The first post thinks Conservatism is it's own thing and that "Conserve" is its basis. This person understands nothing . It has fascism as an single ideology when it's a tool for gaining power in a democracy, with the actual beliefs of 20th C. fascists varying from country to country.
Right? That alone was worth me just liking and subscribing rather than picking on the smaller bits I disagreed with (due to my experience in and dealing with them giving me a more granular view.)
Gess the corporatism/corportocricy misunderstanding is to the right as the socialism/communism misunderstanding is to the left. Realy wish people would look up details on these things as they do matter.
@@andrewrobb3258 croporatocracy is just liberal corporatism whereby private individuals are free to join and leave and create corporations at their own whim.
I've always hated these labels being thrown around so casually and carelessly. You can share values from multiple political ideologies, and not agree with some others in the same ideology. Yet you get shunned because they see you as group A, when you can share values with group A, B, and C
Nobody can ever really entirely fit into one ideology without contradicting themselves. People have to do a better job acknowledging that other people and themselves are diverse in judgements and beliefs
I have an ideology called realism. It's where I look at humanity, and realize that the vast majority of them are so insanely mentally deficient, that I can't talk to them about politics.
THIS IS HOW THEY DIVIDE US. It's the reason the left and right has such extreme values. It's also the reason we can't seem to agree on seemingly simple yet basic and society driving facts...
Like socialism. The description in this video presents the theory, which appears pretty good for the worker. However, if one takes into account the history of socialism and its current practice in many places around the world, then one sees that the theory and practice are quite disparate.
I really like that the narrator jumped straight into it, no intro, and defined everything concisely and quickly, a lot of these terms are used in an interchangeable manner. I subscribed, you’re currently at 39K but I know you’ll reach 40K soon!
leftists? They don't understand what liberalism means. Trudeau or anyone that pushed mandates our censorship is not liberal or libertarianism. Woke people are never libertarians because wokeness is literally social fasciism.
This is because the only ones who misuse these terms are the Americans. Everybody out the US calls liberals those who approve Ricardo's, Hayek's, Von Mises', etc. ideals, while libertarianism is usually used for anarchosocialist movements.
@@ptrknvk It is not, in no way. That's some Ayn Rand type of argument. Although they pretend their "revolutionary" economical system is disguised through the lens of the sole consumer, and not through the demand-offer curve, their final conclusion is driven through an abstraction of the rudest laissez-faire law of nature, which is not ultimately very libertarian. One has to think that libertarianism is arguably built over the pilars of social interaction, not the cult to the individual.
Kudos for shedding light on the nuances between capitalism, corporatism, and corporatocracy. It's rare to see someone tackle these distinctions. Your clarity is a breath of fresh air in the content space. Looking forward to more insightful breakdowns!
except 'libertarianism;' is not an 'ideology' any more than arithmetic saying 2+2=4 is an 'ideology' it's a simple bleeding obvious principle that should be so universally recognized that no one should have to call themselves a 'libertarian' any more than anyone has to call themselves a slavery abolitionist
@@dirtydeeds4free553 yes i do, but there is *no legitimacy* in believing that others should be subjugated to your personal values and preferences. I shouldn't get to force you to conform to the doctrines of Islam if you believe in some sect of Christianity, likewise you shouldn't be able to force me to conform to whatever religion or religious sect you believe in if I don't want to, as just one example. Libertarianism actually allows a *broad spectrum* of belief systems and philosophies as long as they essentially adhere to the non-aggression principle what could be more simple and reasonable than that?
@@EliW95 So tell me. -If I am powerful, and you are weak, why should I let you be alone? -You obviously envy me, so you ARE plotting something against me. You want my wealth. I need to get rid of you. -You live in a mudshack, I live in a palace, you are obviously miserable. You don't see the truth, so you protest, but I will make you see the light I bring. -Why should I let you be, if you are not a human at all?
@@theoutergod8666 you're making blanket assumptions. I'm actually *against* the employer employee relationship dynamic because i basically see it as a form of de-facto indentured servitude due to the nature of the power dynamic, and i actually tend to put more of an emphasis on the *personal relations* aspect of the market (basically the aspects that are in line with mutualist philosophy) rather than an emphasis on capital investment and accumulation, which would *necessarily* mean narrowing (but not eliminating because that would be *realistically impossible* ) the wealth inequality and therefore power imbalance of society but thanks for the blanket assumptions jack@ss
Brilliantly done, I thought this would just be a meme video, but I was quickly pleasantly surprised when you defined conservatism and liberalism by their classical definitions. I was impressed even further when you didn't simply conflate authoritarianism, fascism, and National Socialism with each other. All while being completely neutral with each one! Well done!
I'm not sure how neural he was with nazism, seeing as how the music kind of built up and such, however that doesnt really matter nazism isn't really an ideology that is defendable. Other than that I'd say he represented every ideology completely fairly.
Political ideologies are such a divisive topic, glad to see them explained in a simple and easy to understand way so that people can make up their own minds instead of just listening to whoever is close to them in their lives and parroting the information.
Kind of. The issue is the video did a fine job at describing the traditional definitions, however, if you are an American for instance these terms mean something very different. For instance modern Conservatism in the US is Liberalism in this video. Liberals in the US are actually leftist that don't support Liberal values, they only use the name.
Being simple and precise doesn't mean being correct. By watching the vídeo, it looks like ideologies are options which you choose. No, ideologies choose you, they build the basic fundations for your thoughts. And the ideologies on the vídeo aren't on the same level: Everyone is a liberal at some level, capitalism is a economic sistem, not a single person ever defines itself as a populist because it's just a label (just like ''terrorist''). The first use of the word ''ideology'' was by french ideologist post french revolution. They tried to create a universal theory about ideas, where you can analize politics objectively without taking sides. Being ideological means, by the original definition, doing exactly what this vídeo is doing.
@@MrSirFluffy You are out of your mind. Modern Conservatism in the US is right-wing near-fascism everywhere else in the world. "Liberals" in the US would be considered actual conservatives just about everywhere else that isn't a dictatorship.
it was very simplified tho. There's technically a state, it's just not differenciated from the people. The state simply have no power. There's people who mannage the society, they just have no power over anyone else, so they can't abuse it. what's worse is that people will mistake anarchy with anarchism, a thing media and politics have pretty much forced to fught against this political ideology. That and just dropping bomb on the anarchism village and societies.
For all of the uneducated people getting mad in the comments over the liberalism section here is an explanation, in north America what we call "liberalism" has basically nothing to do with the actual historical definition of liberalism. In North America the term liberalism really just means social democracy with a strong emphasis on progressivism, an American "liberal" would support high taxation, welfare, limited gun ownership, and suppression of "hate" speech amongst other things, but actual liberalism is basically the complete opposite of that, classical liberals are against unnecessary taxation, support strong gun and property rights, absolute free speech, and limited government in general. "Hey that kind of sounds like conservatism" While classical liberalism does share a lot of ideas with what north Americans call "conservatism" it is still a completely separate ideology, classical liberals support the autonomy of the body as they see it as the first line of private property so they fully support the right to abortion, classical liberals support absolute free speech unlike conservatives or progressives who only support free speech when it's inline with their beliefs, classical liberals support a very secular government, support lazies-fare capitalism (which basically just means capitalism with almost 0 governmental regulation), and as said before in favor of a small government in general, unlike conservatives who do support small government intervention in the economy, but are in favor of government interference in the personal lives of citizens, like banning abortion, or certain media that they find "immoral"
This doesn’t make sense at all. Because as a liberal, what conservatives make fun of me for here in the U.S, everything in the video related exactly to me. The conservative part seemed to be exactly the Conservatives. I think you just felt guilty from this video. It’s called denial. Maybe you are a liberal and you haven’t done enough research just yet.
Unfortunately many people believe they are supporting a specific ideology, but the ideology is in name only. The liberal party of Canada, for example, is liberal in name, but in practice has been reducing privacy rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, worker rights, and human rights in an authoritarian manner.
We have the Liberal-National Coalition in Australia, and they are very conservative in their views, mostly serving the highest earners and appeasing their strongest voting force at the detriment to progress. (I have some heavy bias here of course). Names really don't mean anything which is unfortunate since it can be quite misleading. We also have a minor party called "The Informed Medical Options Party" which the overview is that they want to ensure the health of the nation which sounds great, but in reality they're just anti-vaxxers trying to impose dangerous ideologies. I just wish there was some sort of regulation ensuring people knew what they were voting for at face value
I appreciate the objectivity and non biased values when explaining these topics. It really helps understand their general forms for what they are rather to how they function. A testament to how good this video is is how the comment section is very relaxed despite the topic in question being very pollarizing. Thanks a lot!
@@random6033yes, of course, but that doesn't mean he didn't speak in an unbiased/objective tone. He did not use words or images that suggested one of the views is better or worse, except maybe for nazism(but even in it's case, he just stated the facts)
@@andreitobosaru6847 When it comes to the Nazism section of this video, he just told it how it was. People who actually are Nazi's, wouldn't see it as bad because that's truly what they believe in. He didn't demonize them, since they already do it to themselves.
He was biased in his video. He focused almost exclusively on pointing out the authoritarian nature of ideologies like fascism yet didn't mention it at all when talking about the socialist ideologies. This is called lying by omission and is a deliberate tactic.
I liked it. The presentation seemed neutral and focused on describing the ideologies, including their perspectives. I learned more about some ideologies I knew some things about, and even some that I didn't know anything about, like Corporatism, Communitarianism and Moderatism. Thank you for making a video that is both informative and descriptive.
@blackpanther5086you responded to a comment praising their work on the video with a Hitler quote and a salute emote? Never mind the Nazi roach that you are part, you also can't even read. That's a double whammy
@@Birri919how does it makes any argument? What if he is actually pure aryan? And most importantly nazis weren't putting everyone non aryan in camps, try learning history
I expected 8 minutes of pure banter and trolling, but received 8 mins of actually educational political education. My disappointment is immeasureable and my day is ruined
As i came across, I was genuinely pleased by the tone and the synthesis of the video. Coming from France, politics is number one topic everywhere, but it seems we lost the idea where debating for a better system turned to an endless fight between parties instead of realising most of us have the same goals. It is a well done video with usefull hindsight. Eager to see more of your content.
yeah as a french we definitely need to be taught to be able to listen even though we think we might disagree, and have more civilised discussions rather than constantly shouting at each other
His Majesty Jesus Christ has sent me on a mission with a message to tell the masses! Fear not, my brothers, your hunger shall be no more. He who dispenses the bread of life shall be your sustenance!
'Faut aussi que les gens comprênent que la politique française n'est PAS la politique américaine : on a plus de deux partis, et les deux principaux sont pas "gauche libérale et extrême droite conservatrice", c'est "gauche populiste et droite moderationniste" 😮💨 trop de jeunes passent trop de temps sur internet, et à cause de l'influence des US, ils sont convaincus que LEUR politique est LA politique. Non. Faut juste ouvrir un peu les yeux et voir la différence d'idéaux
It is a great explanation of the ideologies he talks about however it is no where near all of them and would take a very very long time to explain every single one there is a video about every single ideology though and it is about 3 hours long
Transhumanism in a nutshell: "From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel" Edit: thanks to contributions in the comments, we can also include Witchers and X-Men in nutshell transhumanism. Praise the Omnisiah for the sharing of information on the internet
Trahnshumansim can also evolve into genetic augmentation and biological supplementation - it doesn’t necessarily have to directly correlate to synthetic implants and cyborg bodies
@@benyseus6325That still counts as technology, but yes I agree that his description of it was rather lacking. The "ultimate goal" in transhumanism is morphological freedom and being able to control whatever aspects of the human condition that you wish, not all transhumanists want immortality, god-like intellect or an indestructible powerful body
Something I love about this video is that he made almost all of them sound good. From watching that video, I couldn't say where this guy stands politically. Only a few things to say where he doesn't. It's refreshing to have a video about politics that's purely objective and doesn't bring any of the personal beliefs of the creator into it
It's definitely not "purely objective," because as you said there are "a few things to say" what he doesn't agree with. Thankfully we can say those things are agreed upon for most of us as well lmfao, but still not "purely objective."
