement.
U are confusing the horizontal and vertical lines, u can have free market and totalitarianism, because totalitarianism has to do with social control not economic control...
Very good and accurate, but the one gripe I have is that you called communism totalitarian, when I think the term you're looking for is "Marxist-Leninism". Still a very good video though.
Lol, like there's a difference.
Marxism-Leninism is democratic tho man...
The Name's Nick both are totalitarian, if the state has complete control over everything, it’s totalitarian
@@GlutenFr33 That's false for several reason. Firstly the government is elected and so the running of state enterprises is a democratic process.
Secondly the government didn't control everything. In the USSR for example the biggest sectors were the government-owned heavy industry and the worker owned collective farms (co-ops). There were even some private businesses at certain periods so this analysis is completely off.
Shane okey then, 80% totalitarian
Anyone watching this to get the political spectrum memes?
Your life is a meme.
I'm watching this for mag test.🤦🏻♀️
Anyone watching this to get a good grade in your history class? LOL
If you are be prepared for a fail.
Left wing is collectivism,
Right wing is individualism
The nazis and the fascists were left wing, same as the communists and Marxist/lennenists
(they obviously all fought against each other, because they all think their collectivist revolution is the best one, but regardless they are all on the same page)
Check out TIK videos capitalism vs socialism and Hitler was a socialist videos.
@@Jack-xy4fy Hitler was a Keynesian, not a socialist or a capitalist
@@theparadigm8149 whoever told you that is a socialist.
Fascism is class socialism, nazism is race and class socialism. There is not a single argument you could make that suggests the nazis weren't socialist.
@@Jack-xy4fy There were many industries that were privatized by the Nazis and fascists to fix the economy, but there was still some collective ownership. I’d say Hitler’s economy was more like FDR’s than Stalin’s
@@theparadigm8149 nonsense lol
From ww1 to 1931 the Germans were secretly rearming for war, The nazis came into power in 1933, and somewhere between 1931-1933 the nazis went full out rearmament mode, calling every means of production to focus on the rearmament effort. (state controls the means of production).
In 1939 ww2 kicked off, so at what stage in those 6 years between 1933 and 1939 are you claiming that Hitler privatised the means of production when it is well established that he had every factory involved in the rearmament?
I don't think this is correct. Especially using the time extreme right to describe things that are actually just right of Center.
It's important to acknowledge that just because a political ideology is commonly held, it doesn't make it "centrist" and just because a political ideology is not commonly held, doesn't necessarily make it "extreme."
According to many people's heuristics of American politics, Elizabeth Warren would be considered really far left and someone like, say, Rand Paul or John Boehner would be considered a conventional right-wing politician. However, this is an artifact of America's historical identity and some of weirdness baked into our Constitution. In reality, the GOP has been really far to the right on economic issues and the Democrats have been pretty centrist for going on 40-50 years. So Elizabeth Warrn (who is a very conventional down-the-line leftist, possibly even leaning centrist by European standards) looks extremely radical while Rand Paul (who is, at least rhetorically a borderline anarcho-capitalist on economic issues) looks like a conventional politician.
A true radical leftist agenda would be that, not only should government regulate or provide services with high-levels of inherent market inefficiencies like electricity or healthcare (a position held by most center-right politicians outside of the U.S.) but that the government should seize control over extractive industries that make their money from natural resources that should belong to "all" citizens like gold mines and the oil industry as well as permanently seize control over "exploitative" private industries like the auto industry. There is, basically no one in mainstream American politics who hold these perspectives.
Meanwhile, a radical right-wing agenda would include the roll-back or elimination of essentially all government regulations, a flat tax to support extremely limited government services and perhaps even pushes to privatize public goods like national defense, foster care, and police/fire (all things that have been promulgated by the GOP at the state and national level in recent decades).
