Because American style liberalism actually IS a leftwing philosophy. It‘s different from European liberalism (what is called „classical liberalism“ in the US).
EFE ERCELIK You have no idea what you‘re talking about. Ever heard of FDRs „Four Freedoms“, New Deal and Second Bill of Rights? LBJs Great Society Act? These are all liberal ideas. Jimmy Carter and JFK both argued for universal healthcare/M4A. THIS is American liberalism. Modern day establishment Democrats like Clinton, Biden, Obama etc. aren‘t liberals, they‘re moderate conservatives or centrists at best. Stop conflating liberalism with todays Democratic party.
@@jirojhasuo2ndgrandcompany745 uh no neoliberals are Clinton that worked together with Republicans to create free trade deals that have hurt labor. Social justice warriors are just radical liberals who stress social issues and are generally annoying.
More like: No wars can longer be profitable and therefore all large scale conflicts disappear. Armies being voluntary instead of conscripted or coerced into it to have access to rights such as healthcare and medicine. Profits as a concept kind of ceases to exist under any such society, the gains are distributed democratically.
His ranting on the infighting between lefties is exactly how I feel every time I see all the leftist larpers on twitter and it’s exactly why I like Hassan more than most other popular leftists. You have to be realistic about the balance between your political ideology and how the world actually works.
@Mitch Howe I don't know if it's just internet culture or what, but it seems like everyone also has to have a label on the left. You can't just say "I'm far-left" because then conservatives think that you're a Democrat and then leftists feel like they have to know if you're ancom, socialist, libertarian socialist, marxist, maoist, marxist-leninist, etc. It's honestly really childish. Twitter is the worst at this. Like, I honestly think that Marist-Leninist ideology is interesting (don't know if I subscribe to it) but I can't find anyone that I take seriously on there because all ML's on Twitter seem to be anime weebs. Hard for me to believe that they'll be leading or participating in any kind of vanguard.
Samfia Drangus you cant be a leftist without having an actual tangible roadmap for building socialism. Marxism-leninism(-maoism) is the only successful/universally applicaable leftist ideological framework imo. to nebulously call yourself a “leftist” means nothing to the actual working class unless you’re organizing; and as mao says, practice synthesizes theory-in that light-the light of the confines of material reality-you’re just led back to marxist dialectical materialism and lenin’s continuation. there are plenty of good MLs on twitter lol @birthmarxist is one of my favs.
@@drill6739 Thanks, I'll check out birthmarxist. And I get what you're saying, I just hate how so many people on the left expect everyone around them to be on the same level as them when it comes to understanding leftist theory. Especially when they talk down to people who are unfamiliar the subjects. You're not going to organize people who might be brainwashed by Western ideology if you don't realize that most people are brainwashed to begin with.
It’s absolutely pathetic how the vast majority of people in the US have zero clue what any of these concepts actually mean. The words socialism, communism, etc. have been completely changed to mean failure or evil in so many peoples minds here. That change is literally because the rampant capitalism here has pedaled that message down to the working class in such a way that they believe and adhere to obvious exploitation of themselves. I wish I knew how to combat this but I really just don’t know what the first step in this country would be, it’ll take such an overturn in ideology that I truly believe this country will fail so fuckin hard (beyond what’s happening now) before we can make any actual progress
There's a failure in US education to not discuss politics or the history of the past 70 years in any detail. More time is spent on US History than any other historical subject but the narrative is "We won WWII and saved the world, the civil rights movement of the 1960s ended racism, vietnam happened, then 9/11 happened, now we're here" which is a supreme disservice to the dynamics of the shift from imperial monarchies to international wars to bilateral and then unilateral world power structures in the last century.
Spot on, the ghost of Reagan haunts us to this day. A secondary part of it has been the US campaign of extermination against leftists across the world. I highly recommend looking up The Jakarta Method. Late capitalist indoctrination has only been so total because of the mass murder of trade unionists and communists.
I think a good way is to break down the concept with relatable examples. Eg: down to the family. A purely capitalistic structure would be if a family member who earns a significant income refuses to help a family member who needs to pay medical bills. Because that's literally what it's like. I find it strange that Americans who share so much in common see the other side as enemies even though they belong to the same country and live in the same neighbourhood.
there is no other way to save Americans so the only way is by bringing them down before they destroy other countrys like they did with middle east.. US must be destroyed before is too late...
@@sgtjohnson49 is it a failure if it's done on purpose? I'd say the people who have the power have succeeded in making sure they keep it for as long as possible.
The thing is historically it was the same. Historically there only was social democracy which was characterized by advocating a reformist road to socialism. But during the cold war most of the social democratic parties in Europe denounced socialism and the people who actually still wanted a democratic road to socialism started calling themselves democratic socialists to distinguish themselves from the new "soc-dems"
@@Lukas-xb7cx It's like saying historically no one's achieved communism but plenty of people are already flying that flag and people have already fought for it in name, so that ship has been sailed. Communism has been perverted, whether anyone likes it or not.
My God is that true, lol. The only way to unite them is to put them under a horribly oppressive right wing capitalistic regime. Welcome to America, land of the inequality, home of the right
Uk is not far right at all, u cannot use us and uk in the same sentence. Uk is not far right at all compared to America for e.g even the right party in the uk the torys believe in free health care it’s considered a bare minimum nerd
@@dsatish1997 Yes we are. People voted for Brexit because of stupid nationalist lies and racism. BoJo was elected, and even though he is a bumbling oaf alot of the time he is genuinely malicious, and his puppeteer Cummings absolutely is a horrible piece of shit
The UK is not far right, the conservatives are barely a Conservative party, what exactly do they conserve? They have one function and that is winning elections. They would execute the queen in Trafalgar Square if they thought it would win them an election.
I think understanding the distinctions between leftist schools is important. But, what you call yourself is far less important than whether or not you understand that class solidarity and mobilization is the best way to enact change.
@@RodrigoroRex This statement hurt my brain. It's not wrong, but what's the take-away? It feels like you're trying to knock social democrats as "not socialist", which doesn't make much sense to me given the fact that no one has posited that they are.
@@KTroyborg This is several months late, but I think they were saying that "Nazis are bad" and "Nazis are socialist", and since "Nazis are as socialist as socdems" then "socdems are bad too". It's the same rhetoric that states Nazis having socialist in the name means they were actually socialist, and therefore "socialists" (here, misrepresented as "social democrats") are Nazis. it's just a way to try to discredit socialism based on a fallacious reading of history (because everyone knows the DPRK having "Democratic Republic" in the name means that it actually is one, right). Though, funnily enough, as you highlighted, they unintentionally discredited their _own_ point, because they missed socdems are, in fact, not socialists either.
The separation of social issues and economic issues is a liberal lie. It is meaningless to say that you're progressive in social issues when your economic policy (the material conditions you want to set up) is in favor of a system that exploits the workers, and among them the most negatively affected are the marginalized groups that you claim you support.