I don't think it's completely subjective. He talks bad about one bad ideology but then tries to sound neutral or not bad about another pretty horrific one.
That was a surprisingly accurate description of anarchism. It sounds like it was taken right from Kropotkin, and that's a level of understanding that I genuinely didn't expect.
When he said socialism is an umbrella term and showed anarchism as one of the words under the umbrella, I knew he was going to give a fair definition of anarchism.
When I watched that part on anarchism, I thought, "hey, that doesn't sound bad...wait...have I been lied to... again?" I know nothing of Kroptkin, but I'm intrigued to find out based on this comment. Anarchism doesn't just devolve into "violence hierarchy" like I was taught? (like: zombie apocalypse rules, battle royale rules, smash bros free for all rules)
@@e66iuYes. It does. Because that is the nature of man. We aren't enlightened things, we are just animals. It would be nice to live in a world where something like this could exist, but devolution and the slippery slope are real when it comes to humanity.
@@e66iu If we're going by examples, there have been instances of anarchist or anarchist-adjacent experiments on larger scale (the largest up to ten million population, so not extremely large), like currently the Zapatistas in Mexico and Rojava in Syria, and historically Makhnovchina in Ukraine and Revolutionary Catalonia and Aragon in the Spanish civil war (fun fact, George Orwell fought alongside them against Franco). Peter Kropotkin was a Russian prince who rejected his title to become an anarchist, and is seen as the father of anarcho-communism, free communes that form confederated associations with other communes, and share in production by need. He's also nicknamed Bread-Santa ;P The yt channel Then & Now has a good introduction to the history of anarchism, and two videos on Joseph Proudhon (a Mutualist anarchist). Anark has a great series called A Modern Anarchism, though it's on the longer side, and Andrewism is also a good channel. The subreddit r/anarchy101 is very helpful and has a link to an FAQ of the ideology.
@@normalchannel2185I think this is redeemed zoomer, who has another channel that is focused on spreading his presbytarian (branch of christianity) faith. He made a really good all christianities/all religions video before
I'm glad you distinguished liberalism and progressivism because it seems nowadays, those two terms are used interchangeably, and a lot of people who call themselves conservative today actually align with a lot of traditionally liberal values.
I really liked your short minimalistic, to-the-point, uncomplicated explaining of each ideology. I understood everything here. While big, long-winded, complicated videos trying to explain the same things, just tend to confuse me even more. You've just got both a like and subscribe from me...
@@AImighty_Loaf MEGA KEK. They were saying that the explanations were simple enough that a child could grasp it, while simultaneously comparing it to Political SlutSmores you can get virtually anywhere else on the Tube. There was no boast of superiority here, save for the one response that followed it.
This is a little bit insignificant but the fact you actually explain fascism properly or at least a lot better than other people is huge props to you. Most people will just use it interchangeably with Nazism, or just twist the reality of it which takes away from the actual things that make it a horrible ideology.
@@cheekguardian1378how? Have you gone through history class? Don’t tell me you’re one of the morons that believe that ww2 never happened and Adolf Hitler didn’t exist.
Ya know, I usually associate these little political blob dudes with online brain rot, but this was legitimately informative. Thank you! I’m looking forward to part 2!!
The people who use these blobs unironically are often very brain rotted. The blobs do however make for a good way to illustrate the different ideologies into their flags and give them some "personality".
@@Nyx__"ah yes you fools that use the little colorful blob have brain rot, but me an over 20 year old male with an anime profile pic doesn't have any brain rot."
I like how this shows how there's significant overlap in many of these ideologies, so you can see how anyone can define their beliefs to include multiple of these. I also appreciate how you showed that progressivism and liberalism are not the same thing! People tend to refer to progressives as liberals, which implies that people who don't hold progressive viewpoints don't support classical liberalism. Edit: to everyone responding complaining about the difference between modern liberalism and classical liberalism, yes. I understand there is a difference, and I'm not advocating to stop calling modern liberals "liberals" even though most of their ideals have little overlap with classical liberalism. I'm just pointing out a lesser known fact. I myself am more of a libertarian in terms of political views, with conservative morals.
Especially since liberals believe in freedom of speech and individualism where modern progressives are extremely authoritarian and collectivist. What is "progressivism" was definitely answered for it's core belief. However, it's followers today have adopted parts of both fascism (minus the nationalism) and authoritarianism (expect the power being held by the mob). As an atheist liberal I cannot stand the modern progressive. They are evil to the core.
@@Habib_Xon progressives are NOT liberal. Me, a liberal, my WORST political rival enemy is the progressive. We are nothing alike. I'm free speech, they are censorship. I'm protect the individual, they are authoritarian. I'm free market capitalism, they are socialism. Calling a "progressive" a liberal is just as stupid as calling a man a "woman" (something dumb ass progressives do). Do you want to be like a progressive and not know the difference between a man and woman or a liberal and a progressive?
@@Yuvraj. I suppose because it's all too common for the two terms to be conflated, it's nearly impossible to discuss something political while making this distinction...and expecting the one you're conversing with to, in good faith, get the point, and start also making this distinction. Long story told short, because it's simpler this way unfortunately.
I didn't even realise that a good amount of those existed, so thanks for actually telling me in a way I can understand. I would be interested in a video that goes in depth on other political ideologies, although even just this video is a great way to understand the surface level of political ideologies.
@@clalam5241 Politics is no spectrum, it's more like a sea, I mean, I dare you to place Duginism, Conservatism, Carlism, Fascism, Social-Democracy, Marxist Socialism, Liberalism and Anarchism in a 3-dimensional spectrum.
When you start getting more granular it's worth having them explained and defined as in neutral a way as possible like this, and then having each explained/defined/attacked/defended by proponents and opponents. The more specific an explanation becomes the more you can get lost in minutiae and have "positives" taken for granted or dismissed. If you can find honest opponents, it's really fascinating to have a system defended by someone who dislikes it - you know "what are the best features of X system that you wish Y (your system) had?"
I feel like some of these are less political ideologies and more economic ideologies or philosophical ideologies (transhumanism for example) which might be confusing for some people. Other than that this was a surprisingly good video covering the very basic overview of these without going into overwhelming depth.
To be fair, there really isn't a classical political ideology that isn't also an economic ideology. Governments/groups of humans formed to make their resource lasted longer and were easier to get. Almost every basic aspect of society expends from that basic concept. Even things like authoritarianism which seems completely political is still entrusting one person with the job of a least deciding who allocates resources and what land they acquire. You have to get to incredibly modern stuff before you really start seeing political views purely based non-physical concepts. Most people actually in power need to have some idea of what resources should go where and democracies/republics/most other governments with real divisions of power and responsibility really didn't thrive until relatively recently.
Political and economic ideologies often overlap, because your economic views will often also shape how you think government should be run and how involved it should be (or not exist at all). Philosophical ideologies that have ideas about society also often have a political component.
One thing y'all should keep in mind is that few of these are actually mutually exclusive. Many of these "teams" could work together, in theory. Some do in the real world. Others are complete contradictory but become allies anyway. TL;DR it's rarely ever just the one thing. Great video man.
Indeed, capitalism and socialism are different and contradictory in economic context. However, environmentalism and egalitarianism can be augmented depending whether businesses practices corporate social responsibility and the general public truly want to create an egalitarian society.
It's amazing how when various ideologies are summarized briefly and with objectivity, you can see common ground with ideologies you may have found yourself opposed to, and maybe some room for criticism of those with which you already align. Great video
But they didn’t. They took 1 second to say 3 things about conservatives and then kept going on and on about how liberals love various freedoms so much. One of the biggest ones being gun ownership though, is embraced by conservatives along with many others including free speech. And no, we aren’t conservatives. Just making an observation others clearly missed.
Imagine my surprise when I discover this channel, love two videos, say “wow, this channel is really good, im gonna watch their backlog” only to learn that there is five total videos on the entire channel and it (deservedly) got 90k subs in the past month or so
This is because he's capitalizing on the fresh new genre of video called "every [blank] explained in # minutes" with a white background and simple logos in colored circles, pioneered by Redeemed Zoomer last year.
@@rama-rao-y8u it's not bad. Sorry if using the word "capitalizing" made it sound like that, but I was informing the commenter that the reason this channel got quite popular in such a short time was because the format was already popularized last year by another channel.
There is one essential part of Fascism that you left out: Fascism heavily advocates for a national rebirth. This is one of the defining reasons why Nazi's were seen as Fascist rather than being strictly authoritarian. The Nazi's believed in a national rebirth which in their case, was the Third Reich.
Yeah except that literally everybody believes in national rebirth. Obama certainly did. Lincoln concluded his Gettysburg Address with, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom." So just because the Nazis happened to have something in common with literally everybody without exception doesn't make literally everybody without exception a Nazi.
Its funny how many people are called nazis today because when you actually think about what nazism actually is. There would be like 0.000001% of people today who actually hold that ideology.
And Hegelian idealism, which without it’s not even possible to have fascism as it’s the starting point. Economics too I guess with syndicalism and corporatism
Thank you for not injecting too much dogmatic undertone into what should be as transparently educational and unbiased as possible. I’m thanking you because so so many other channels will often use what seems to be straightforward education and inject undertones that automatically cast aspersions onto on side and use flowery and appealing language for the side they hope to make seem good. But that poisons the well unless it’s stated that the video will contain political opinion and bias
Yep. There will always be some bias and selectivity. But it feels like he came at this with good enough faith that he stands apart from the normal and mass quantity alternate media conglomorates modus which is to have the video seem educational but they have a clear higher goal in mind of teaching people just how bad the other political party is. I'm speaking more to the bloodsports team politics of left v right. It's just nice to have someone who has at least some degree of wanting to explain what the topic of the video actually is, regardless of if it's perfectly unbiased. @@nekrataali
One small thing I noticed that stuck out to me: Under the communism section, you put a house to represent private property. That would not be private property unless you are using it to make money. Private property is stuff like the factories, machines, and anything else used to produce wealth. A house, your toothbrush, etc. would be personal property, and it would be yours and you would keep it. I hope I explained it well. I’m really tired rn
@@mymelo-kz8xs You're not using the house itself to make money. Everyone needs a home to live in; housing is a human right (or it should be). Unless the house itself is specifically what makes you money, it's personal property.
@@aaaaa-tx3qb In that case, that would be an example of workers owning the means of production. A pen, a notebook, paint supplies, etc. are the machines or otherwise used to make a product. So long as that is owned collectively by the workers, it's good. If a job only requires one individual, then that individual owns everything. If a job requires two or more, maybe they each own their individual sewing machine, but they collectively own the business or factory. The simple answer is: The workers should own the items and things needed to make a product, regardless of the number of workers.
If this video didn't exist, I would have never gone out of my away to better understand the spectrum of different political ideologies because I'm pretty much apolitical (although one of my friends who's very into politics has guessed I'd be an anarchist). So thank you for providing me with this information in a small amount of time.
Nobody is apolitical, you just don't have the right words to put on your ideas/opinions (anarchism could be a start). Almost everything you do and think has some political ramifications.
@@OraTorgrurhh I totally understand that but it's not just not knowing the terminology, it's also that I simply don't have a clear opinion on many issues because I'm not informed on them, either because I haven't been exposed to them, because I see both sides, or because I don't care enough. But I guess that would simply be being moderate?
@@NoopyP The price for refusing to participate in politics is becoming governed by your inferiors. -some Greek dude.. When you realize that the true purpose of political structures is to control the information we get it can really shock you into paying attention why things are the way they are and why so many people are, like yourself, apolitical by design. To determine who owns you, first determine who you aren't allowed to criticize.
Just be careful because the real world usage of these online is that of a label for a tribe which may include random extraneous other ideas that they will enforce on anyone they can.
I think it's also worth explaining the difference between private and personal property. When discussing politics, private property means that which is owned by companies, while personal property is that which an individual owns. A restaurant is private property, your microwave is personal property.
This was a good idea although some of these are merely political priorities rather than political systems. You might also consider a video describing how these can be blended or corrupted.