America doesn't really have a true Socialist left-even American politicians who have embraced the word "Socialism" uniformly support a market/hybrid approach similar to the typical government in northern Europe, rather than true command-economy socialism. Neither the Democratic party nor the Republican Party represent the extreme versions of their preferred identity but there is absolutely no denying that the Republican Party is more extreme and the Democratic Party more centrist (though moving left) in recent decades according to traditional political philosophies.
I’m not sure what the agenda is here but this is simply not accurate in any part. Look up the actual right to left definition here: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-right_political_spectrum
I wonder what the difference between anarcho-communism and anarcho-capitalism is.. cause to me anarcho communist seems like an oxymoron
communism isnt about tyranny. its an economic system that doesnt work at a large scale in a world that uses capitalism as default.
Communism is theoretically anarchist. Marx discusses this in the communist manifesto. Communism is supposed to be a stateless, money-less, egalitarian society based around helping out your community. In an ideal communist society, the government would cease to exist, and workers would collectively own the means of production in their communes and determine what needs to be produced based on what is necessary to their communal situation.
We never got communism in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc… instead we got socialism. Now, there is a major difference between Marxist socialism and the socialism Americans talk about when the government does things. According to Marx, first there is the proletariat revolution. In this period, the old society (theoretically capitalist) is deposed and the leaders of said society are jailed/killed. After this, the so-called “dictatorship of the proletariat” takes control of the country, and spends 5 years redistributing resources among the workers who helped topple the system. Once everything is redistributed, the government is supposed to fade away, and we get communism (described above). However, the USSR, China, etc… never eliminated the state. The state just controlled the means of production, and therefore, the entire economy. This model has been proven to briefly benefit society with the expansion of infrastructure, but to eventually slow down drastically since a single body is very inefficient at determining market values and forces.
“Socialism,” as many American talk about it, is actually “Social Democracy.” Social Democracy is capitalism which seeks to protect the rights of the workers. The means of production are still owned by private capitalists who can set their own company policies, but they have more regulations to deal with with regards to how they treat their workers. As well, social democracies tend to have strong welfare systems to support the disadvantaged. This isn’t socialism, however, since the means of production are not controlled by the government. The basis of the entire economy is still centered around private enterprise for a profit. Bernie Sanders just started calling himself a socialist, and Americans started calling themselves socialists/or saying they hate socialists, since they’re using the term wrong. If you were to go to Europe, as an American, and tell a guy who knows nothing about America you’re a socialist, they’d probably think you’re a Marxist, since the definition of socialism I provided above, is the idea behind socialism.
People are so considered in distancing themselves from dictatorships that they try to but the terms collectivism and induvidualism on either the left or the right.
But the thing is size of government has NOTHING to do with economy. Limited government has NOTHING to do eith Capitalism but eith individualism. Unlimited government has NOTHING to do with Communism but with Collectivism.
In the end you could also just call individualism liberalism and collectivism authoritarianism, there is litterally no difference.
But don't argue about alternative facts, it is just stupid !!! 😒
That's exactly what this video argues.
This spectrum does not focus on the alt right vs SJWs on the culture wars
I am exactly beetwen left and right but very collectivist
Collectivism isn't the same as authoritarianism. Authoritarian societies with individualism have likely more strong cult personalities unlike collectivist authoritarian countries.
kurzegast is that you?
When you talk about communism, you mean Leninism, right? Because communism argues for the abolishment of the state, or rather the "withering away of the state."
No it doesn’t. Communist literally needs an authoritarian government to enforce communism
@@dotjpeg9102 communism is stateless by definition
@@sterlingmorse5409 Guess all those Communists countries were stateless then, oh wait
@@dotjpeg9102 there were in pursuit of communism, they were socialist. Look up the black army of ukraine or the cnt/fai for examples of libertarian communism
@@sterlingmorse5409 if they were only pursuing communism then real communism doesn’t seem much better
This made very little sense actually
In what way?
@@lukedrewry2816 the graph is on its side and he labelled the fascists as individualist for a start...