I hate when "progressives" advocate for capitalism with the justification of "it gives the most freedom". I hate that so much because it's just not true.
100% true about neoliberalism. Back when I was in university 15 years ago, I was taught that neoliberalism is a far-right ideology and everyone understood this. I find it baffling and disturbing that neoliberalism is suddenly considered a "centrist" ideology.
this video is actually pretty educational. as a teenager who goes to a public high school in the u.s. midwest, we always learned that communism/socialism = bad, capitalism = good. when we had a lecture about communism in our economic class, my teacher literally asked a fucking student what the definition of communism was instead of just giving us the dictionary definition (or any type of simplistic breakdown of the general goals of communism). and, as someone who started subscribing to leftist media during the pandemic (not even theory yet, just trying to shift my perception to the fact that capitalism is exploitation), i only got so far into it to be able to correct them in my head (that communism isn’t the devil and that no, china is not a communist state and there has never been a communist state). however, i couldn’t explain WHY there had never been a communist state or give a totally simplified definition of communism myself, so i (regretfully) didn’t speak up and just allowed a completely incorrect narrative to continue for the next hour and a half because i didn’t want to look stupid. anyways, thanks for the explanation, it was very helpful to see the graph of all of the different sects of communism as well.
you should also look for meaning of "real" capitalism, not the one in US which is regulated by government. I suggest you to research for The Austrian School of Economics.
That dude talking about noelibs being close to socdems or whatever was flat out stupid. He says you're focusing too much on economics when the whole point of this was about economics.
Also important to note that economic conditions drive social conditions. While socdems and neolibs might agree on certain social issues, they have different solutions.
@@ezra8440 Socdems need the neolib money, neolibs need the socdem vote. Socdems don't really care what neolibs do in other countries, otherwise AOC would be condemning US Military actions in the Middle East.
@@MK_ULTRA420 you mean like this? www.businessinsider.com/aoc-condemns-trumps-iran-attack-and-pushes-for-congressional-action-2020-1 or this? www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-trump-syria-financial-conflicts-interest-withdrawing-military-1464178
@@MK_ULTRA420 SocDems and neolib need each other, because half of this country is braindead and think republicans are an actual option. Once(if ever), the Republican Party dies, then there would be a socDems vs NeoLibs where grown ups could actually do politics
12:30 regarding Hasan's comment that leftists have killed one another over these differences. YES. I'm so fucking glad that someone with a great platform like Hasan is saying this. These differences divide the left organizationally even in grassroots ops when often-times the goal is to just educate people on how capitalism is reducing the quality of life for the vast majority of people (plus all the other fucked up conditions capitalism causes). Too often I have seen Leftists turn on each other in organizing spaces on the basis of theoretical grounds or minor praxis. So many leftists hate other leftists (tankies v. anarchists for example) because of some label, and the fucked up thing is that often times these people haven't even read ANY THEORY, and are just falling into a tribal mindset they create for themselves. As leftists, we should be united in our goals to SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION FROM CAPITALISM, even if that means doing so incrementally. Then we can debate on policy and direction after we've achieved that goal.
My guy, the in-fighting between leftists were at their worst after the revolution, not before it. Literal battles were fought between leftist camps after MoP seizures because the divides could no longer be ignored and our ideological differences became unresolvable. This is why some leftists don't consider Left Unity worth anything.
Eric Dowe Not completely true, many revolutions have united the left and even in Russia a lot of socialists and basically all communists united under the bolsheviks.
@@davidulanovsky8943 LOL yeah the Bolsheviks were united until Lenin became their leader and ordered the arrests and deaths of "political dissidents" AKA the first wave of Communist revolutionaries. The first wave of revolutionaries in every Communist revolution always get killed off by the second wave of Communist authoritarians. Hitler purged them, Lenin purged them, Stalin purged them, Mao Zedong purged them, Kim Il Sung purged them, Pol Pot purged them, Fidel Castro purged them...violent intersectionality isn't a flaw of leftism, it's a feature.
@@pygmalion8952 Also seen in Ukraine, after the October Revolution a large group of anarchists established the Free Territory in eastern Ukraine and managed to fight off both the Bolsheviks and the White Army (the Bolsheviks and anarchists did work together several times to defeat the Whites) however it was the Bolsheviks that ultimately backstabbed them and forced them out.
This made me realize just how far to the Left I've moved in the past few years. I remember thinking that Bernie Sanders was a Socialist candidate while he was running for office. Still think he's great and was the obvious best choice for America though let's be real
Social Democrats are viewed less well by leftists in Europe since a lot of countries have a dynamic of a neoliberal right-wing party and a social-democratic left-wing party as the biggest parties. Basically, this means that in places like Scandinavia the social democrats are no longer furthering change, rather just keeping our current system going instead of cutting welfare. This means that leftist will slowly have to shift left and consider social democrats on the capitalistic side, though America is at a point where leftist and social democrats should definitely still be collaborating.
its hard to be young and horny in this here globalist society without becoming at least a bit sceptical and nihilistic. cos I mean, what if we do just let capitalism run itself into the ground.
What kills me is that initially Social Democracy was a revisionist reformist socialist tendency. But by the 90's pretty much all Social Democratic parties had accepted the End Of History narrative and abandoned their socialist roots for the post-90's, Great Centrist Compromise of "Third Way" Welfare Capitalism. They'd abandoned the goal of reforming their way to socialism and by the 00's most all had abandoned their radical rhetoric. I like azureScapegoat's content a lot, but many socialists of various tendencies and schools would reject that definition of socialism and say that "worker owned and controlled MOP" is the definition. Most would also consider communal ownership (though maybe not through a state) a valid example though it is usually considered valid for specific things and not others where worker self-organized workplaces would be the thing. Most people who actually know fuck all about anarchism would also fundamentally disagree with the idea that all anarchists just seek to establish communism immediately following a revolution lol That is pure utopianism and, aside from some I've met online and on collage campuses, I haven't met many that naive. Most all view anarchism as a lease through which to view the world and ensure the most effective but ethical means of moving towards a socialist/communist end. But it's a project with no end and pretty much all (aside from the "primitivists" and some other anti-civ "post-leftists") recognize the need for transitioning between capitalist class society and a more egalitarian socialist society. We just reject the idea of a vanguard and a strong centralized state power forcing the transition. But there will obviously need to be transition and hella anarchists have written extensively on it. But ML/M's love that bs "aNaRcHiStS hAvE nO tHeOrY!" meme. We don't have a uniform program to follow step by step because the world is a little more complicated than that. But transition is necessary or the project would inevitably fail. Online, yeah, a lotta these teen anarchists are horrible identity-reductionists but I've been active in predominantly anarchist (but mixed-tendency and broader projects) groups and organizations for about 2 decades and I just don't see it or the petty sectarianism like that. Even most ML/M's I know aren't like the goofies ya see online. It's a different world in these spaces than the social media revolutionaries and internet radicals would have ya believe. I work with everything but Juche skids (something ya rarely actually see IRL too) now and we have a tight community of people that run the range of socialist thought. And from what I know the issues with the DSA don't stem from the Libertarian Socialist Caucus so much as Liberal involvement and leadership not following their own guidelines. But idk. Any mixed-tendency project is bound to have issues if things are handled very carefully. I'm not a member cause it lowkey looked like a scam lol But I know mad people who are from NYC to Florida and most are anarchists, libertarian-socialists, left-Marxists, whatever. I beg to differ. Most Europeans I know have said that the daylight between their SocDem parties and Liberal parties is constantly shrinking and that they tend to agree much more than not. From what I understand it's pretty much a failed experiment. They've completely compromised themselves. Not only is the kissing cousin of fascism unsustainable, unethical and essentially impossible to bring into reality in a place like the so-called US, it also seems about as utopian as it gets and so far off track in most places that it's crumbling. Ask someone in Europe or Scandinavia. Some places are better than others but it's getting increasingly worse. I disagree with him on most things but The Finnish Bolshevik has a few decent vids on the state of Social Democracy and there's mad articles and essays online detailing it's collapse and transition to a more liberal way of functioning. But what do I know. ✊👊🖤☮️🏴🥀🌐A///E
Even Bakunin said in the 1860s called for a "Revolutionary State" as a transition to a socialist form of development he later changed to calling it a "Commune" to distance himself from Marx and Lassale. Malatésta to although like all Anarchists was anti state said there would be a state just not as we'd know it today and the Proletariat, LumpenProl, or Peasantry would destroy the state whenever they'd find it achievable because class conflict wouldn't exist within the location they are in.