I like what has being tried here, but I feel rather uneasy on some definition. I know that the author tried to be objective in those numerous definition, but it seem we are mistaking the robe for the monk here. I mean by that that people under ideology will claim that something is their focus, while in fact, movement born from this ideology usually have another objective. it being more a cover for another less... sellable. Nazi under nazism seemed more than willing to bend what is a aryan/subhumain as long as it suited them, especially when material expropriation or general opposition to anything lefty was in the table. The aryan thingy seem to be more decorum than the core principle, which is "the nation need a all powerful authority unimpeded by law or morality to do what it see fit to save the nation from it's internal and external menace" which itself hide the political backstabing and personal gain that govern nazi politics. And, you could say that would not be applying the real theorical nazi, but if nazi are not nazi, who are ? I feel like a lot of the ideology described here are in that situation.
Well fascism do tend to lead nazism except their not alway nazi like the anti-trans and anti-lgbt rhetoric coming form the far right but we don’t call them nazi we call them fascist or authoritarian
All systems can be corrupted or blended in equal ways. Dictatorships and monarchies can both arise from anarchism, communism and capitalism alike. Capitalism allows uncapped generational wealth which leads to single people holding enough power to rule. Since money = power. Or just allowing someone to hoard wealth trough dirty means and then using said money to avoid consequences. Communism (as it's been done in the past) puts production under leaders, and in communism production = power. It is also pretty funny because the whole point of communism is that the PEOPLE control the production, but since no leader actually ever did communism this never really was attempted. In anarchism, there is a power vacuum ready for the taking. It's just a matter of time.
@@USSAnimeNCC-what do we call a far left group that advocates violence against a person or group who doesnt align with their political/personal beliefs? Is that even a thing? Im not really political , but there is always a mirror.
A breath of fresh air to find an educational youtube channel that gets straight to the point and explains everything on a level understandable to most(I would assume ;) ) subbed! excited to learn more!
Glad to see something not condescending to the right or left and laced with fear tactics. Good explanations and nuanced instead of lumping certain things together(Nazism/facism, Socialism/Communism)
@WatcherPrime that's the propaganda talking my friend. The first 2 are a form of societal theory(highly linked together) while the second 2 are a form of economic theory(also higjly linked together). Understanding the differences in each is important when analyzing history as it's being made in current day, as in those times they didn't have words or definitions recorded like we are privileged with.
I’m curious, how did you decide what ideologies to include and what ideologies to leave out? Also, great video! I subscribed and am looking forward to your upcoming content.
There's probably a lot of overlap, and niche ideologies that would be either repetitive to include, or not mainstream enough. And specific political parties may not encompass enough topics to be it's own entry. Idk though
I've never commented on TH-cam but I've never seen such simple, direct, educational, not boring, and straight video. Just amazing I'll look forward to get more of your videos keep it up.
Ahhh yes someone finally understands Anarchism, it’s not the belief of everyone needs to be in pure anarchy all the time, but of the 100% freedom of the individual and that you don’t necessarily need a government. I love the unbiased presentation here, and the willingness to present all forms of an idea. No matter how… rough the ideology might seem to everyone else.
I am pro-imperialism. Not the bad side of it part but the "nations who are rich and know how to run a nation should run poor countries" part. Many countries that were given their "freedom" are today very poor, very corrupt, run by tyrants, lost many of their basic human rights and freedoms, infested by extremists, and ironically the people of these poor countries are running off to rich countries - many to their former colonizer's nations. And let's be honest, none of them are actually doing anything to fix it. And it would be fine if these poor countries could keep their problems to themselves, but they don't, they spread to other countries. And it would be fine if you can actually see progress in these poor countries but again, you don't; what little progress you see just comes from the fact that they are at the bottom of the barrel and therefore have nowhere to go but up. Very little of these problems would have existed had they just remained under the rich nations rule. Nationalism can be very destructive and just divides humanity. "People should have the right to self-determination".... not if it is destructive.
@@cashewnuttel9054thats sounds good in theory, but in reality, you can not force people to believe in what you believe. A nation must come to a conclusion by its own people on how they want to run their country and how they gonna fight corrupt leaders and governments. It took decades, education, protests and many wars in ,,progressive nations‘‘ to reach that level. If a nation is left to progress on its own and helped in its progress by other nations with a good will, it can naturaly prosper. If its forced and with military power, the problems and opression that comes along are greater than the benefits (killing of innocents, destroying old social structures by force, forcing of not known costums on them, prejudice etc). And usually the imperialits dont come with good faith to help the natives. We have seen that in almost any colonial setting. Resistance will be the inevitable answer. Best recent example - Afghanistan. Up until the 60/70s it progressed in many areas, it may have seem slow and there were many things to solve, but that takes usually time. The soviet intervention to ,,help a brother nation‘‘ destroyed the country all progress that was made was lost. A civil war broke out and put the country on reset. Than the americans came and tried to ,,help‘‘, but in reality gave power to corrupt leaders and built a not sustainable system based on corruption and military force. Resistance was formed and the intruders had to leave in shame. Like the russians before. Now they are back at square one. My point is, it never worked and never will. No matter how noble the intentions may be. If you want to help ,,underdeveloped‘‘ countries, you should read up on how these corrupt leaders came to power, where do they get their wapons and money and who is holding their back. You will come full circle and may consider that next time you are voting.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but is this not just a tweaked version of the idea of tribalism, and if not tribalism if we are looking at it through a government point of view then confederalism
Yeah, maybe historically contingent positions, boutique internet labels, and centuries-long political traditions that have actually wielded power (that is, the thing which politics is actually about) shouldn't be treated as equivalent and each given their own little cartoon characters.
Really good informative video although the only thing I'd add is that while you can't own private property under communism (factories, offices, businesses) you can have personal property (car, toothbrush, house that you live in) just because of how often people get those 2 things confused.
It's physically impossible for a communist to explain the 'personal property' distinction without mentioning toothbrushes. A car, though, is a means of production. So is a phone. And people under communism aren't allowed to own a house. Let's be real here. The part that made me laugh out loud in the 'communism' description was right at the end. "...and there's no state." The single most hilarious thing that communists believe about communism is that the iron dictators needed to bring in communism, are going to give up all their power.
People in the Soviet Union didn't get to own their houses. You lived in it at the pleasure of the gov. Cars? You can get on a 3 year waiting list for a POS Lada.
Very nicely explained. Nice to cut through the general terms people use for one another as insults or propaganda to get a better definition of the political terms themselves. I’ll be interested to see how you approach monarchism in the future! Particularly in defining its sub-groups, such as feudal system, modern autocratic, and modern constitutional variants.
um might need to dive a little deeper this is. Ideals quickly summed up and generalized probly makes communism look great to everyone who never lived under it.
@@brandonreal916And you need to learn to read, because they didn't even say communism. They said communitarianism, which is a completely separate ideology.
Parts of this need updating. You did a great job of explaining how all of these ideals originally started and what their doctrine was in the beginning, but some of those ideals have been hijacked in recent years and are no longer what they claim to be.
It's really interesting how in Western democracies, most parties which call themselves "liberal" are actually economically liberal social conservatives. Same goes for most conservative parties (I've never seen a conservative party serious about conserving the environment for example).
In America, the media hyperbolizes both sides opinions so both sides think the other side is comprised of mostly extremists. It’s a good tactic to make sure no meaningful progress gets made. Thats why’s all libs think trad cons are lead paint drinking inbreds, and why conservatives think libs are drug addicted naive kids.
The solution to that is to use a 2-dimensional representation, called a "political compass". Just left vs right is one-dimensional, and leaves out important nuance. It's a bit vague how to calculate your position in this 2-D space. This is a wiki page about the website political compass: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass It still has the "left" vs "right" division (the horizontal axis, economic policy), but it ALSO has a vertical axis, social policy, from "more authoritarian" to "more presonal freedom". E.g. Greens and Communists are both on the "left" economic side, but communism is very authoritarian ("up") and the greens believe in libertarian personal freedom ("down") (as long as you are not polluting the environment too much, I guess). It shows that they shouldn't be jumbled together.
@@fritsdaalmans5589 Of course I know the political compass, it's largely useless in it's most common iteration because leftwing economics and libertarian are strongly correlated while rightwing economics and authoritarian are strongly correlated so the whole thing is pretty much one dimensional again. There are no people who are economically rightwing but also in favour of personal freedom. Now you might say that US libertarians/anarcho-capitalists are exactly this, but that isn't the case, if you follow their economic beliefs to their logical conclusion, you end up with personal freedom being contingent on personal wealth/capital. Likewise, the main difference between anarchists and communists is which strategy they believe will work to achieve their ideal society. In both cases they strife for a society with a lot of personal freedom. Communists however believe that this society needs proper management while anarchists believe it can self-organise somehow. The political compass generally puts societies without political systems similar to liberal western democracies as authoritarian (even though a one-party state can be much more democratic in most respects than a liberal democracy).
@@xedeanz9324 Captialism is actually one of the few that is proven to work decently well, albeit it's not perfect, but mixing Capitalism with certain ideals of other systems has worked very well for the many first world countries that have adopted it. I was mostly referencing Communism, Communalism, and Socialism.
yup, it marries well with liberalism that may act to preserve individual rights as well as a free market, just reeling it in so it doesn't evolve into corporatocracy.@@darkwowplayer
Great video! I just want to point out that you use a picture of a house to describe that a communist society doesn't have private property, but a house is actually personal property, which would still exist in a communist society
@@schmiggidy What??? Another student didn’t learn from textbooks and hour long lectures like you did??? WHATTT. I can’t believe not every kid learns the same way!!! 😱😱😱😱 Crazy man. Almost like some people are different than you.
@@plugshirt1762 Must have haha, since he mocks others for not remembering the lessons. I finished all dash 1 Social studies, but my memory still slips sometimes since I wasn’t beat I guess lol.
@@foundationuser5043let's be honest you probably aren't a real "visual learner" or whatnot, you just don't have the willpower and self control to listen to your teachers and classes 😢😮😅😂😊
@@peapod5629Nah I genuinely absorb info better through reading at my own pace. I can't be the only one. I borderline passed/failed many classes, but quickly picked up statistics and calculus on my own when my job called for it. Wheras in school those two had very low grades despite putting in the hours.
funnily enough, as ive grown older ive become far more understanding of my college professors adament anarchosyndacalist politics. back then it was really just a big word that i thought he would use to sound smarter than his students. in hindsight, respect to the guy for being that open about his political takes that were largely frowned upon
Anarchosyndicalism will always unvariable derive in an oligarchy of the syndicalist leaders. Syndicates can also work against the good of their workers, syndicate leaders can be corrupt and sell out the owrkers to a company they have an economical agreement with. You ultimately need a state to put them in line.
Anarchosyndicalism explicitly organizes from the bottom up, with the local worker councils having primacy over the central council. The delegates they send to the central council are recallable and are only there for a specific task as to not create a possibly exploitable position. Administrators who are tasked with the day-to-day maintanance of syndicate matters can be a weak link, but only if their tasks aren't strictly defined and monitored by delegates and such@@fabrypetty1689
I clicked not knowing what to expect , know very little about politics. Understood absolutely everything even with the little knowledge I had , you explained really well , thank you!