Both the nazis and fascists were collectivists born out of socialism and communism parties
@@Jack-xy4fy um no nazi was a fascist party
Fascim was born from a former socialist
@@aj69needshelp91 fascism is a form of collectivism numb nuts.
The fascists actually came from the Italian communist party and both benito musollini and giovanni gentille were self proclaimed communists. Musollinis father was a communist too.
@@Jack-xy4fy Doesn’t mean fascism is left leaning at all.
This voice sounds like kurzgesagt???
Yes
They do animation and narration
He is
Cool 👍
Unfortunately, most models genuinely are deeply flawed. Theoretical description may seem plausible, but when one takes a test, the propositions are leading and thus give flawed results.
When Hitler, Obama, the Bushes, Clintons, Reagan, Kennedy, Thatcher and Trump all end up as authoritarian and conservatives the model is in my opinion an epic fail.
Not really. They all agree that a state should exist and that capitalism should be the mode of production. They all are/were wealthy, powerful people.
And it shows how far right our society is if we think "far-left" Obama and Clintons are still on the right
I ended up with a -2.75 2.41 landing me somewhere in the middle of the top left square when I consider myself a republican, support trump and think communism is an awful idea.... Something has got to be flawed.
@@logan9654 So your score suggests you have authoritarian leanings (+2.41) and socialistic economic ideas (-2.75). That's not communism, true communism is a moneyless, stateless, and classless society (bottom-left quadrant). And apparently you think that there should be regulations on businesses and/or that the government should help it's citizens.
You're definitely a conservative on social issues, but maybe you differ on economics?
How can you have the very top right quadrant on this because how can a government have complete totalitarian power in the Country but also not be able to exert force in the economy with regulations and taxes also how can there be the same thing with anarchist left there would have to a very minimal and small government for people to share goods and receorses (
As you are trying to explain the specific infamous political compass and not your own I'm afraid you miss the point to a relatively extreme degree, and even changed their terminology of the top to bottom from authoritarian and libertarian to collectivist and individualist, and then very confusingly place anarchists at the bottom despite being collectivist. (They place anarchists to the far left).
This is very confusing, and could almost appear as dishonest, especially as collectivism vs. individualism would be a far better explanation of the left/right - it would not be fully correct however as there is quite a lot of nuance. A very general way of looking at it is that the left is a collection of ideologies valueing different ideas concerning reaching/maintaining equality (Socialism, Communism, Anarchism, Syndicalism, Communalism, and more to the right Social Democracy, etc.), while the right will be a collection of ideologies that encourages inequality, be that through meritocracy, the invisible hand of the free market in capitalism, the heavily government regulated mercantilism or good old-fashioned feudalism.
anarchist are individualists, like Karl Marx who cared about the individual right of the workers, but was not satisfied but the Human Right Declaration from the liberal revolution, who were caring about the freedom of the bourgeois, the capital owner mostly while on the text the was equality of right.
In the USA the human rights of black people were not respected with the racial discrimination, but hey they were not WASP bourgeois, while the USA were pretending being the flag of freedom and democracy.
In the spectrum given by the video, racism is "collectivist", it goes against individual freedom.
But collectivism is not the good term, it is not collective right, but community rights , like right for white people to have some seat reserved in a bus, not as individual but as member of a racial community.
Holism is a best term for their category "collectivism", this is the opposite of individualism. While individualism and collective can be harmonized, when the collective is made of equal individual, collective rights are equal rights for each individual, and then collective care about the need of the individual. This is the core of the left.
But the left right opposition is not about economic liberalism, but about how the power is shared (left) and then egalitarian or concentrated (right) and then inegalitarian .
Economic liberalism , allow concentration of power in a single hand, the capitalist, the entrepreneur, and refuses spread of power by social regulation, or government regulation.