@Chester mandvol Nope. I'm a socdem and we defend capitalism and a welfare society. Which means we support capitalism. We aren't afraid of anything cause we support capitalism. We just want free healthcare and stuff
All forms of Anarchy (Ancoms and Ancaps) turn into Feudalism the moment some people want more wealth and power than others, and other people want a leader to follow. I'd support Anarchy but only if I was a nomadic raider like Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan.
@@demon-dj7yj they are exactly that. same for the Grüne Partei. if we could call any party in Germany "socdem" it’s the Linke, and even they tend to merge further with the neolib doctrine
IMPORTANT: There is a big mistake in the video that is commented on (not refuted here). The claim that anarchists want to go directly from capitalism to communism is incorrect, and a myth and/or misunderstanding typically propagated by Leninists. What anarchists oppose is specifically the Leninist transition state (and their understanding of the more general Marxist transition state), where the vanguard party seizes power and transition society to communism - i.e. "Leninism". They view this specific form of "transitioning" as totalitarian, oppressive and doomed to fail - as well as simply not "Socialist". What is important is to understand that most anarchists advocate not just one, but two transitional stages. First: Preconfiguration. To anarchists the revolution is not a coup, but a popular revolution - sometimes even a potentially peaceful one - that comes as the culmination of working class power - most commonly through unions (the syndicalists). Once the workers have built up their ability to run and manage businesses (through increased workplace democracy and union rule) and the capitalists' power is weakened to the point that the workers - through collective organization - holds more power - they take over. In other words, the transition here happened within capitalism and the workers are ready to take over immediately - with the organizations behind that that are fit instruments to replace the existing hierarchy (syndicalist congress). Second: The move towards post-scarcity (i.e. what Marx called High Communism) Once the workers have abolished capitalism, the syndicates take over, or the companies are turned into coops - or, they are rendered to the collective and managed democratically. This however, is not "communism". It is a transitional stage, only without a non-democratic/totalitarian vanguard on top. The revolution occurs and the next step is a form of socialism, where the workers or the people own and manage the means of production. This can for instance mean a syndicate/co-operative economy transitioning into communism (or the anarchists may not even be inclined towards communism and prefers a socialist market system). *Some anarchists do want to go directly from the the revolution to a "low communist" model, but this would be after the transitioning leading up to the revolution - or; they were writing at a time when small local communities were autonomous.
This seems like this Syndicalism you purport is lacking in political representation, that De Leon's Industrial Union theory is able to supplement. Interestingly enough The October Revolution was conducted in like fashion to a De Leonist revolution of the only remaining governing body being workers councils, as Lenin was inspired by De Leon. In addition to workers obtaining numerical and economic power through an industrial union, a political party in opposition to the bourgeois parties should be erected for the sole purpose of getting voted into the bourgeois state and to dismantle it as well as itself leaving the Industrial union to restructure itself into a organizing congress whose constiteunt members are representatives of various industries to plan the economy. Eric Hass has a good descriptive piece about the Industrial Union congress here: slp.org/pdf/others/siu_pam.pdf and here's a short video with Hass: th-cam.com/video/_apBa-Gx5mo/w-d-xo.html And here's De Leon's refutation of your Anarcho Syndicalism here: slp.org/pdf/de_leon/eds1909/aug03_1909.pdf
@@sithofdarkness8927 I am not supporting syndicalism/anarcho-syndicalism, I am simply correcting an error - though it is worth noting that the Soviet system as originally purported by Lenin was identical/comparable to the political system supported by most Anarchists at the time, which is also why they joined forces.
Fungy Bungy would likemindedness not included shared ideals and values? Syndicalism and unionism is so far the only practical method of change/revolution I’ve come across that deals with how to effectively create substantial social and material change. I think even egoists fit into it since unionism exists to empower individual workers. In the autonomist tradition, worker also includes the unemployed, students and whatnot as the working class/proletariat is all inclusive and varied. A union can be a union of students or academics like scientists or people whom share a hobby, not just manual labourers like we usually conceive of them. I think this fits in well with anarchism
@@SpiderWick12 Perhaps, but it's too thickly plagued with Class reductionism and not seriously organizing for local power the way DSA is. PSL is the closest org to a Cadre party we currently have atm.
Hassan is mostly right in his explanation, even Myself I am leaning into Marxism/Leninism category. Leninism is not so much a revolutionary ideology as anti-imperialist ideology. Theoretical explanation of imperialism is the biggest contribution of Lenin to the theory.
@@smotretvseru You have a strange definition of "colonised'. if you mean east europe, they had higher level of living then USSR. There industry was develop as minimum to same level like in USSR. So, no, they were not colonies.
@@smotretvseru not really, but to that point this is what happens when ideology meets reality. States after revolutions have inherited many things like nationalism and imperialism, those can't dissappear in a day. They have to be in some way recouperated and withered away slowly. Concessions have to be made.
The thing is, when did we collectively deluded ourselves into thinking social and economical are not related in any way. Your economic philosophy is often informed by your social values.
neoliberalism and social democracy may have similar social positions, but the Neoliberal does not truly care, as their economic policy perpetuates the crap they claim to be against, so neoliberal social positions are disingenuous
One little thing, Richard Wolff is a Marxist, not an anarcho - syndaclist. All marxists advocate for worker councils, the distinction between anarchists and marxists is with the state - which wolff advocates for. In fact, Richard wolff denounces Chomsky's anarchism.