@@frankwalker5921 Okay, let's keep it simple, and I'll go with one at a time. First of all, the pictures he uses are some very important imagery/subliminal messaging, that encourage the positive view of some ideologies, and the negative view of others. Conservatism: his claims are not necessarily inaccurate as they are implicitly misleading. He allows the listener to assume these values apply to all "Western" conservatives, and encourages the listener to assume what they will about the "organized religion" and "military" aspects allowing common propaganda to fill the gaps. Capitalism: the definition begins with the assertion that it is AN economic system, implying that it is one of many, when historically it is the only system with which economics can operate, with the only deviation being the unit of measurement (individual, company, state, etc). This is a tactic used to give credence to socialism and communism, which he paints in the most favorable light possible later in the video. Socialism: "there are many types of socialism" this, alone, is a highly divisive assertion. He then goes on to assert a very theoretical definition to socialism, which has never been seen in reality. Syndicalism: the fact that this term is even given a definition is a strongly partisan statement, especially considering that it wasn't included as part of the "umbrella" term of Socialism he alluded to in the first place. Corporatism: he leaves this definition so vague that it could fall into literally any other category, then invents the term "corporatocracy" to estrange an important but unpleasant part of the ideology. Separatism: why is this included as a main ideology. Separatism is only ever a result of extreme ideological differences, as an alternative to civil war, not its own ideology. Communism: the definition here asserts that a communist society doesn't have money, social classes, or "the state" which not only makes no sense (since we are talking about ideologies on government aka "the state" and therefore every ideology requires that there BE a state), but also because this is entirely untrue for every single communist nation that has ever existed. Feminism: again, why is this included? This is not a major world ideology, this is a single, binary issue, and has seen appearances on both the "left" and the "right" wing of political ideology, depending on the country, situation, and validity of the movement. Environmentalism: not only does this once again fall into the category of a single issue movement, but he also misrepresents environmentalism, as he encourages the viewer through omission to think that it is opposed only by those who are not concerned with the environment, omitting, vitally, that it is often based on shaky or inaccurate scientific research. Populism: again, not remotely a main ideology, just a moniker for candidates who appeal to their voters or citizenry, instead of placating the wealthy, businesses, and other "elites" that usually have more political pull in any governmental system Tip of the iceberg, but that should at least give you a bit to think on.
@@ethanwilliams1880 All I read was, you don’t understand why certain terms were left more vague and why certain terms were expressed more. He leaves conservativism more vague because you can combine it with liberalism or libertarianism. It’s not to fill in gaps with propaganda it’s because the gaps can be filled with other terms that can exist alongside others. While maintaining its own perspective. Your break down of communism doesn’t make any sense. You say it doesn’t make sense because every ideology “requires” a state, yet you ignore anarchism which is an ideology and its sole purpose is to have no state. You say his definition of communism is also incorrect because it doesn’t fall in line with any real world communist nations. But you fail to recognize that these states, while practice “communism”, are failed states because they lacked the pursuit of actually following and became fascist states instead. Just because the communist nations no longer follow communism doesn’t make the definition wrong. It means the nation by definition is no longer communist. China for example is ran by the Chinese Communist Party. It’s communism in name only. When in reality it’s fascism and authoritarianism. The power or state being the CCP. Being able to understand how nation diverts its practices from communism to fascism and authoritarianism is just another way of learning how communism as an ideology doesn’t work in practice. Same goes for your remarks on his socialism remarks. You say his assertion about many types as questionable is dumb because there is indeed many by definition. The types differ from one one another because of key points that the creator believed. But if their ideology uses the bullets points of what he defines as basic socialism than it’s within the umbrella. Not hard to understand. Same goes for you stating his definition has never been seen in reality which is because it’s usually takes form as branch of socialism within the umbrella term and with that being said is usually corrupted and falls into a different ideology as a whole. Like Nazism. It started out as a socialistic ideology and transformed into fascism just like communism nations transform as well. Eventually becoming its own thing known as Nazism You babbling about how his definitions are incorrect is dumb and just shows how you don’t understand how ideologies aren’t followed to a tee. The definitions are vague on purpose because in practice they are transformed into other things entirely.
Actually, this is really good. As a university student of politics I can confirm that this is quite accurate for the length of the video. Keep up, I think this is your breakout video
This was a really great and informative video! I'm glad that even when it was clear that you disagreed with an ideology (I.E the obvious case of fascists and Nazis) you still put their points forwards in a fairly neutral way, and made important distinctions that often get ignored or overlooked, like with capitalism vs corporatism I think the only thing that was missing was a part about Monarchism, since you mentioned it a few times and put in its opposite (Republicanism) but never really went what Monarchism itself is, or the fact that there's a distinction between Absolutists and Constitutionalists. Great stuff either way though!
Educating people (especially those who neither care nor know) about politics, can be a hard thing to achieve well. But this is very well done and about as digestible as it can be for the lay man! bravo! Thank you for informing me but also bringing a lot of other horses to water so to speak.
great job! summed up complex topics in a quick, digestable format, with relatively little bias. your attention to differentiating the concepts between certain groups (communism/socialism, fascism/nazism for example) was helpful and more informative than a lot of media i find myself seeing. i did find the feminism topic to be maybe a little oversimplified, in fact, a deeper dive into feminism as a whole would be great to see. there's a clear difference to the feminism movement 50+ years ago and generally speaking, how it's aged each decade.
No sponsors, no intros, just straight to the point, simple and quick. If only more videos were like this.
Agree
The first post thinks Conservatism is it's own thing and that "Conserve" is its basis. This person understands nothing . It has fascism as an single ideology when it's a tool for gaining power in a democracy, with the actual beliefs of 20th C. fascists varying from country to country.
Unfortunately, you can't make a job out of this without sponsors.
Lol then how else are they going to make money??
Give them time and these videos will have all of that.
You know it’s extremly refreshing to see someone point out the difference between capitalism, corporatism, and corpratacracy
Right? That alone was worth me just liking and subscribing rather than picking on the smaller bits I disagreed with (due to my experience in and dealing with them giving me a more granular view.)
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Gess the corporatism/corportocricy misunderstanding is to the right as the socialism/communism misunderstanding is to the left. Realy wish people would look up details on these things as they do matter.
A communist is just a socialist in a hurry.
@@andrewrobb3258 croporatocracy is just liberal corporatism whereby private individuals are free to join and leave and create corporations at their own whim.
Wow, this is the calmest comment section I've ever come across under a video that talks about...politics
Yeah. It’s almost uncanny
Do your own research, half the video is not factual. The only ones he gets right are all the right winger ones for some reason.
YouRube’s censorship is ALWAYS bad
Don't jinx it.
Here, I'll start the argument.
I THINK:
It's pronounced gif, not gif
I've always hated these labels being thrown around so casually and carelessly. You can share values from multiple political ideologies, and not agree with some others in the same ideology. Yet you get shunned because they see you as group A, when you can share values with group A, B, and C
This is so true. It's so sad that people expel others from their lives over minor differences in thought.
Nobody can ever really entirely fit into one ideology without contradicting themselves. People have to do a better job acknowledging that other people and themselves are diverse in judgements and beliefs
I have an ideology called realism. It's where I look at humanity, and realize that the vast majority of them are so insanely mentally deficient, that I can't talk to them about politics.
Very true, I share values with both feminism and nazism for example.
THIS IS HOW THEY DIVIDE US. It's the reason the left and right has such extreme values. It's also the reason we can't seem to agree on seemingly simple yet basic and society driving facts...
It's interesting to see how each ideology is practiced differently by the people of the modern world than what the actual ideology stands for.
I thought the same!
I actually don't think so
which one?
@@Aexitprod I mean take femnism for example, t means equal rights, but some people have warped its meaning quite alot
Like socialism. The description in this video presents the theory, which appears pretty good for the worker. However, if one takes into account the history of socialism and its current practice in many places around the world, then one sees that the theory and practice are quite disparate.
Glad you distinguished the difference between corporatism and corporatocracy.
Yeah, they tend to get confused a lot
Corporatism is very rare in the modern world, China is the only one that comes to mind when thinking of a country/state leaning towards it
@@zyyl1949
Singapore
@@zyyl1949is South Korea an example of corporatism or corporatocracy?
There is no difference. Just time... This thought I have just said is a huge deal. Anarchy + time = dictatorship. Dictatorship + time = monarchy.
This comment section is either gonna be really chill or really chaotic
or both. AKA freedom of speech
This is what freedom is, yes. A gorgeous dance of orderly chaos
fr
@@justsomeeggsinapot1784great analogy
Im trippin with that goofy ass comment
I really like that the narrator jumped straight into it, no intro, and defined everything concisely and quickly, a lot of these terms are used in an interchangeable manner. I subscribed, you’re currently at 39K but I know you’ll reach 40K soon!
Sasuke 🤡
He has now
yes
@@kingoverflow 🤡"kingoverflow"
Road to 100k!
For a video explaining politics, this was refreshingly apolitical and unbiased.
No it wasn’t their was an obvious bias if you cant tell the bias your biased
@@pumpupsongs5500 Well enlighten us..
@@pumpupsongs5500I can't take someone who can't use correct grammar and punctuation seriously
It was very immediately biased
@@famisheddendon please show where
Thank you for explaining the difference between libertarianism and liberalism. I see too many people today thinking they are one in the same.
leftists? They don't understand what liberalism means. Trudeau or anyone that pushed mandates our censorship is not liberal or libertarianism. Woke people are never libertarians because wokeness is literally social fasciism.
Same
This is because the only ones who misuse these terms are the Americans. Everybody out the US calls liberals those who approve Ricardo's, Hayek's, Von Mises', etc. ideals, while libertarianism is usually used for anarchosocialist movements.
Tbh, classical liberalism (f.e. Austrian economical school) is very close to libertarianism.
@@ptrknvk It is not, in no way. That's some Ayn Rand type of argument. Although they pretend their "revolutionary" economical system is disguised through the lens of the sole consumer, and not through the demand-offer curve, their final conclusion is driven through an abstraction of the rudest laissez-faire law of nature, which is not ultimately very libertarian. One has to think that libertarianism is arguably built over the pilars of social interaction, not the cult to the individual.
Kudos for shedding light on the nuances between capitalism, corporatism, and corporatocracy. It's rare to see someone tackle these distinctions. Your clarity is a breath of fresh air in the content space. Looking forward to more insightful breakdowns!
I just follow one thing, Christianity. Dont need no nonesense.
@@Dynamic-cy8wn True irony right there.
@@sulkissulking Why are you so angry all the time?
@@Dynamic-cy8wnbc he gets beat at home by his stepdad
Regardless it's a failed system
I think we can all agree that almost all of these ideologies' followers never actually do what they're defined, rather just hold the titles
Except nazism
@@dominikrni fair point 😂
I guess we're all moderatists
yeah
Perhaps most don't actually know what the ideology they're holding actually means and just follow what others have said
It’s refreshing to hear political ideologies being explained without smug rhetoric and banter. I look forward to more content
except 'libertarianism;' is not an 'ideology' any more than arithmetic saying 2+2=4 is an 'ideology' it's a simple bleeding obvious principle that should be so universally recognized that no one should have to call themselves a 'libertarian' any more than anyone has to call themselves a slavery abolitionist
@EliW95 what? You do understand the idea of different people believing in different things right?
@@dirtydeeds4free553 yes i do, but there is *no legitimacy* in believing that others should be subjugated to your personal values and preferences. I shouldn't get to force you to conform to the doctrines of Islam if you believe in some sect of Christianity, likewise you shouldn't be able to force me to conform to whatever religion or religious sect you believe in if I don't want to, as just one example. Libertarianism actually allows a *broad spectrum* of belief systems and philosophies as long as they essentially adhere to the non-aggression principle
what could be more simple and reasonable than that?
@@EliW95 So tell me.
-If I am powerful, and you are weak, why should I let you be alone?
-You obviously envy me, so you ARE plotting something against me. You want my wealth. I need to get rid of you.
-You live in a mudshack, I live in a palace, you are obviously miserable. You don't see the truth, so you protest, but I will make you see the light I bring.
-Why should I let you be, if you are not a human at all?
@@theoutergod8666 you're making blanket assumptions. I'm actually *against* the employer employee relationship dynamic because i basically see it as a form of de-facto indentured servitude due to the nature of the power dynamic, and i actually tend to put more of an emphasis on the *personal relations* aspect of the market (basically the aspects that are in line with mutualist philosophy) rather than an emphasis on capital investment and accumulation, which would *necessarily* mean narrowing (but not eliminating because that would be *realistically impossible* ) the wealth inequality and therefore power imbalance of society
but thanks for the blanket assumptions jack@ss
Brilliantly done, I thought this would just be a meme video, but I was quickly pleasantly surprised when you defined conservatism and liberalism by their classical definitions. I was impressed even further when you didn't simply conflate authoritarianism, fascism, and National Socialism with each other. All while being completely neutral with each one! Well done!
Thank you so much!
I'm not sure how neural he was with nazism, seeing as how the music kind of built up and such, however that doesnt really matter nazism isn't really an ideology that is defendable. Other than that I'd say he represented every ideology completely fairly.