But strong government can, allow concentration of power in private and, like with nazism, or some part of the right who defend the alliance between some big corporation and the state ( weaponry, oil, in the USA for example ), or government making laws for defending the interest of private food big corporations by allowing privatisation of the life.
Not really, but i can agree how its very generalized.
The left believes in government control. A large part of that is based in collectivism. You cant control a mass group of individuals. AKA, herding cats.
While i can certainly see why people think anarchists are collectivists and they are. They dress the same and act the same and believe in alot of the same things. But anarchy is not left wing. Anarchy is a complete absence of government, meaning extreme right-wing individualism. Mainstream anarchists are far-left collectivists that think they're anarchists. How someone could be an anarchist yet demand more government control is delusional in the extreme. (bernie sanders supporters)
I fully agree how collectivist vs. individualism is blunt way of describing their diagram.
The left likes to pretend they support equality. However history shows all they achieve is misery, suffering, starvation and death(edit: not for the political leaders, certainly). 100 million killed under far-left socialism.
The right absolutely encourages inequality. Especially in inequality of outcome. Someone who works hard deserves to earn more than someone that votes for bernie sanders for example. How you think the right, which is clearly the side of limited government, means "more government" is beyond me.
Now i'm going to break some mad arcane knowledge here. But people who support feudalism are feudalists.
If you're european its easy to get these things mixed up. Language was swung to the extreme far-left, post WW2. Ironically a war against far-left socialists. But socialism was infecting the whole continent at the time. All the socialists went back to academic circles and started shifting the blame to "nationalism" from the National Socialist German Workers Party. They deserve to repeat history for forgetting.
@Daniel von Strangle Could you explain how this is disingenuous. The fight for inequality is what generally defines all political ideologies on the right. From the extremists, such as Fascists, Monarchists, etc. wanting to categorize people into enforced groups/classes, to the more general but still harsh enforcement of capitalism (and with it workers and owners and extreme wealth inequality) that is pushed by conservatives and liberals. All of these ideologies are as such proponents of heavy class divides.
Obviously, Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, etc. are not opposed to classes, but along with the centre, such as Liberal Democrats, Christian Democrats, they believe in degrees of redistribution, shared ownership, etc. to limit/actively combat inequality - and the further left you go the more focused the ideologies move towards collective ownership and with that a degree of equality.
Of course, equality/inequality is only one way to look at it (as explained above - it was offered as one option) and it is worth noting that not all ideologies on the left are driven by it. For instance Marxism is generally opposed to equality (Marx argued it was impossible and should not be attempted), but the overall aim of all the left leaning ideologies is an increased degree of equality in one way or another.
Feel free to counter if you have an argument.
@@MrMedukneusha This is broadly speaking incorrect:
1. The claim that the left is defined by government control is false. Almost all anarchist throughout history has identified as Socialists and Communists, including individualists like Stirner, Spooner, etc.
The left as a whole is not pro government, they are not even necessarily pro collectivism (see: individualist socialists) - they support an increase in worker and or collective ownership.
Individualist socialists have wanted, and still want, no/little government and worker ownership - while more collectivist Libertarians will want no/less government but with worker/collective ownership, and worker/local management - see Syndicalism for instance.
Even Democratic Socialists like Sanders and AOC support co-ops, AOC even coming out for free market socialism (co-ops competing).
Also: You do realize that even Libertarian was a purely left-wing term until the 70s when Rothbard attempted (and succeeded) in co-opting it right? All of Anarchist and Libertarian history has been almost exclusively socialist - and again - collectivism does not mean more government.
2. "The left likes to pretend they support equality. However history shows all they achieve is misery, suffering, starvation and death"
But countries with Democratic Socialist or Social Democratic leadership and policies over the 20th century have the highest living standards. See Scandinavia.
I'm Norwegian, our Labour party was socialist until the 80s, and had government control the majority of the period from the 30s. We're one of the richest and happiest countries in the world. Social Democracy, which is what they moderated to, is also left wing, and Social Democracies, have the best living standards.