I took a revolutions class for history this year we learned about the Russian Revolution, alongside that we learned about all of these terms. It was very interesting!
@@papichulo4171 it's not around the 90's during the arduous march markets were reintroduced thus reintroducing a class dynamic within the DPRK. China's current system is more favourable for the agrarian working class than the DPRK's
@@paulai.santiago6885 i don't see him being leftist or even talking about theory like hasan etc though. he's only pointing out neoliberalism problems but just stop there, doesn't see further especially not with materialistic analysis. hope that makes sense
Also within anarchism there’s socialists who want to keep money or other kinds of exchange as a transition to communism, catalonia for example was an anarchist state for a while and certainly wasn’t a direct transition to communism (in fact, some referred to it as “democratic socialism”, in contradiction with how this guy defined that too)
I remember when one of my teachers in like middle school said france was a communist country because they had a cap on the amount of hours per week you could work
How is that not communist? The state controlling how long you can work is absurd. Someone that takes 5hrs to finish a job vs someone that takes 2hrs. It's literally controlling what you can do
@@lastnamefirstname4678 And yet France has a state, classes, and money..holy shit look at that it's almost like France meets none of the definitions of being Communism
@@lastnamefirstname4678 Putting a cap on how much you can work is not Communist lolol if anything it's Authoritarian..please for the love of God tell me you understand that Communism and Authoritarianism are two completely different things
@@lastnamefirstname4678 If the the limit on how much the employer can expect you to work is the result of negotiations, aka demands from the workers. Then how would that be communism? You Americans are so concerned with labels that they loose all meaning :)
Among the current accusations that mask wearing is Communism, I've been thinking; If you define communism (little c) as any social relationship based on the concept of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need " then yes. Wearing a mask to prevent yourself from spreading disease, to the best of your ability, is literally that
According to that you could argue that Christianity and any kind of charity are also communist. Americans love both and should drop both to not become communist
That's not what it means... Plus, that's not how it goes. It's "From each according to their production, to each according to their need." It moreso corresponds to meritocracy: "From each according to their production", ie, how much you work, that much you get; "to each according to their need", ie, how much you need, that much you get (so you own the fruits of your labour, but also, if you need some help, you also get welfare from social safety nets).
As a Cuban, I can tell you that all the means of production are not government controlled, most farms are owned by farmers who can get land from the government. Factories are government owned along with corporations, however there are also cooperatives that are owned by a the laborers that work in that cooperative, these tend to be very successful for those workers. And no, it’s not classless, but there’s also no billionaire level people
The State planners and party bureaucracy basically functions as bourgeoisie. Eventually the bureaucracy will envy the liberal democracies bourgeoisie and will dismantle the system like in the USSR or China I'd assume.
Bernie kept saying those countries were socialist just to make the American people more open to socialism. It was insane. If you can't be honest about your ideas then maybe those aren't good ideas. Got so bad that the Swedish or Norway president said they weren't a socialist country and loved capitalism haha
Technically, a communist state has existed. In 1848, Paris became the Paris Commune, a true Communist civilization. It lasted for about 2 weeks and then the government was put down by French forces.
Not really. A "commune" just means community or village. There were still classes, hierarchies, money and the state. It was socialist, yes, council democratic to be exact (pretty cool), but not socialist. Once again, communism is just the end goal to socialism, but we aren't yet so advanced to reach it (we need really good technology to achieve automated post-scarcity economy).
my dad is an anarchist but he hates communism, its kinda sad to see because its a response to the trauma he faced when the USA blocked trade with our county for establishing a communist/socialist democratically elected leader
started to marinate some defrosted chicken breasts instead of heating up frozen pizzas. Half oil, half soy. Some black pepper, red peppers and garlic if u have it. Just have it in the fridge. Damn son. My taste buds are rock hard.
As a german i am very sorry for that Pokemon dude. I can just assume that he is part of the so called "FDP" ( Freie Demokratische Partei or Free Democratic Party) what he is reffering to is that they are socially speaking pro gay marriage, abortion etc. What he doesnt mention is that they are for german standards extremely pro capitalism. In an very unhealthy way. Which is technically speaking economically but obviously has major effects on all aspects of life. Predominantly negative effects on the working class by deregulating the market. What he doesnt understand is that espically deregulated capitalism leads to social problems.
I always considered myself a SocDem, but I've recently realized I lean more towards Anarcho Syndicalism. I'm not versed on theory, but I'm familiar with many of the concepts. What's a good place to get started reading theory? I'm a caregiver, so I work from home and have plenty of time on my hands. Any recommendations? I would greatly appreciate it.
In South Korea, neoliberals are also considered left-wing. The most left-wing party isn't even socialist and is considered far-left. One of the effects of bordering North Korea.
while i mostly agree, and don't stan the vanguard too hard, it kind of did "magically come together" in 1917. The Bolsheviks had almost zero support that same summer, and just kept plugging away talking to workers. I forget where I pulled the quote and I'm not digging through 30 books, but a worker had asked Lenin how he'd convince him that he's right, when the Bolsheviks had so clearly lost to the Mensheviks, and Lenin said that it wasn't his job to convince him but that life would. And by October it had. Again, not saying it's what will happen, but just that the vanguard does kind of "just happen." And it didn't take everyone reading all the theory, just consistent leadership. Not every worker in pre-soviet russia read and understood marx or lenin. But they kept hearing what Lenin and the Bolsheviks had to say, and eventually the material conditions became such that they realized Lenin had been correct, and they flocked to him.
@@traberge It's wild how leftists still can't decide if personal firearms are a good or bad thing. Good luck hunting; it's guns & bullets vs bongs & dildos.
@@traberge Owning guns make you right wing or a criminal ;) The Left is very firm on taking civilian guns away. I can't wait for them to have a civil war over this and other wedge issues like LGBT for kids.
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. . . well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men. - Captain Luke said it well!
Neoliberalism's political ideology is meant to be a cover for their economic ideology. People are willing to support debt slavery if it has leaders who are LGBT Women of Color.
Yes communism has never been achieved. But you beat the memes by adding “and it’s not going to be achieved for a long time, even if we switch to socialism like next year”
The closest thing I've seen to actual communism was in an episode of "The Last of Us" when Joel meets up with his brother, and his wife (played by Rutina Wesley) explains that they are communists. Otherwise it's just people misusing a word as an insult the same way they do with the word woke
As far as I knew Socialism is an economic arrangement pertaining to individual economic enterprises, not society as a whole. He basically defined socialism as an alternative form of communitarianism. If an economy is 51% comprised of either worker cooperatives, direct equal partnerships, or individually owned and operated business that economy is a majority socialist economy. This is precisely why few countries have ever been socialist, let alone communist. Socialism: workers ownership (posession, control, also both work) of the their means of production, inconjunction with a democratic one person one vote democratic system of inter-enterprise internal decision making, when an enterprise contain 3 or more people. Consciousness democracy when a two person partnership, or direct control when a enterprise is operated by a single individual. Example: worker cooperative, direct partnership (2 person enterprises), individually owned and operated business. communitarianism: A theory or system of social organization based on small self-governing communities. An ideology which emphasizes the responsibility of the individual to the community and the social importance of the family unit. Communism: A moneyless, classless, stateless society.