@@ThePaintExplaineryour video is good and unbiased. Would have liked to have seen social democracy some where tho
Still grossly biased in a disingenuous fashion, typical redditor political leanings. Nothing new here.
@@ronanbreen1141It'd fit in Comunitarianism I believe
Political ideologies are such a divisive topic, glad to see them explained in a simple and easy to understand way so that people can make up their own minds instead of just listening to whoever is close to them in their lives and parroting the information.
Lies again? LA Liga Good Papi
Kind of. The issue is the video did a fine job at describing the traditional definitions, however, if you are an American for instance these terms mean something very different.
For instance modern Conservatism in the US is Liberalism in this video. Liberals in the US are actually leftist that don't support Liberal values, they only use the name.
i hope you dont make ur decision on who to vote for based on this video LOL
Being simple and precise doesn't mean being correct. By watching the vídeo, it looks like ideologies are options which you choose. No, ideologies choose you, they build the basic fundations for your thoughts. And the ideologies on the vídeo aren't on the same level: Everyone is a liberal at some level, capitalism is a economic sistem, not a single person ever defines itself as a populist because it's just a label (just like ''terrorist'').
The first use of the word ''ideology'' was by french ideologist post french revolution. They tried to create a universal theory about ideas, where you can analize politics objectively without taking sides.
Being ideological means, by the original definition, doing exactly what this vídeo is doing.
@@MrSirFluffy You are out of your mind. Modern Conservatism in the US is right-wing near-fascism everywhere else in the world. "Liberals" in the US would be considered actual conservatives just about everywhere else that isn't a dictatorship.
Schrodingerism: a political stance which depends on whom an individual is trying to troll on the internet that day.
To filiate you need to don't have a life
I strongly subscribe to this ideology.
supporter of this ideology
The greatest most successful ideology of them all.
Is the cat dead, or alive
your coverage of anarchism was very well put together, which is rare in a lot of videos on the topic. well done
Ironically
It’s ai
it was very simplified tho.
There's technically a state, it's just not differenciated from the people.
The state simply have no power.
There's people who mannage the society, they just have no power over anyone else, so they can't abuse it.
what's worse is that people will mistake anarchy with anarchism, a thing media and politics have pretty much forced to fught against this political ideology.
That and just dropping bomb on the anarchism village and societies.
@@ghostlegend434 don't care. I get to learn. I'd be a lot more upset if the creator pulled a kwebbelkop
Anarchism: No rules lol
For all of the uneducated people getting mad in the comments over the liberalism section here is an explanation, in north America what we call "liberalism" has basically nothing to do with the actual historical definition of liberalism. In North America the term liberalism really just means social democracy with a strong emphasis on progressivism, an American "liberal" would support high taxation, welfare, limited gun ownership, and suppression of "hate" speech amongst other things, but actual liberalism is basically the complete opposite of that, classical liberals are against unnecessary taxation, support strong gun and property rights, absolute free speech, and limited government in general. "Hey that kind of sounds like conservatism" While classical liberalism does share a lot of ideas with what north Americans call "conservatism" it is still a completely separate ideology, classical liberals support the autonomy of the body as they see it as the first line of private property so they fully support the right to abortion, classical liberals support absolute free speech unlike conservatives or progressives who only support free speech when it's inline with their beliefs, classical liberals support a very secular government, support lazies-fare capitalism (which basically just means capitalism with almost 0 governmental regulation), and as said before in favor of a small government in general, unlike conservatives who do support small government intervention in the economy, but are in favor of government interference in the personal lives of citizens, like banning abortion, or certain media that they find "immoral"
Very informative
This. What we call “libertarianism” in America, is just liberalism in the rest of the world
@@dannylojkovic5205true
This ideology is what I’d say most accurately describes me.
This doesn’t make sense at all. Because as a liberal, what conservatives make fun of me for here in the U.S, everything in the video related exactly to me. The conservative part seemed to be exactly the Conservatives. I think you just felt guilty from this video. It’s called denial. Maybe you are a liberal and you haven’t done enough research just yet.
Unfortunately many people believe they are supporting a specific ideology, but the ideology is in name only. The liberal party of Canada, for example, is liberal in name, but in practice has been reducing privacy rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, worker rights, and human rights in an authoritarian manner.
Truth, I live in Toronto and could tell you this myself
Alot people claim they are liberal but believe in the opposite of those belief. Some of them are totally fine with authoritarianism.
That’s interesting, they’re trying to do the exact same thing in the US
We have the Liberal-National Coalition in Australia, and they are very conservative in their views, mostly serving the highest earners and appeasing their strongest voting force at the detriment to progress. (I have some heavy bias here of course). Names really don't mean anything which is unfortunate since it can be quite misleading.
We also have a minor party called "The Informed Medical Options Party" which the overview is that they want to ensure the health of the nation which sounds great, but in reality they're just anti-vaxxers trying to impose dangerous ideologies.
I just wish there was some sort of regulation ensuring people knew what they were voting for at face value
I mean conservative parties have moved towards fascism.
This video was incredibly informative for being only 8 minutes. I'd like to see some of those ideology explained more in depth
Yeah, this is awesome. I didn't realize Transhumanism was an option. We shall overcome our weak puny bodys with the power of robotics!
He should so off-compass ideologies next. Avaritionism, Kraterocracy, etc.
Unfortunately many of mentioned ideologies are marginal or theoretical.
It does not explain core division in the politics.
Might make a more in-depth one with basically all of the existing ideologies, but it'll be like 2 hours long.
@@ThePaintExplainerPlease do!
I appreciate the objectivity and non biased values when explaining these topics. It really helps understand their general forms for what they are rather to how they function.
A testament to how good this video is is how the comment section is very relaxed despite the topic in question being very pollarizing. Thanks a lot!
no one is unbiased
@@random6033yes, of course, but that doesn't mean he didn't speak in an unbiased/objective tone. He did not use words or images that suggested one of the views is better or worse, except maybe for nazism(but even in it's case, he just stated the facts)
@@andreitobosaru6847 When it comes to the Nazism section of this video, he just told it how it was. People who actually are Nazi's, wouldn't see it as bad because that's truly what they believe in. He didn't demonize them, since they already do it to themselves.
3x's more information on the LEFT: Conservatism = 10 seconds /// Liberalism = 31 seconds
He was biased in his video. He focused almost exclusively on pointing out the authoritarian nature of ideologies like fascism yet didn't mention it at all when talking about the socialist ideologies. This is called lying by omission and is a deliberate tactic.
Glad you mentioned Communism not having a state. The amount of people that think Communism is "The state controls everything" is mind-boggling.
Not in theory but in Principal there is always going to be some form of state.
Blame Lenin for that
@@rimmelscheiter6943 libertarianism is about the limitation of the state, not the abolition of it
@@rimmelscheiter6943 minarchist?????
@@rimmelscheiter6943 you are only given exactly what you need. no more no less
I liked it. The presentation seemed neutral and focused on describing the ideologies, including their perspectives. I learned more about some ideologies I knew some things about, and even some that I didn't know anything about, like Corporatism, Communitarianism and Moderatism. Thank you for making a video that is both informative and descriptive.
Glad you liked it!
@blackpanther5086you responded to a comment praising their work on the video with a Hitler quote and a salute emote? Never mind the Nazi roach that you are part, you also can't even read. That's a double whammy
@blackpanther5086how can you advocate for a guy who committed genocide?
@@thomasdehaan00 He probably thinks he's one of the ubermensch even though we all know most neo-nazis would be sent straight to the camps
@@Birri919how does it makes any argument? What if he is actually pure aryan? And most importantly nazis weren't putting everyone non aryan in camps, try learning history
I expected 8 minutes of pure banter and trolling, but received 8 mins of actually educational political education.
My disappointment is immeasureable and my day is ruined
The more I watched this, the more I realized how little people know about their own self professed ideology, let alone that of others.
It is useful because people throw these words around without knowing what they mean.
Yes. Learn to navigate this rotten mess and be a part of the mob. Not to speak ill of the video but it is all utterly meaningless.
@@Sinivaal Corporations always rule in a free market.
@@Kephy_Also free markets are infamous for crashing and burning, then making the common folk pay the broken dishes.
As i came across, I was genuinely pleased by the tone and the synthesis of the video. Coming from France, politics is number one topic everywhere, but it seems we lost the idea where debating for a better system turned to an endless fight between parties instead of realising most of us have the same goals. It is a well done video with usefull hindsight. Eager to see more of your content.
yeah as a french we definitely need to be taught to be able to listen even though we think we might disagree, and have more civilised discussions rather than constantly shouting at each other
all people have different goals
His Majesty Jesus Christ has sent me on a mission with a message to tell the masses! Fear not, my brothers, your hunger shall be no more. He who dispenses the bread of life shall be your sustenance!
@@21minus1 no
'Faut aussi que les gens comprênent que la politique française n'est PAS la politique américaine : on a plus de deux partis, et les deux principaux sont pas "gauche libérale et extrême droite conservatrice", c'est "gauche populiste et droite moderationniste" 😮💨 trop de jeunes passent trop de temps sur internet, et à cause de l'influence des US, ils sont convaincus que LEUR politique est LA politique. Non. Faut juste ouvrir un peu les yeux et voir la différence d'idéaux
this is a great explanation of all the political ideologies, thank you for teaching me more about politics
It is a great explanation of the ideologies he talks about however it is no where near all of them and would take a very very long time to explain every single one there is a video about every single ideology though and it is about 3 hours long
Transhumanism in a nutshell:
"From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh, it disgusted me. I craved the strength and certainty of steel"
Edit: thanks to contributions in the comments, we can also include Witchers and X-Men in nutshell transhumanism. Praise the Omnisiah for the sharing of information on the internet
If I ever have to get prosthetics I will dedicate my life to Transhumanism
Trahnshumansim can also evolve into genetic augmentation and biological supplementation - it doesn’t necessarily have to directly correlate to synthetic implants and cyborg bodies
'Wake up samurai'
@@benyseus6325That still counts as technology, but yes I agree that his description of it was rather lacking. The "ultimate goal" in transhumanism is morphological freedom and being able to control whatever aspects of the human condition that you wish, not all transhumanists want immortality, god-like intellect or an indestructible powerful body
@@5erase you're not wrong, and now we can include Witchers and X-Men as nutshell transhumanism
Mine is autism
Edit: for all those saying this was offensive I'm diagnosed autistic and have been for several years
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
Something I love about this video is that he made almost all of them sound good. From watching that video, I couldn't say where this guy stands politically. Only a few things to say where he doesn't.
It's refreshing to have a video about politics that's purely objective and doesn't bring any of the personal beliefs of the creator into it
It's definitely not "purely objective," because as you said there are "a few things to say" what he doesn't agree with. Thankfully we can say those things are agreed upon for most of us as well lmfao, but still not "purely objective."
Hes literally biased towards leftardism. Its clear as day.
@@TheUnderscore_ Only really fascism and nazism from what i can tell
I don't think it's completely subjective. He talks bad about one bad ideology but then tries to sound neutral or not bad about another pretty horrific one.
@@colincrosgrove9132?
This is the best channel ive ever found
Thanks algorithm god
Very quick and clear with good visual aids. Learning is never more enjoyable. I am absolutely subscribing
Excellent, perfect video for a low attention span zoomer
That was a surprisingly accurate description of anarchism. It sounds like it was taken right from Kropotkin, and that's a level of understanding that I genuinely didn't expect.
When he said socialism is an umbrella term and showed anarchism as one of the words under the umbrella, I knew he was going to give a fair definition of anarchism.
When I watched that part on anarchism, I thought, "hey, that doesn't sound bad...wait...have I been lied to... again?" I know nothing of Kroptkin, but I'm intrigued to find out based on this comment. Anarchism doesn't just devolve into "violence hierarchy" like I was taught? (like: zombie apocalypse rules, battle royale rules, smash bros free for all rules)
It's anarchism. Who cares if you're fair? It's as realistic a system of government for our time as a government comprised of platypie and unicorns.
@@e66iuYes. It does. Because that is the nature of man. We aren't enlightened things, we are just animals.
It would be nice to live in a world where something like this could exist, but devolution and the slippery slope are real when it comes to humanity.