I.e. you are spreading false information.
3. "The right absolutely encourages inequality. Especially in inequality of outcome. Someone who works hard deserves to earn more than someone that votes for bernie sanders for example."
Exactly, thank you, they support inequality - though it is not based on who works hard, it is based on who owns the companies with employees that work hard/work smart.
(or if you are a Feudalist, which lord has the best serfs in the fields)
Most socialists, including Marx, agrees that those who work harder/better should be paid more. Marx argued, for instance, that if two people work in a factory, and one worker produces twice of what the average worker produces, he/she should get twice the pay - and that's Karl Marx. Others believe in free market competition where you should be able to get as much for your products as the market allows you to - the difference is that the socialists wants the money for the people who do the work, not the people who happen to own it (and yes, sometimes there is an overlap).
4. Yes, people who support Feudalism are Feudalists. Not sure what your point is there.
5. The nazis sat on the right of the German parliament, and worked with the right, was supported by the conservatives, etc. I understand that you don't know politics/history given the above, but this is such an extremely ignorant take I had to get rude in my fial paragraph. If you are this ignorant, you need a wake up call.
The amount of sfx tho
Libunity !
Based
Based
I go right ->
I go up î
But not NS
sesame works😊
Kurzgesomething?
Libertarian is quite different than liberal. Definitely don't make this senanics mistake.
And definitely don't mix their opposites up. Authoritarian and totalitarian are quite different also.
The root word of authoritarian is author. An author of a plan. This is not a bad thing. These are the people of science. The opposite of an author of a plan is someone with no plan. People with no plan are libertarians. These people are the tax cuts and deregulations. These people are the faith people.
Liberal is unlimited freedom unless it infringes on other people's freedom. And the opposite of liberal is totalitarian. These people are also reactionary. Their inherent right to infringe on other people's freedom.
So liberal and Libertarian are very different. Authoritarian and totalitarian are very different.
Wait that voice it’s so familiar like a channel that teaches science with ducks as humans. Ow well the political spectrum is a bunch of bull crap anyways
what about moderate and independent?
The closer you are to the origin (0 on both axes) the more moderate you are. "Independent" is simply a political term that refers to someone that doesn't identify with a specific political party. Many people assume all independents are moderate, when, in reality, they often hold policy positions that are anything but.
It's a spectrum, moderate would be closer to the middle, while independent doesn't even mean anything on its own.
OMG, it's Kurzgesagt!!!!
Well the thing is Nazis aren't right wing. The video literally explains that right wing wants less government meddling in the economy, and that at the extreme you have a totally free market capitalism. In no way did the Nazis support capitalism, and Hitler believed many things that Karl Marx said in Das Kapital. In the Reichstag Fire Decree on 28 February 1933, article 153 of the constitution, which gave people private property rights, was struck. Hitler said in his second book in chapter 5, "I am a socialist".
Accept there’s authoritarian right wing.
@@jacktheboss1896 I mean, so what. The Nazis still weren't there. Those axes are independent. If he was to the right regardless of wether he was authoritarian or libertarian, it would make him a capitalist. And I'm saying Hitler is not a Capitalist, but rather he is a Socialist. Also the video uses collectivism and individualism instead of authoritarian and libertarian (which is fine). However, Socialism (left wing) is technically collectivist, because it wants collective/state control of the economy. Capitalism is individualist because it wants private (comes from the latin word privus meaning individual) control of the economy. So you can't really have more state and more capitalism.
Kaiser Conquests How were the Nazis socialists? And Hitler wasn’t a capitalist, he was a fascist. Fascism is collectivist, authoritarian, right wing.
Capitalists did make large profits in Nazi Germany, which seems odd if the Nazis were socialist.
Kaiser Conquests If the means of production are not publicly owned, it’s not socialism.