Nordic/West-Germany model is quite literally 'social democratic corporatism'. (use Google if some nouns, adjectives or verbs etc I use are unknown) 😬 Usually meaning workers unions and employers organization negotiate how profits society produces are shared and which government then prints to a law. During the negotiations, workers can push back against employers by strikes for example, which costs employer side money daily, while union pays the wages. Unions get money from small fees workers pay, to unions controlled funds which often are funds that are invested in global markets for more leverage to fight over their share of profits. This all is very much dependent on low corruption level and high trust in democratic institutions such as free press which is currently "cut" over social media and citizens not being provided investigative journalism, like press is publishing press releases of the powerful instead of investigating the truth behind them. So I'm not sure this model is doable in USA right now, unless fix some basic things in society... (changing governance system to parliament and electoral system to party-list proportional representation couldn't hurt but instead you want to change markets from capitalist to socialist for the entire planet, because that will get left the votes they need to repel fascism from status quo..? Which often leaves an impression of "US left being it's own worst enemy" ... Probably stemming from Dunning Kruger effect when getting into "new ideology in US, or Leftism", so anarchism sounds like a solution that will fix it all...?)
Hasan: "I hate all this fighting between leftists" Also Hasan: (dunks on other types of leftists that he disagrees with). (I'm talking about the first part of the video)
That "anakiddie" label is pretty offensive and condescending. Libertarian-socialism or left-libertarianism (including all flavours of (left-)anarchism) vs e.g. Marxist-Leninism is a questions of what your are prioritising. You can be an anarchist and a student of Marxist theory. You can also work with Marxist-Leninists.
I agree. Love hasan but don't claim to hate infighting then put down other leftists for their differences. We're a lot more powerful working together than apart and it's the only way I believe we will ever overcome capitalism.
I consider myself a anarchist in the sense that I believe the ultimate goal of society should be to strive for the ruler less society, one in which we balance freedom and societal needs and have rhe balance of anarcho-communism. The reason I do not want to fully identify as a communist is because I believe there is a risk of losing sight of those goals when we achieve the goals of communism.
There actually has been a true communist society: Revolutionary Catalonia. They were anarchosyndicalist/anarchocommunist and they did suprisingly well. It ended because of Stalins intervention in the Spanish civil war against the fascists.
Cataluña revolucionaria was not communist. Syndicalists are not communist, which is why they difger from ancoms. And the way they organized was trough syndicalism. So they used money and markets.
@@waltercapa5265 Most anarchosyndicalists are anarchocommunists. Anarchocommunism is an ideal Anarchosyndicalism is a strategy. The governance of catalonia was rooted in anarchosyndicalism and anarchocommunism. Youre right to point out that im wrong by calling it a communist society though.
@@aiuifohzosfdh But it isn't true. Maybe there are some ancoms that would accept a market that would dissappear eventually, but some syndicalists want markets to stay because they consider it a necessary tool. I believe mutualism also happen to be a case of market socialism, but not sure about that.
That PokemonChallenges dude was talking mad shit. In Ireland we have two big centre right parties who are almost identical. The biggest difference is what side they were on in a civil war 100 years ago. A handy way to figure out European political parties at a glance is to see what party they're affiliated with in the EU parliament. One of our centre-right parties (FF) is in ALDE (liberal), which is the same European party as Pokemon's German "neoliberal party" (I assume he's talking about the FDP) The other Irish centre-right party (FG) is in EPP (conservative) which up until last year also contained Viktor Orban's fashy Fidesz party. The reason I bring this up is that you wouldn't be able to tell which of those parties was the liberal one if you were only looking at Irish politics. If anything "liberal" FF representatives are more likely to publicly hold more socially conservative views than "conservative" FG because it's a big tent party with a disproportionately older, rural, Catholic voter base. They're all the fucking same, is my point.
The reason Americans think 'neoliberal' means 'left' is because the *political* term 'liberal' in the US means 'left' somehow, while 'neoliberalism' is an *economic* term that is far right lasseiz-faire aka 'new' classical liberal economics. Americans aren't educated enough to understand the difference, and just hear the word 'liberal'(=left), so 'neoliberal'=left too. We really need to start using another term for 'neoliberal' in common discourse in America if we expect people to understand what neoliberalism actually is.
The way that he had to explain so many times ‘why social democracy and neoliberalism are different things’ is SO american😭😭 i mean how can they think of such a thing?
After watching this, I'm trying to figure out whether I'm a revisionist Marxist or a democratic socialist or a social democrat, but I'm so glad I watched this. It was very educational and Hassan's commentary was insightful.
I’m a bit conflicted because On the surface level Anarchism is, in theory, the only proper way you can overthrow capitalism on a global scale, but it seems less realistic to accomplish than democratic socialism on a practical level.
incorrect chief! capitalism is all consuming and has created a mindset of there can be nothing else. It is the great capitalistic lie! chin up Comrade!
@@Luke-tp6pu I'm confused how communism would work. I mean on the surface and as an idea it sounds great and it would be great, if it worked that is. But it just sounds like a mess to me if it was to become actually real
@@kiiturii No! the redistribution of wealth is easily achievable. all you need to do is make the workers, the people in charge and the profits from labour is shared amongst them. this can be in many ways such as: capital, education, healthcare, homes, infrastructure, commodities etc. these things are already in place in a lot of countries but only to a certain scale. this needs to be expanded upon and make the core of society. one does not work for oneself, one works for everyone. the individual is a bourgeois lie. Capitalism has created a mindset that makes it easier to imagine the end of life on the planet than it is to imagine different societies. it is just a restructuring of society that makes everyone equal. very achievable and practical.
@@Luke-tp6pu I was asking how it would work. This sounds like more dreaming of a perfect world. This is anything but "easy" to implement. "all you need to do is make the workers, the people in charge and the profits from labour is shared amongst them. this can be in many ways such as: capital, education, healthcare, homes, infrastructure, commodities etc." What exactly do you mean? Do you mean these things should be free? I don't see how the profits from labour equals capital, education, healthcare, homes, infrastructure, commodities etc. Also. All these things come in different qualities. if everyone is equal like you say then who get's the mansions and who is forced to live in a shitty old apartment with one room? I'm just super confused how you could make this all work. What you responded with just sounds like a pipe dream. Some perfect world with perfect people where no one complains and everyone follows your ideal. Sounds super unrealistic.