@@e66iu If we're going by examples, there have been instances of anarchist or anarchist-adjacent experiments on larger scale (the largest up to ten million population, so not extremely large), like currently the Zapatistas in Mexico and Rojava in Syria, and historically Makhnovchina in Ukraine and Revolutionary Catalonia and Aragon in the Spanish civil war (fun fact, George Orwell fought alongside them against Franco).
Peter Kropotkin was a Russian prince who rejected his title to become an anarchist, and is seen as the father of anarcho-communism, free communes that form confederated associations with other communes, and share in production by need. He's also nicknamed Bread-Santa ;P
The yt channel Then & Now has a good introduction to the history of anarchism, and two videos on Joseph Proudhon (a Mutualist anarchist). Anark has a great series called A Modern Anarchism, though it's on the longer side, and Andrewism is also a good channel. The subreddit r/anarchy101 is very helpful and has a link to an FAQ of the ideology.
This will be a giant channel in a few months. Keep making content like this. Seems like you’ve done it before. Very natural
Only for reactionaries.
Bro joined 15 days ago, posted 2 vids and is already on featured/trending charts with total views above 1M
madlad,
@@normalchannel2185I think this is redeemed zoomer, who has another channel that is focused on spreading his presbytarian (branch of christianity) faith. He made a really good all christianities/all religions video before
@@taliacheng5006 it seemed like his style tbh
@@taliacheng5006redeemed zoomer's voice is more pitched than this creator's voice, but i can see that he was probably inspired by redeemed zoomer.
I'm glad you distinguished liberalism and progressivism because it seems nowadays, those two terms are used interchangeably, and a lot of people who call themselves conservative today actually align with a lot of traditionally liberal values.
I really liked your short minimalistic, to-the-point, uncomplicated explaining of each ideology. I understood everything here. While big, long-winded, complicated videos trying to explain the same things, just tend to confuse me even more. You've just got both a like and subscribe from me...
"Now I'm an expert on everything after ingesting 10 seconds of information on a specific topic. My opinions and perspectives hold more merit now"
my little brainy wainey no like big talky walky so i likey wikey small time wordy dirtys.
@@AImighty_Loaf MEGA KEK. They were saying that the explanations were simple enough that a child could grasp it, while simultaneously comparing it to Political SlutSmores you can get virtually anywhere else on the Tube.
There was no boast of superiority here, save for the one response that followed it.
Yip yap yap yap
@@AImighty_Loafyou’re sad
The fact you used polandball art and makes it easy to digest, makes it worth viewing
fax
i think polandball is taking over, even my sisters history teacher printed a cuba polandball on the worksheet
@@wtz_under The one time Satire has been used for good.
This is a little bit insignificant but the fact you actually explain fascism properly or at least a lot better than other people is huge props to you. Most people will just use it interchangeably with Nazism, or just twist the reality of it which takes away from the actual things that make it a horrible ideology.
@blackpanther5086It’s pretty right, it lines up with the beliefs of the Nazi Party
@blackpanther5086how exactly?
@blackpanther5086 How?
He doesn’t know jackshit about Fascism, certainly never read Gentili or any other primary font. Read 100 questions by Oswald Mosley to get a grip
@@cheekguardian1378how? Have you gone through history class? Don’t tell me you’re one of the morons that believe that ww2 never happened and Adolf Hitler didn’t exist.
This channel never fails to teach me about things 100x better than school ever did
Ya know, I usually associate these little political blob dudes with online brain rot, but this was legitimately informative. Thank you! I’m looking forward to part 2!!
The people who use these blobs unironically are often very brain rotted. The blobs do however make for a good way to illustrate the different ideologies into their flags and give them some "personality".
@@Nyx__"ah yes you fools that use the little colorful blob have brain rot, but me an over 20 year old male with an anime profile pic doesn't have any brain rot."
@@thelitmango6333No offense to the first guy but that was hilarious
Noo lol 😆🤣 it was rott 100%
@@thelitmango6333 read what you wrote 😂
I like how this shows how there's significant overlap in many of these ideologies, so you can see how anyone can define their beliefs to include multiple of these.
I also appreciate how you showed that progressivism and liberalism are not the same thing! People tend to refer to progressives as liberals, which implies that people who don't hold progressive viewpoints don't support classical liberalism.
Edit: to everyone responding complaining about the difference between modern liberalism and classical liberalism, yes. I understand there is a difference, and I'm not advocating to stop calling modern liberals "liberals" even though most of their ideals have little overlap with classical liberalism. I'm just pointing out a lesser known fact. I myself am more of a libertarian in terms of political views, with conservative morals.
Especially since liberals believe in freedom of speech and individualism where modern progressives are extremely authoritarian and collectivist.
What is "progressivism" was definitely answered for it's core belief. However, it's followers today have adopted parts of both fascism (minus the nationalism) and authoritarianism (expect the power being held by the mob).
As an atheist liberal I cannot stand the modern progressive. They are evil to the core.
I've known that they are different. However Im most definitely not going to stop using the term to encompass all liberals
@@Habib_Xon progressives are NOT liberal. Me, a liberal, my WORST political rival enemy is the progressive. We are nothing alike. I'm free speech, they are censorship. I'm protect the individual, they are authoritarian. I'm free market capitalism, they are socialism. Calling a "progressive" a liberal is just as stupid as calling a man a "woman" (something dumb ass progressives do). Do you want to be like a progressive and not know the difference between a man and woman or a liberal and a progressive?
@@Habib_Xon Why? It's inaccurate to call all progressives liberals, and vice versa. Why purposefully make that error?
@@Yuvraj. I suppose because it's all too common for the two terms to be conflated, it's nearly impossible to discuss something political while making this distinction...and expecting the one you're conversing with to, in good faith, get the point, and start also making this distinction.
Long story told short, because it's simpler this way unfortunately.
I didn't even realise that a good amount of those existed, so thanks for actually telling me in a way I can understand. I would be interested in a video that goes in depth on other political ideologies, although even just this video is a great way to understand the surface level of political ideologies.
Yea its almost like politics is an extremely large 3 dimensional spectrum
@@clalam5241 Politics is no spectrum, it's more like a sea, I mean, I dare you to place Duginism, Conservatism, Carlism, Fascism, Social-Democracy, Marxist Socialism, Liberalism and Anarchism in a 3-dimensional spectrum.
When you start getting more granular it's worth having them explained and defined as in neutral a way as possible like this, and then having each explained/defined/attacked/defended by proponents and opponents. The more specific an explanation becomes the more you can get lost in minutiae and have "positives" taken for granted or dismissed.
If you can find honest opponents, it's really fascinating to have a system defended by someone who dislikes it - you know "what are the best features of X system that you wish Y (your system) had?"
Do you still remember half of these?
I love how the eyes of the caricatures in the thumb nail tell you how you should feel about each. You’ve saved me a lot of thinking. Thanks
I feel like some of these are less political ideologies and more economic ideologies or philosophical ideologies (transhumanism for example) which might be confusing for some people. Other than that this was a surprisingly good video covering the very basic overview of these without going into overwhelming depth.
To be fair, there really isn't a classical political ideology that isn't also an economic ideology. Governments/groups of humans formed to make their resource lasted longer and were easier to get. Almost every basic aspect of society expends from that basic concept. Even things like authoritarianism which seems completely political is still entrusting one person with the job of a least deciding who allocates resources and what land they acquire. You have to get to incredibly modern stuff before you really start seeing political views purely based non-physical concepts. Most people actually in power need to have some idea of what resources should go where and democracies/republics/most other governments with real divisions of power and responsibility really didn't thrive until relatively recently.
Transhumanism is basically either the Adeptus Mechanicus from Warhammer 40k or Maelstrom from Cyberpunk.
@@Outlaw7263GOD BLESS THE OMNISSIAH
Political and economic ideologies often overlap, because your economic views will often also shape how you think government should be run and how involved it should be (or not exist at all). Philosophical ideologies that have ideas about society also often have a political component.
5:38 from the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh it disgusted me.
💀
I craved for the strength and certainty of steel.
Hit the gym
@@oscramos8298 i go to gym on a daily basis, i think i still have the right to memes ok?
yes@@veilnebula2411
One thing y'all should keep in mind is that few of these are actually mutually exclusive.
Many of these "teams" could work together, in theory. Some do in the real world. Others are complete contradictory but become allies anyway.
TL;DR it's rarely ever just the one thing. Great video man.
nah, none of these can coincide.
Indeed, capitalism and socialism are different and contradictory in economic context. However, environmentalism and egalitarianism can be augmented depending whether businesses practices corporate social responsibility and the general public truly want to create an egalitarian society.
i was kidding btw i posted this for sillies w/ a friend (its an inside joke)
Indeed I find myself under the umbrella of no less than 4 of these ideologies
@@ronster. Well I'm glad you had fun.
It's amazing how when various ideologies are summarized briefly and with objectivity, you can see common ground with ideologies you may have found yourself opposed to, and maybe some room for criticism of those with which you already align. Great video
It's so rare to find a video like this that is completely un-biased and just gives you the facts. Subscribed 👍
But they didn’t. They took 1 second to say 3 things about conservatives and then kept going on and on about how liberals love various freedoms so much. One of the biggest ones being gun ownership though, is embraced by conservatives along with many others including free speech. And no, we aren’t conservatives. Just making an observation others clearly missed.
@karaqakkzl What does "reallity is a left-wing bias" mean?
Imagine my surprise when I discover this channel, love two videos, say “wow, this channel is really good, im gonna watch their backlog” only to learn that there is five total videos on the entire channel and it (deservedly) got 90k subs in the past month or so
This is because he's capitalizing on the fresh new genre of video called "every [blank] explained in # minutes" with a white background and simple logos in colored circles, pioneered by Redeemed Zoomer last year.
@@rama-rao-y8u it's not bad. Sorry if using the word "capitalizing" made it sound like that, but I was informing the commenter that the reason this channel got quite popular in such a short time was because the format was already popularized last year by another channel.
There is one essential part of Fascism that you left out: Fascism heavily advocates for a national rebirth. This is one of the defining reasons why Nazi's were seen as Fascist rather than being strictly authoritarian. The Nazi's believed in a national rebirth which in their case, was the Third Reich.
Yeah except that literally everybody believes in national rebirth. Obama certainly did. Lincoln concluded his Gettysburg Address with, "that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom."
So just because the Nazis happened to have something in common with literally everybody without exception doesn't make literally everybody without exception a Nazi.
Thank you
Its funny how many people are called nazis today because when you actually think about what nazism actually is. There would be like 0.000001% of people today who actually hold that ideology.
That and Fascism is also a type of corporatism.
And Hegelian idealism, which without it’s not even possible to have fascism as it’s the starting point. Economics too I guess with syndicalism and corporatism
Straight to the point, nice. Never heard of syndicalism before, i like the sound of it.
Thank you for not injecting too much dogmatic undertone into what should be as transparently educational and unbiased as possible. I’m thanking you because so so many other channels will often use what seems to be straightforward education and inject undertones that automatically cast aspersions onto on side and use flowery and appealing language for the side they hope to make seem good. But that poisons the well unless it’s stated that the video will contain political opinion and bias
Exactly what I wanted to say but much more well written
The choices of what he considered to be ideologies itself is dogmatic and reveals his own political opinions and bias lmao 😂
@@nekrataali how
Yep. There will always be some bias and selectivity. But it feels like he came at this with good enough faith that he stands apart from the normal and mass quantity alternate media conglomorates modus which is to have the video seem educational but they have a clear higher goal in mind of teaching people just how bad the other political party is. I'm speaking more to the bloodsports team politics of left v right. It's just nice to have someone who has at least some degree of wanting to explain what the topic of the video actually is, regardless of if it's perfectly unbiased. @@nekrataali
The liberalism explanation is wrong, they want the opposite of most things the guy said (at least at the time I'm writing this)
One small thing I noticed that stuck out to me:
Under the communism section, you put a house to represent private property. That would not be private property unless you are using it to make money.
Private property is stuff like the factories, machines, and anything else used to produce wealth. A house, your toothbrush, etc. would be personal property, and it would be yours and you would keep it.