@@jacktheboss1896 Not really. The Public Sector state had full control over businesses and redistributed profits as they said they would in the 25 points. U should read this book. cdn.mises.org/The%20Vampire%20Economy.pdf. It doesn't aim to call the Nazis socialists but it still shows it. The state also had all of the responsibilities of ownership.
sesa
I’m on the bottom right
how is far left where private property is abolished NOT collectivist ?
how is far right where free markets exist NOT individualist ?
left and right are misnomers. collectivism IS authoritarianism, where collective authors coercions on the individual freedoms.
Warlords are authoritarian and individualist...
3 years and the meme continues.
"Socialism is when the government does stuff, and when it does alot of stuff is communism" lol
What a troll.
If you actually want to learn what the terms actually mean, here is an actual lecture where you start:
ua-cam.com/video/ysZC0JOYYWw/v-deo.html
This graph makes zero sense. How can you be authoritarian and tell everyone what to do without having economic collectivism. How are you funding your big police state?
For example by means of state owned natural wealth as seen in Saudi Arabia for instance.
This is so wrong it is unbelievable.
Every academic will tell you that the division between left wing and right wing has nothing to do with the scale of government. It has to do with how you view hierarchy.
If we go by the dumb political compass, how is it possible to be Far left -10 (full state control) and Far libertarian -10 (anarchist), when anarchists believe in abolishment of the state?
_"Every academic will tell you that the division between left wing and right wing has nothing to do with the scale of government."_
Wrong. It does. The fundamental differences between left-wing and right-wing ideologies center around the the rights of individuals vs. the power of the government. Left-wing beliefs are based on the idea that society is best served with an expanded role for the government. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role - and especially the power - of the government is minimized.
_"It has to do with how you view hierarchy."_
Wrong. Every political ideology is inherently hierarchical. You cannot magically escape them. Even in Communism someone has to be part of the Central planning group instead of just being a normal worker. It's more of a question are these hierarchies justified or not. If anything, logic dictates that you get less hierarchies when going to the right.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. no. It isn't! The terms left and right came from the French Revolution. Those who sat on the left favoured progress away from feudalism, and those who sat on the right favoured tradition. Level of government control has absolutely nothing to do with it.
@@Mark-zk3gu The right-left dichotomy is useless if you base it on monarchy. Monarchy could be anything. It could exert socialist goals better than any socialist democracy and it could be a better free capitalist economy than any anarcho-capitalist could ever do. It all depends on the monarch. There is also little difference between a monarchy and an authoritarian regime. In what way did any of the socialist dictators differ from kings? They were all worshiped and elitist but presented themselves as the ally of the people. Kings have done that in the past to appeal to the population.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. it isn't based on monarchy omg. It's based on progress vs tradition. traditionally there was no social equality. there were the haves and have nots with no ability to have any class mobility, which is why those on the left favoured a move away from monarchy.
a movement to capitalism improved many lives, but it wasn't enough. The left now critiques capitalism for not delivering on it's promises of liberty, equality, brotherhood.
Notice nothing here is about state control in the least bit. The state has nothing to do with this discussion. Both the left and the right use the state to achieve their goals.
eeae
This is not at all true to representing the left.
!!
The top of the spectrum is not valuing the majority rights over the individual it is providing personal security over freedom.
they should be on the horizontal line as the far right.........who is your avatar a pic of?
robinsss distorted Caesar
In the economic Spectrum I’m all the way Right to the Extreme
In the Social spectrum I’m all the way down to the Extreme
Anarcho Free Market is where I stand
I’m a Anarchist
2:22 ah yes, naziism
#Democratic Party
Kurdistan
Dddddfvvvvcffffccccvvvvffghhhhhhhh
foolish and child business bah...
This presentation completely contradicted itself and actually showed the true political spectrum. He said leftism believes in communal property and on the far right you have totally free market capitalism. Then he calls fascism far right and communism far left. So he's trying to say fascism espouses a totally free market? Fing ridiculous. What he actually just showed is the truth, that fascism is actually just a smidge to the right of communism and is IN FACT A LEFTIST IDEOLOGY!