@@kiiturii yes you should have 100% free healthcare and education. production only happens from workers working. items are only sold from workers working. why do CEOs get the bigger wage? the answer: they shouldn't. maybe the worker will get lower wages but gets the benefits of not having to pay for healthcare, eduction, rent etc. surely not having to go into financial debt and end up homeless because you happen to get cancer out weights the a smaller wage. though you'd have less expenditure. people who earn more money get taxed more. no one needs 100million let alone 1billion. it is wealth hoarding. who needs a mansion? fuck maybe there should be idk building regulations that people have to follow so no one has too much or too little? just you know think a little more. this isn't a pipe dream. this is a very real thing that will happen or it will be the end. you think it is a pipe dream because capitalism is so all consuming it is now inescapable. you cannot wake up a day with out living capitalism. you should read Capitalism Realism by Mark Fisher. it is free online. easy to find. good book.
![กี่หมื่นฟ้า | Your Sky Series EP.1 [2/4]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/qJbQs_nhjD4/mqdefault.jpg)
America is so right-minded, people consider liberals as left lol.
Because American style liberalism actually IS a leftwing philosophy. It‘s different from European liberalism (what is called „classical liberalism“ in the US).
@@s_h136 no its not.
EFE ERCELIK
It is. American liberalism basically aligns with what is social democracy in Europe.
the2jaywhite american liberalism doesn’t even want M4A, are you serious?
EFE ERCELIK
You have no idea what you‘re talking about. Ever heard of FDRs „Four Freedoms“, New Deal and Second Bill of Rights? LBJs Great Society Act? These are all liberal ideas. Jimmy Carter and JFK both argued for universal healthcare/M4A. THIS is American liberalism. Modern day establishment Democrats like Clinton, Biden, Obama etc. aren‘t liberals, they‘re moderate conservatives or centrists at best. Stop conflating liberalism with todays Democratic party.
Wait, neo-liberalism is not right wing to Americans? What? Literally everywhere neo-liberalism is been to the right to Smith 's invisible hand.
"Neo-liberalism" in USA means "new liberals" aka "SJW PC CULTURAL MARXIST SOCIALISTS", not free market socially progressive capitalism
@@jirojhasuo2ndgrandcompany745 Both are liberals, "SJWs" are more socially liberal, meanwhile capitalists are economic liberals.
@@behindyou666 were talking about Neoliberalism
They don’t even understand meters, they’re just on a conflict about being liberal or conservative but always within right wing
@@jirojhasuo2ndgrandcompany745 uh no neoliberals are Clinton that worked together with Republicans to create free trade deals that have hurt labor. Social justice warriors are just radical liberals who stress social issues and are generally annoying.
It’s the “we want more women doing drone strikes” meme
I've heard it referred to as Intersectional Imperialism, and I love the accuracy of that phrase
More like: No wars can longer be profitable and therefore all large scale conflicts disappear. Armies being voluntary instead of conscripted or coerced into it to have access to rights such as healthcare and medicine. Profits as a concept kind of ceases to exist under any such society, the gains are distributed democratically.
Oh boy did that meme come true.
His ranting on the infighting between lefties is exactly how I feel every time I see all the leftist larpers on twitter and it’s exactly why I like Hassan more than most other popular leftists. You have to be realistic about the balance between your political ideology and how the world actually works.
@Mitch Howe I don't know if it's just internet culture or what, but it seems like everyone also has to have a label on the left. You can't just say "I'm far-left" because then conservatives think that you're a Democrat and then leftists feel like they have to know if you're ancom, socialist, libertarian socialist, marxist, maoist, marxist-leninist, etc. It's honestly really childish. Twitter is the worst at this. Like, I honestly think that Marist-Leninist ideology is interesting (don't know if I subscribe to it) but I can't find anyone that I take seriously on there because all ML's on Twitter seem to be anime weebs. Hard for me to believe that they'll be leading or participating in any kind of vanguard.
Mitch Howe that’s literally just dialectical materialism though ML(M)s entire ideology is based upon the principles you just described
Samfia Drangus you cant be a leftist without having an actual tangible roadmap for building socialism. Marxism-leninism(-maoism) is the only successful/universally applicaable leftist ideological framework imo. to nebulously call yourself a “leftist” means nothing to the actual working class unless you’re organizing; and as mao says, practice synthesizes theory-in that light-the light of the confines of material reality-you’re just led back to marxist dialectical materialism and lenin’s continuation. there are plenty of good MLs on twitter lol @birthmarxist is one of my favs.
@@drill6739 Thanks, I'll check out birthmarxist. And I get what you're saying, I just hate how so many people on the left expect everyone around them to be on the same level as them when it comes to understanding leftist theory. Especially when they talk down to people who are unfamiliar the subjects. You're not going to organize people who might be brainwashed by Western ideology if you don't realize that most people are brainwashed to begin with.
Moderate leftists get the bullet too.
"You dont love the spirit of justice. You love your father the devil."
when I tell you I scrolled by your comment LITERALLY EXACTLY as that sound byte player, not even joking like the milissecond...... what the fuck
@@yurilopes420 same lmfaooooo
@@yurilopes420 Yoo that's sick
repent unto Christ g
We don't know if star trek is communist since we don't know whether or not the state or class still exist.
It’s absolutely pathetic how the vast majority of people in the US have zero clue what any of these concepts actually mean. The words socialism, communism, etc. have been completely changed to mean failure or evil in so many peoples minds here. That change is literally because the rampant capitalism here has pedaled that message down to the working class in such a way that they believe and adhere to obvious exploitation of themselves. I wish I knew how to combat this but I really just don’t know what the first step in this country would be, it’ll take such an overturn in ideology that I truly believe this country will fail so fuckin hard (beyond what’s happening now) before we can make any actual progress
There's a failure in US education to not discuss politics or the history of the past 70 years in any detail. More time is spent on US History than any other historical subject but the narrative is "We won WWII and saved the world, the civil rights movement of the 1960s ended racism, vietnam happened, then 9/11 happened, now we're here" which is a supreme disservice to the dynamics of the shift from imperial monarchies to international wars to bilateral and then unilateral world power structures in the last century.
Spot on, the ghost of Reagan haunts us to this day.
A secondary part of it has been the US campaign of extermination against leftists across the world. I highly recommend looking up The Jakarta Method. Late capitalist indoctrination has only been so total because of the mass murder of trade unionists and communists.
I think a good way is to break down the concept with relatable examples. Eg: down to the family. A purely capitalistic structure would be if a family member who earns a significant income refuses to help a family member who needs to pay medical bills. Because that's literally what it's like. I find it strange that Americans who share so much in common see the other side as enemies even though they belong to the same country and live in the same neighbourhood.
there is no other way to save Americans so the only way is by bringing them down before they destroy other countrys like they did with middle east.. US must be destroyed before is too late...
@@sgtjohnson49 is it a failure if it's done on purpose? I'd say the people who have the power have succeeded in making sure they keep it for as long as possible.
"Democratic Socialism is NOT the same as Social Democracy." Boy I can't figure out why anyone would be confused by this.