I hope I explained it well. I’m really tired rn
So true, thank u tired lesbian
What if you sew clothes in your house and sell the clothes
@@mymelo-kz8xs You're not using the house itself to make money. Everyone needs a home to live in; housing is a human right (or it should be). Unless the house itself is specifically what makes you money, it's personal property.
Most communist regimes did seize private homes though.
@@aaaaa-tx3qb In that case, that would be an example of workers owning the means of production. A pen, a notebook, paint supplies, etc. are the machines or otherwise used to make a product. So long as that is owned collectively by the workers, it's good. If a job only requires one individual, then that individual owns everything. If a job requires two or more, maybe they each own their individual sewing machine, but they collectively own the business or factory.
The simple answer is: The workers should own the items and things needed to make a product, regardless of the number of workers.
If this video didn't exist, I would have never gone out of my away to better understand the spectrum of different political ideologies because I'm pretty much apolitical (although one of my friends who's very into politics has guessed I'd be an anarchist). So thank you for providing me with this information in a small amount of time.
Nobody is apolitical, you just don't have the right words to put on your ideas/opinions (anarchism could be a start). Almost everything you do and think has some political ramifications.
@@OraTorgrurhh I totally understand that but it's not just not knowing the terminology, it's also that I simply don't have a clear opinion on many issues because I'm not informed on them, either because I haven't been exposed to them, because I see both sides, or because I don't care enough. But I guess that would simply be being moderate?
@@NoopyP The price for refusing to participate in politics is becoming governed by your inferiors. -some Greek dude..
When you realize that the true purpose of political structures is to control the information we get it can really shock you into paying attention why things are the way they are and why so many people are, like yourself, apolitical by design.
To determine who owns you, first determine who you aren't allowed to criticize.
Just be careful because the real world usage of these online is that of a label for a tribe which may include random extraneous other ideas that they will enforce on anyone they can.
@@OraTorgrurhh Apolitical = doesn't want to engage in political struggle or take sides
its surprisingly amazing how accurately and simply he describes and explains all of this good job
I think it's also worth explaining the difference between private and personal property. When discussing politics, private property means that which is owned by companies, while personal property is that which an individual owns. A restaurant is private property, your microwave is personal property.
There's no difference between these two! Karl Marx wants to take away my Funko Pop.
Glad somebody explained it
If I use my computer for work at home is that private or personal property?
@@vitulus_ if you bought it, it's personal.
@@josharko111 Yeah but I buy other tools for my business that are solely used for work. I'd be surprised if they were personal?
This was fantastic! I'm loving the trend of low production quality but high information density educational content. Subscribed!
Good video there ! If I can add something : Populism is sometimes not seen as an ideaology but more as a polotical strategy to access to power !
There are definitely some things here I didn't know so I appreciate that.
This was a good idea although some of these are merely political priorities rather than political systems. You might also consider a video describing how these can be blended or corrupted.
I like what has being tried here, but I feel rather uneasy on some definition.
I know that the author tried to be objective in those numerous definition, but it seem we are mistaking the robe for the monk here.
I mean by that that people under ideology will claim that something is their focus, while in fact, movement born from this ideology usually have another objective. it being more a cover for another less... sellable.
Nazi under nazism seemed more than willing to bend what is a aryan/subhumain as long as it suited them, especially when material expropriation or general opposition to anything lefty was in the table. The aryan thingy seem to be more decorum than the core principle, which is "the nation need a all powerful authority unimpeded by law or morality to do what it see fit to save the nation from it's internal and external menace" which itself hide the political backstabing and personal gain that govern nazi politics.
And, you could say that would not be applying the real theorical nazi, but if nazi are not nazi, who are ?
I feel like a lot of the ideology described here are in that situation.
Well fascism do tend to lead nazism except their not alway nazi like the anti-trans and anti-lgbt rhetoric coming form the far right but we don’t call them nazi we call them fascist or authoritarian
All systems can be corrupted or blended in equal ways.
Dictatorships and monarchies can both arise from anarchism, communism and capitalism alike.
Capitalism allows uncapped generational wealth which leads to single people holding enough power to rule. Since money = power. Or just allowing someone to hoard wealth trough dirty means and then using said money to avoid consequences.
Communism (as it's been done in the past) puts production under leaders, and in communism production = power.
It is also pretty funny because the whole point of communism is that the PEOPLE control the production, but since no leader actually ever did communism this never really was attempted.
In anarchism, there is a power vacuum ready for the taking. It's just a matter of time.
“Political 👉Ideology👈”
@@USSAnimeNCC-what do we call a far left group that advocates violence against a person or group who doesnt align with their political/personal beliefs? Is that even a thing? Im not really political , but there is always a mirror.
You clicked becouse politics. I clicked becouse cute ideollogy balls. We are not the same.
Based
i clicked because i saw a female anarcho ball
@@taureon_ bro really said: smas-
I clicked for both
@@taureon_ Panty and Stocking anarchy
A video without an intro is just a breath of fresh air
How TH-cam video should be.
This is really helpful especially by the overuse of those words.
This is amazing!
You should make a part 2, there are so many more ideologies to cover
I'm probably going to do that!
I needed this. Made up my own country. But couldn't decide what ideology to pick.
When in doubt, moderate out. 😅
I made a country. It's called fip. The population count is 1 and its me, also the territory spans across the entire planet. Get off my land
@@exotic1405 Who are you.
The president of fip, i guess ? @@Epic_R3K47
lmao@@exotic1405
A breath of fresh air to find an educational youtube channel that gets straight to the point and explains everything on a level understandable to most(I would assume ;) ) subbed! excited to learn more!
Really appreciate your ability to remain non bias in a politically themed video, good job man!!
I don't know how you manage to make the ideologies sound so horendeous, sci-fi and good, into a neutral view at the same time
Glad to see something not condescending to the right or left and laced with fear tactics. Good explanations and nuanced instead of lumping certain things together(Nazism/facism, Socialism/Communism)
They should all be called Socialism.
@WatcherPrime that's the propaganda talking my friend. The first 2 are a form of societal theory(highly linked together) while the second 2 are a form of economic theory(also higjly linked together). Understanding the differences in each is important when analyzing history as it's being made in current day, as in those times they didn't have words or definitions recorded like we are privileged with.
@@WatcherPrime They should not since they are extremely different things, rooted from the same vague concept
I’m curious, how did you decide what ideologies to include and what ideologies to leave out? Also, great video! I subscribed and am looking forward to your upcoming content.
These are the most common/popular
There's probably a lot of overlap, and niche ideologies that would be either repetitive to include, or not mainstream enough. And specific political parties may not encompass enough topics to be it's own entry. Idk though
Average political compass fan
fr wheres my posadism explained ffs they're oppressing the one true ideology
I guess what's just most popular/defining on the political spectrum
I've never commented on TH-cam but I've never seen such simple, direct, educational, not boring, and straight video. Just amazing I'll look forward to get more of your videos keep it up.
Ahhh yes someone finally understands Anarchism, it’s not the belief of everyone needs to be in pure anarchy all the time, but of the 100% freedom of the individual and that you don’t necessarily need a government. I love the unbiased presentation here, and the willingness to present all forms of an idea. No matter how… rough the ideology might seem to everyone else.
I am pro-imperialism. Not the bad side of it part but the "nations who are rich and know how to run a nation should run poor countries" part.
Many countries that were given their "freedom" are today very poor, very corrupt, run by tyrants, lost many of their basic human rights and freedoms, infested by extremists, and ironically the people of these poor countries are running off to rich countries - many to their former colonizer's nations.
And let's be honest, none of them are actually doing anything to fix it.
And it would be fine if these poor countries could keep their problems to themselves, but they don't, they spread to other countries. And it would be fine if you can actually see progress in these poor countries but again, you don't; what little progress you see just comes from the fact that they are at the bottom of the barrel and therefore have nowhere to go but up.
Very little of these problems would have existed had they just remained under the rich nations rule. Nationalism can be very destructive and just divides humanity.
"People should have the right to self-determination".... not if it is destructive.
Unfortunately without a somewhat capable government there is nothing that can stop an anarchistic society from being attacked by another.
@@cashewnuttel9054thats sounds good in theory, but in reality, you can not force people to believe in what you believe. A nation must come to a conclusion by its own people on how they want to run their country and how they gonna fight corrupt leaders and governments. It took decades, education, protests and many wars in ,,progressive nations‘‘ to reach that level. If a nation is left to progress on its own and helped in its progress by other nations with a good will, it can naturaly prosper. If its forced and with military power, the problems and opression that comes along are greater than the benefits (killing of innocents, destroying old social structures by force, forcing of not known costums on them, prejudice etc). And usually the imperialits dont come with good faith to help the natives. We have seen that in almost any colonial setting. Resistance will be the inevitable answer.
Best recent example - Afghanistan. Up until the 60/70s it progressed in many areas, it may have seem slow and there were many things to solve, but that takes usually time. The soviet intervention to ,,help a brother nation‘‘ destroyed the country all progress that was made was lost. A civil war broke out and put the country on reset. Than the americans came and tried to ,,help‘‘, but in reality gave power to corrupt leaders and built a not sustainable system based on corruption and military force. Resistance was formed and the intruders had to leave in shame. Like the russians before. Now they are back at square one.
My point is, it never worked and never will. No matter how noble the intentions may be. If you want to help ,,underdeveloped‘‘ countries, you should read up on how these corrupt leaders came to power, where do they get their wapons and money and who is holding their back. You will come full circle and may consider that next time you are voting.
Forgive me if I'm wrong but is this not just a tweaked version of the idea of tribalism, and if not tribalism if we are looking at it through a government point of view then confederalism
Anarchism is the default state of humanity... until you have neighbors.
Thank you! My friends didn't understand very many politics, so I showed them this video to clear up confusion. Thanks!
I like how you separate the words with different definitions, but a lot of these words intersect and I think people aren’t seeing that
Yeah, maybe historically contingent positions, boutique internet labels, and centuries-long political traditions that have actually wielded power (that is, the thing which politics is actually about) shouldn't be treated as equivalent and each given their own little cartoon characters.
genuinely a breath of fresh air to see an unbiased video covering most major ideologies
Really good informative video although the only thing I'd add is that while you can't own private property under communism (factories, offices, businesses) you can have personal property (car, toothbrush, house that you live in) just because of how often people get those 2 things confused.
a very good point
It's physically impossible for a communist to explain the 'personal property' distinction without mentioning toothbrushes. A car, though, is a means of production. So is a phone. And people under communism aren't allowed to own a house. Let's be real here.
The part that made me laugh out loud in the 'communism' description was right at the end. "...and there's no state." The single most hilarious thing that communists believe about communism is that the iron dictators needed to bring in communism, are going to give up all their power.
Yeah i found it very weird how he used a house to represent private property, cuz that would be personal property
House?
Car?
you get gulag and can brush teeth with stick I found, da?
People in the Soviet Union didn't get to own their houses. You lived in it at the pleasure of the gov.
Cars? You can get on a 3 year waiting list for a POS Lada.
Very nicely explained. Nice to cut through the general terms people use for one another as insults or propaganda to get a better definition of the political terms themselves.
I’ll be interested to see how you approach monarchism in the future! Particularly in defining its sub-groups, such as feudal system, modern autocratic, and modern constitutional variants.
i dont think monarxhism is a word tho
I would argue Capitalism is just an evolved form of Monarchism. Same concept, except under capitalism, the "royals" are the owner class.
I never knew how to frame my political ideology but now i know. I believe in communitarianism, and a few others.
Yes I hate the left right system too. It isolates and creates extremes on both sides who are extremely opposed and violent to eachother.
It's so true that it's unreal.
um might need to dive a little deeper this is. Ideals quickly summed up and generalized probly makes communism look great to everyone who never lived under it.
@@brandonreal916And you need to learn to read, because they didn't even say communism. They said communitarianism, which is a completely separate ideology.
@@brandonreal916 5:53 would be a great part of the video to watch for you 😊
Parts of this need updating. You did a great job of explaining how all of these ideals originally started and what their doctrine was in the beginning, but some of those ideals have been hijacked in recent years and are no longer what they claim to be.
none of these will ever be perfect, these are just the ideas they’re founded on. it looks different in context or with dumb and corrupt ppl
Love the channel. Keep this theme of short, concise videos that educate on things about the world. Can’t wait for future videos!