Framing Libertarian as individiual is kind of disingenious. The libertarian right is hilariously individualist. But the Libertarian left. Libertarian Socialists/Communists, Anarchists ecetra believe very much in Collectivism. Free assocations working in co-operation with each other.
2020: 5269
What?
NDP!
Except Nazis also had complete control of the economy so by your definition they would also be all left wing
Thank you very much.
Nazis did not nationalize their industry, though. Even by their definition, it wouldn't be left wing.
@@Mark-zk3gu _"Nazis did not nationalize their industry, though."_
Wrong. They did. Pretty much everything was nationalized under the control of the NSDAP and they later reorganized all industries into corporations run by members of the Nazi Party. They called this "Gleichschaltung".
_"To put it quite clearly: we have an economic programme. Point No. 13 in that programme demands the nationalisation of all public companies, in other words socialisation, or what is known here as socialism. … the basic principle of my Party’s economic programme should be made perfectly clear and that is the principle of authority… the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me?… Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals any more; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.“_
- Adolf Hitler, Hitler's interview with Richard Breiting, 1931, published in Edouard Calic, ed.,
@@Mark-zk3gu _"Even by their definition, it wouldn't be left wing."_
By their definition, National Socialism was a socialist 3rd position movement. It would be classified as far-left since it sits on the right side of marxism with fascism.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. it would be classified as far left only by anti intellectual psychopaths like you. Literally no one worth their salt agrees with you
Comieeeeeeee!!!!!!!!
Utter nonsense.
Left wing is collectivism
Right wing is individualism
Top is authoritarianism (optional)
Bottom is libertarianism (optional)
The nazis and the fascists were just as collectivist as the communists and Marxist/lennonists. They are all left wing ideologies. If you don't believe that, look up the history of how left vs right came about in France.
How were the nazis with unions? Technically, Nazis are auth-center. They privatized and socialized. The Strasserists are left wing. Pinochet was right wing.
Not all right wingers are small government. Not all left wingers are big government.
@@harrisonschneider8333 I don't understand your question... Are you asking me what the nazis stance was on unions? Or are you suggesting that unions is a fundamental part of collectivism?
Auth cetrism hahahhaha
That is the most brainwashed socialist propoganda I've ever heard. Socialists always argue semantics and make up new terminology to confuse new recruits and cover up for failed socialist regimes.
The nazis privatised nothing, they allowed some companies to operate with an apparent degree of autonomy in order to secure finances for their rearmament and expansion efforts.
They socialised all of the means of production in order to drive the rearmament and expansion.
Remember the nazis were only in power for like 6 years prior to ww2, and that entire time they were in the rearmament phase following ww1 both secretly and openly, so at what point during those 6 years are you suggesting Hitler made Germany free market? Lol
@@zijack0686 right wing/left wing is a spectrum, so if a so called "right winger" is advocating for a big government with control over a lot of things, then they are either a left winger or they are a centrist.
@@Jack-xy4fy the first mass privatization was done by Nazi Germany and the word privatization itself comes From Nazi Germany
The nazi's where socialists...
Exemple?
@@brodytheslap8881 The name... Nazi is short for Nationalsozialistische, you figure our what that means in German....
LOL
@@moreplease998 natiolistic socialism is/was different then we know it as now. But it was defenently a form of socialism and not extremly right winged, as portrayed in the video.
Not really!!! They had the word socialism in their party to appeal to a wider range of people just like how North Korea🇰🇵 Is called the Democratic People’s Republic Of Korea and China🇨🇳 is called the People’s Republic of China but we all know there’s nothing democratic or of the People in these countries!!!
they rly called communism totalitarian 💀💀
Be quiet commie
@@maka8551 k
Ancoms: yes it is. Red fascists, basically.
@@Cheretruck_ LOLL BASED