The thing is historically it was the same. Historically there only was social democracy which was characterized by advocating a reformist road to socialism. But during the cold war most of the social democratic parties in Europe denounced socialism and the people who actually still wanted a democratic road to socialism started calling themselves democratic socialists to distinguish themselves from the new "soc-dems"
You still achieve your political goals by shooting people that don't agree with you.
Democratic socialism aims for social democracy first, though.
Propaganda and a lack of knowledge
@@Lukas-xb7cx It's like saying historically no one's achieved communism but plenty of people are already flying that flag and people have already fought for it in name, so that ship has been sailed. Communism has been perverted, whether anyone likes it or not.
A wise woman once told me: "Lock two leftists in a room, they will come out with three parties".
My God is that true, lol. The only way to unite them is to put them under a horribly oppressive right wing capitalistic regime.
Welcome to America, land of the inequality, home of the right
I am very intrigued by your profile picture.. that's the Shiva Nataraja symbol from Tamil Nadu!!
@@highgrounder no, you must show them through nuclear holocaust.
@@ThamizhanDaa1 எங்கு சென்றாலும் சங்கியான்ஸ்!! அவனே சும்மா illustration நல்லா இருக்கே நு வச்சிருப்பான்!! எல்லா இடத்துலயும் பெரும பீத்துவியா?🤣
@@dummybava5971 போடா துழுக்கா.. எவளோ அர்த்தம் நிறைந்த சிலை தெரியுமா சிவ நடராஜ சிலை.???
Shows how far right the UK and US have gotten that we can't even get a social democratic leader
Or like a moderate
Spain for example did, but the thing is corrupción, to much liders have spelled the beans, xd.
Uk is not far right at all, u cannot use us and uk in the same sentence. Uk is not far right at all compared to America for e.g even the right party in the uk the torys believe in free health care it’s considered a bare minimum nerd
@@dsatish1997 Yes we are. People voted for Brexit because of stupid nationalist lies and racism. BoJo was elected, and even though he is a bumbling oaf alot of the time he is genuinely malicious, and his puppeteer Cummings absolutely is a horrible piece of shit
The UK is not far right, the conservatives are barely a Conservative party, what exactly do they conserve? They have one function and that is winning elections. They would execute the queen in Trafalgar Square if they thought it would win them an election.
I think understanding the distinctions between leftist schools is important. But, what you call yourself is far less important than whether or not you understand that class solidarity and mobilization is the best way to enact change.
Nazis were as socialist as social democrats are now
Basically praxis is just as important as theory, which is right!!!!
@@RodrigoroRex This statement hurt my brain. It's not wrong, but what's the take-away? It feels like you're trying to knock social democrats as "not socialist", which doesn't make much sense to me given the fact that no one has posited that they are.
Imagine wearing a mask for a profile picture
@@KTroyborg This is several months late, but I think they were saying that "Nazis are bad" and "Nazis are socialist", and since "Nazis are as socialist as socdems" then "socdems are bad too". It's the same rhetoric that states Nazis having socialist in the name means they were actually socialist, and therefore "socialists" (here, misrepresented as "social democrats") are Nazis. it's just a way to try to discredit socialism based on a fallacious reading of history (because everyone knows the DPRK having "Democratic Republic" in the name means that it actually is one, right).
Though, funnily enough, as you highlighted, they unintentionally discredited their _own_ point, because they missed socdems are, in fact, not socialists either.
The separation of social issues and economic issues is a liberal lie. It is meaningless to say that you're progressive in social issues when your economic policy (the material conditions you want to set up) is in favor of a system that exploits the workers, and among them the most negatively affected are the marginalized groups that you claim you support.
I did not expect to see an oney motherfucking plays fan spouting facts holy hell lmao.
actually so based
You just said so much with 0 actual meaning. This is common sense lol
@@vintinoo1924 seems like you dont watch the part of the video where chatter want to debate exactly this thing
I hate when "progressives" advocate for capitalism with the justification of "it gives the most freedom". I hate that so much because it's just not true.
100% true about neoliberalism. Back when I was in university 15 years ago, I was taught that neoliberalism is a far-right ideology and everyone understood this. I find it baffling and disturbing that neoliberalism is suddenly considered a "centrist" ideology.
this video is actually pretty educational. as a teenager who goes to a public high school in the u.s. midwest, we always learned that communism/socialism = bad, capitalism = good. when we had a lecture about communism in our economic class, my teacher literally asked a fucking student what the definition of communism was instead of just giving us the dictionary definition (or any type of simplistic breakdown of the general goals of communism). and, as someone who started subscribing to leftist media during the pandemic (not even theory yet, just trying to shift my perception to the fact that capitalism is exploitation), i only got so far into it to be able to correct them in my head (that communism isn’t the devil and that no, china is not a communist state and there has never been a communist state). however, i couldn’t explain WHY there had never been a communist state or give a totally simplified definition of communism myself, so i (regretfully) didn’t speak up and just allowed a completely incorrect narrative to continue for the next hour and a half because i didn’t want to look stupid. anyways, thanks for the explanation, it was very helpful to see the graph of all of the different sects of communism as well.
awesome!
you should also look for meaning of "real" capitalism, not the one in US which is regulated by government. I suggest you to research for The Austrian School of Economics.
Emre the Austrian school of economics is shit
Communism and socialism is evil, they take what you have earned and distribute it which seems like stealing to me.
@@grandmagertrude6358 go watch your TV shows, grandma
That dude talking about noelibs being close to socdems or whatever was flat out stupid. He says you're focusing too much on economics when the whole point of this was about economics.
Also important to note that economic conditions drive social conditions. While socdems and neolibs might agree on certain social issues, they have different solutions.
@@ezra8440 Socdems need the neolib money, neolibs need the socdem vote. Socdems don't really care what neolibs do in other countries, otherwise AOC would be condemning US Military actions in the Middle East.
@@MK_ULTRA420 you mean like this? www.businessinsider.com/aoc-condemns-trumps-iran-attack-and-pushes-for-congressional-action-2020-1 or this? www.newsweek.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-trump-syria-financial-conflicts-interest-withdrawing-military-1464178
"You're focusing too much on economics!" while literally watching a stream discussing economic philosophies...holy fucking dumb
@@MK_ULTRA420 SocDems and neolib need each other, because half of this country is braindead and think republicans are an actual option. Once(if ever), the Republican Party dies, then there would be a socDems vs NeoLibs where grown ups could actually do politics
Damn bro I want to watch Star Trek for the first time in my three decades of life
It's SO good. More philosophy and problem solving than pew pews. But still some pew pews.
@@mandi4794 I love your analysis
@@t.f.9 Yes, TNG is the best Star Trek series, but it only gets good after season 3 and onward.
12:30 regarding Hasan's comment that leftists have killed one another over these differences. YES. I'm so fucking glad that someone with a great platform like Hasan is saying this. These differences divide the left organizationally even in grassroots ops when often-times the goal is to just educate people on how capitalism is reducing the quality of life for the vast majority of people (plus all the other fucked up conditions capitalism causes).