Extremely well made this should be mandatory watch for anyone eager to enter politics in order to know what the terms used mean
It's really interesting how in Western democracies, most parties which call themselves "liberal" are actually economically liberal social conservatives. Same goes for most conservative parties (I've never seen a conservative party serious about conserving the environment for example).
In America, the media hyperbolizes both sides opinions so both sides think the other side is comprised of mostly extremists. It’s a good tactic to make sure no meaningful progress gets made. Thats why’s all libs think trad cons are lead paint drinking inbreds, and why conservatives think libs are drug addicted naive kids.
Conservative and conservationist aren’t the same thing
The solution to that is to use a 2-dimensional representation, called a "political compass". Just left vs right is one-dimensional, and leaves out important nuance.
It's a bit vague how to calculate your position in this 2-D space. This is a wiki page about the website political compass: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Political_Compass
It still has the "left" vs "right" division (the horizontal axis, economic policy), but it ALSO has a vertical axis, social policy, from "more authoritarian" to "more presonal freedom".
E.g. Greens and Communists are both on the "left" economic side, but communism is very authoritarian ("up") and the greens believe in libertarian personal freedom ("down") (as long as you are not polluting the environment too much, I guess). It shows that they shouldn't be jumbled together.
Conservatives in North America are liberal, the classical variant including on social issues
@@fritsdaalmans5589 Of course I know the political compass, it's largely useless in it's most common iteration because leftwing economics and libertarian are strongly correlated while rightwing economics and authoritarian are strongly correlated so the whole thing is pretty much one dimensional again.
There are no people who are economically rightwing but also in favour of personal freedom. Now you might say that US libertarians/anarcho-capitalists are exactly this, but that isn't the case, if you follow their economic beliefs to their logical conclusion, you end up with personal freedom being contingent on personal wealth/capital.
Likewise, the main difference between anarchists and communists is which strategy they believe will work to achieve their ideal society. In both cases they strife for a society with a lot of personal freedom. Communists however believe that this society needs proper management while anarchists believe it can self-organise somehow. The political compass generally puts societies without political systems similar to liberal western democracies as authoritarian (even though a one-party state can be much more democratic in most respects than a liberal democracy).
Great summary. I don't know if all Moderates are within the Overton Window, but I'm glad U brought it up.
I love that you sneak in Transhumanism.
Every rimworld player would be proud.
"From the moment I understood the weakness of my flesh -"
@@2spicy_memes342 „You can give me no scars if I have no flesh left.”
We have a connoisseur 🍷
Crazy how almost all of these actually sound pretty good on paper, yet we know how bad they are in practice.
Fr especially capitalism
@@xedeanz9324 Captialism is actually one of the few that is proven to work decently well, albeit it's not perfect, but mixing Capitalism with certain ideals of other systems has worked very well for the many first world countries that have adopted it.
I was mostly referencing Communism, Communalism, and Socialism.
yup, it marries well with liberalism that may act to preserve individual rights as well as a free market, just reeling it in so it doesn't evolve into corporatocracy.@@darkwowplayer
@@darkwowplayercapitalism demonstrably doesn't work, it's destroyed the environment and forces people to starve
All of these what about nazism non of is good on paper unless your a other hating maniac
Great video! I just want to point out that you use a picture of a house to describe that a communist society doesn't have private property, but a house is actually personal property, which would still exist in a communist society
Lol
You get the idea though.
@@25439well yeah but in video as unbiased and well worded as this one (which it still is) it's still worth pointing out when there's a mistake right?
@@elkabat5205i think people will never understand the difference between private property and personal property it's... tough
I love the idea of communism, anarchism and socialism.
0:18 Who could oppose that?
Edit: Actually, that's more classical liberalism than modern liberalism
right!?
Millions of people do because logic can't beat stupidity/indoctrination
Non secular backward countries? Conservatives?
I learned more about our government in 8 minutes than years of social studies
@@schmiggidy Doesn't that stick hurt?
@@schmiggidy What??? Another student didn’t learn from textbooks and hour long lectures like you did??? WHATTT. I can’t believe not every kid learns the same way!!! 😱😱😱😱
Crazy man. Almost like some people are different than you.
@@plugshirt1762 Must have haha, since he mocks others for not remembering the lessons.
I finished all dash 1 Social studies, but my memory still slips sometimes since I wasn’t beat I guess lol.
@@foundationuser5043let's be honest you probably aren't a real "visual learner" or whatnot, you just don't have the willpower and self control to listen to your teachers and classes 😢😮😅😂😊
@@peapod5629Nah I genuinely absorb info better through reading at my own pace. I can't be the only one. I borderline passed/failed many classes, but quickly picked up statistics and calculus on my own when my job called for it. Wheras in school those two had very low grades despite putting in the hours.
funnily enough, as ive grown older ive become far more understanding of my college professors adament anarchosyndacalist politics. back then it was really just a big word that i thought he would use to sound smarter than his students. in hindsight, respect to the guy for being that open about his political takes that were largely frowned upon
Anarchosyndicalism will always unvariable derive in an oligarchy of the syndicalist leaders.
Syndicates can also work against the good of their workers, syndicate leaders can be corrupt and sell out the owrkers to a company they have an economical agreement with.
You ultimately need a state to put them in line.
@@fabrypetty1689But can't the same be said for any hierarchy? Its a matter of how much power the lower ranks have 2 replace bad leaders.
@@fabrypetty1689you just described the corporate authoritarianism we have currently
Every time I read the word I think back to both Noam Chomsky and Monty Python. XD
Anarchosyndicalism explicitly organizes from the bottom up, with the local worker councils having primacy over the central council. The delegates they send to the central council are recallable and are only there for a specific task as to not create a possibly exploitable position. Administrators who are tasked with the day-to-day maintanance of syndicate matters can be a weak link, but only if their tasks aren't strictly defined and monitored by delegates and such@@fabrypetty1689
great video man, not falling into some traps and general misconceptions about certain ideologies made the video truly informative and precise
My school made us watch this. I usually watch these videos for fun, but now I get to watch it for work.
I clicked not knowing what to expect , know very little about politics.
Understood absolutely everything even with the little knowledge I had , you explained really well , thank you!
Don't take this as a guidebook. The way he defined certain terms is partisan, if not inaccurate.
@@ethanwilliams1880care to elaborate?
@@frankwalker5921 Okay, let's keep it simple, and I'll go with one at a time.
First of all, the pictures he uses are some very important imagery/subliminal messaging, that encourage the positive view of some ideologies, and the negative view of others.
Conservatism: his claims are not necessarily inaccurate as they are implicitly misleading. He allows the listener to assume these values apply to all "Western" conservatives, and encourages the listener to assume what they will about the "organized religion" and "military" aspects allowing common propaganda to fill the gaps.
Capitalism: the definition begins with the assertion that it is AN economic system, implying that it is one of many, when historically it is the only system with which economics can operate, with the only deviation being the unit of measurement (individual, company, state, etc). This is a tactic used to give credence to socialism and communism, which he paints in the most favorable light possible later in the video.
Socialism: "there are many types of socialism" this, alone, is a highly divisive assertion. He then goes on to assert a very theoretical definition to socialism, which has never been seen in reality.
Syndicalism: the fact that this term is even given a definition is a strongly partisan statement, especially considering that it wasn't included as part of the "umbrella" term of Socialism he alluded to in the first place.
Corporatism: he leaves this definition so vague that it could fall into literally any other category, then invents the term "corporatocracy" to estrange an important but unpleasant part of the ideology.
Separatism: why is this included as a main ideology. Separatism is only ever a result of extreme ideological differences, as an alternative to civil war, not its own ideology.
Communism: the definition here asserts that a communist society doesn't have money, social classes, or "the state" which not only makes no sense (since we are talking about ideologies on government aka "the state" and therefore every ideology requires that there BE a state), but also because this is entirely untrue for every single communist nation that has ever existed.
Feminism: again, why is this included? This is not a major world ideology, this is a single, binary issue, and has seen appearances on both the "left" and the "right" wing of political ideology, depending on the country, situation, and validity of the movement.
Environmentalism: not only does this once again fall into the category of a single issue movement, but he also misrepresents environmentalism, as he encourages the viewer through omission to think that it is opposed only by those who are not concerned with the environment, omitting, vitally, that it is often based on shaky or inaccurate scientific research.
Populism: again, not remotely a main ideology, just a moniker for candidates who appeal to their voters or citizenry, instead of placating the wealthy, businesses, and other "elites" that usually have more political pull in any governmental system
Tip of the iceberg, but that should at least give you a bit to think on.
@@ethanwilliams1880 All I read was, you don’t understand why certain terms were left more vague and why certain terms were expressed more. He leaves conservativism more vague because you can combine it with liberalism or libertarianism. It’s not to fill in gaps with propaganda it’s because the gaps can be filled with other terms that can exist alongside others. While maintaining its own perspective.
Your break down of communism doesn’t make any sense. You say it doesn’t make sense because every ideology “requires” a state, yet you ignore anarchism which is an ideology and its sole purpose is to have no state. You say his definition of communism is also incorrect because it doesn’t fall in line with any real world communist nations. But you fail to recognize that these states, while practice “communism”, are failed states because they lacked the pursuit of actually following and became fascist states instead. Just because the communist nations no longer follow communism doesn’t make the definition wrong. It means the nation by definition is no longer communist. China for example is ran by the Chinese Communist Party. It’s communism in name only. When in reality it’s fascism and authoritarianism. The power or state being the CCP. Being able to understand how nation diverts its practices from communism to fascism and authoritarianism is just another way of learning how communism as an ideology doesn’t work in practice.
Same goes for your remarks on his socialism remarks. You say his assertion about many types as questionable is dumb because there is indeed many by definition. The types differ from one one another because of key points that the creator believed. But if their ideology uses the bullets points of what he defines as basic socialism than it’s within the umbrella. Not hard to understand. Same goes for you stating his definition has never been seen in reality which is because it’s usually takes form as branch of socialism within the umbrella term and with that being said is usually corrupted and falls into a different ideology as a whole. Like Nazism. It started out as a socialistic ideology and transformed into fascism just like communism nations transform as well. Eventually becoming its own thing known as Nazism
You babbling about how his definitions are incorrect is dumb and just shows how you don’t understand how ideologies aren’t followed to a tee. The definitions are vague on purpose because in practice they are transformed into other things entirely.
@@ArtercayFinally this has been said, thank you.
Thank you! This helped with my understanding of politics for my AP Human Geography political unit!
Actually, this is really good. As a university student of politics I can confirm that this is quite accurate for the length of the video. Keep up, I think this is your breakout video
what a nice video! i bet the comment section will be civil and nice to each other!
This was a really great and informative video! I'm glad that even when it was clear that you disagreed with an ideology (I.E the obvious case of fascists and Nazis) you still put their points forwards in a fairly neutral way, and made important distinctions that often get ignored or overlooked, like with capitalism vs corporatism
I think the only thing that was missing was a part about Monarchism, since you mentioned it a few times and put in its opposite (Republicanism) but never really went what Monarchism itself is, or the fact that there's a distinction between Absolutists and Constitutionalists. Great stuff either way though!
Educating people (especially those who neither care nor know) about politics, can be a hard thing to achieve well. But this is very well done and about as digestible as it can be for the lay man! bravo! Thank you for informing me but also bringing a lot of other horses to water so to speak.
A video that is unbiased, full of info, and nonprofit. Amazing. Keep it up, I'm here to watch.
I had to give the video a like the moment it launched in without any irrelevant and long-winded intros. Concise and enjoyable video, thank you!
great job! summed up complex topics in a quick, digestable format, with relatively little bias. your attention to differentiating the concepts between certain groups (communism/socialism, fascism/nazism for example) was helpful and more informative than a lot of media i find myself seeing. i did find the feminism topic to be maybe a little oversimplified, in fact, a deeper dive into feminism as a whole would be great to see. there's a clear difference to the feminism movement 50+ years ago and generally speaking, how it's aged each decade.
A mostly fair analysis of some difficult concepts, well done.