Too often I have seen Leftists turn on each other in organizing spaces on the basis of theoretical grounds or minor praxis. So many leftists hate other leftists (tankies v. anarchists for example) because of some label, and the fucked up thing is that often times these people haven't even read ANY THEORY, and are just falling into a tribal mindset they create for themselves.
As leftists, we should be united in our goals to SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION FROM CAPITALISM, even if that means doing so incrementally. Then we can debate on policy and direction after we've achieved that goal.
My guy, the in-fighting between leftists were at their worst after the revolution, not before it. Literal battles were fought between leftist camps after MoP seizures because the divides could no longer be ignored and our ideological differences became unresolvable. This is why some leftists don't consider Left Unity worth anything.
Eric Dowe Not completely true, many revolutions have united the left and even in Russia a lot of socialists and basically all communists united under the bolsheviks.
@@davidulanovsky8943 LOL yeah the Bolsheviks were united until Lenin became their leader and ordered the arrests and deaths of "political dissidents" AKA the first wave of Communist revolutionaries. The first wave of revolutionaries in every Communist revolution always get killed off by the second wave of Communist authoritarians. Hitler purged them, Lenin purged them, Stalin purged them, Mao Zedong purged them, Kim Il Sung purged them, Pol Pot purged them, Fidel Castro purged them...violent intersectionality isn't a flaw of leftism, it's a feature.
MK ULTRA That’s not even close to what happened in any of those cases😂
@@pygmalion8952 Also seen in Ukraine, after the October Revolution a large group of anarchists established the Free Territory in eastern Ukraine and managed to fight off both the Bolsheviks and the White Army (the Bolsheviks and anarchists did work together several times to defeat the Whites) however it was the Bolsheviks that ultimately backstabbed them and forced them out.
Yeeeeee Portuguese Flag!! Nice hasan!! love from this beautiful country
Was here just for the flag comment
PORTUGAL CARALHO !
Curious as to why he has the flag, does he have portuguese family or he just visited and liked the country?
@@koala6494 PORTUGAL CARALHOOOO
BRASIL TAMBÉM PORRA, VAMO PORTUGA!!!
Anarchist here. And honestly. I think you're pretty damned based Hasan
We may not agree on a lot of how to change shit , but you are my comrade
ew anarchist
This made me realize just how far to the Left I've moved in the past few years. I remember thinking that Bernie Sanders was a Socialist candidate while he was running for office. Still think he's great and was the obvious best choice for America though let's be real
Social Democrats are viewed less well by leftists in Europe since a lot of countries have a dynamic of a neoliberal right-wing party and a social-democratic left-wing party as the biggest parties. Basically, this means that in places like Scandinavia the social democrats are no longer furthering change, rather just keeping our current system going instead of cutting welfare. This means that leftist will slowly have to shift left and consider social democrats on the capitalistic side, though America is at a point where leftist and social democrats should definitely still be collaborating.
That thumbnail is great. Thank you teacher Hasan
Holy shit after a few years of watching Hasan, I've learned enough of the PS major terms that I actually understood this entire video
repent unto Christ g
Lmao hasan is an accelerationist
I am too.
its hard to be young and horny in this here globalist society without becoming at least a bit sceptical and nihilistic. cos I mean, what if we do just let capitalism run itself into the ground.
@@olli3b3ar27 it’ll take too long
@@Nihilian nah, just takes a lot of starvation to run capitalism to the ground. It’s could happen pretty fast
@@jagmannenarbrand8373 I’m saying it’s naturally taking too long, for me, personally.
What kills me is that initially Social Democracy was a revisionist reformist socialist tendency. But by the 90's pretty much all Social Democratic parties had accepted the End Of History narrative and abandoned their socialist roots for the post-90's, Great Centrist Compromise of "Third Way" Welfare Capitalism. They'd abandoned the goal of reforming their way to socialism and by the 00's most all had abandoned their radical rhetoric.
I like azureScapegoat's content a lot, but many socialists of various tendencies and schools would reject that definition of socialism and say that "worker owned and controlled MOP" is the definition. Most would also consider communal ownership (though maybe not through a state) a valid example though it is usually considered valid for specific things and not others where worker self-organized workplaces would be the thing.
Most people who actually know fuck all about anarchism would also fundamentally disagree with the idea that all anarchists just seek to establish communism immediately following a revolution lol That is pure utopianism and, aside from some I've met online and on collage campuses, I haven't met many that naive. Most all view anarchism as a lease through which to view the world and ensure the most effective but ethical means of moving towards a socialist/communist end. But it's a project with no end and pretty much all (aside from the "primitivists" and some other anti-civ "post-leftists") recognize the need for transitioning between capitalist class society and a more egalitarian socialist society. We just reject the idea of a vanguard and a strong centralized state power forcing the transition. But there will obviously need to be transition and hella anarchists have written extensively on it. But ML/M's love that bs "aNaRcHiStS hAvE nO tHeOrY!" meme. We don't have a uniform program to follow step by step because the world is a little more complicated than that. But transition is necessary or the project would inevitably fail. Online, yeah, a lotta these teen anarchists are horrible identity-reductionists but I've been active in predominantly anarchist (but mixed-tendency and broader projects) groups and organizations for about 2 decades and I just don't see it or the petty sectarianism like that. Even most ML/M's I know aren't like the goofies ya see online. It's a different world in these spaces than the social media revolutionaries and internet radicals would have ya believe. I work with everything but Juche skids (something ya rarely actually see IRL too) now and we have a tight community of people that run the range of socialist thought.
And from what I know the issues with the DSA don't stem from the Libertarian Socialist Caucus so much as Liberal involvement and leadership not following their own guidelines. But idk. Any mixed-tendency project is bound to have issues if things are handled very carefully. I'm not a member cause it lowkey looked like a scam lol But I know mad people who are from NYC to Florida and most are anarchists, libertarian-socialists, left-Marxists, whatever.
I beg to differ. Most Europeans I know have said that the daylight between their SocDem parties and Liberal parties is constantly shrinking and that they tend to agree much more than not. From what I understand it's pretty much a failed experiment. They've completely compromised themselves. Not only is the kissing cousin of fascism unsustainable, unethical and essentially impossible to bring into reality in a place like the so-called US, it also seems about as utopian as it gets and so far off track in most places that it's crumbling. Ask someone in Europe or Scandinavia. Some places are better than others but it's getting increasingly worse. I disagree with him on most things but The Finnish Bolshevik has a few decent vids on the state of Social Democracy and there's mad articles and essays online detailing it's collapse and transition to a more liberal way of functioning. But what do I know.
✊👊🖤☮️🏴🥀🌐A///E
Even Bakunin said in the 1860s called for a "Revolutionary State" as a transition to a socialist form of development he later changed to calling it a "Commune" to distance himself from Marx and Lassale. Malatésta to although like all Anarchists was anti state said there would be a state just not as we'd know it today and the Proletariat, LumpenProl, or Peasantry would destroy the state whenever they'd find it achievable because class conflict wouldn't exist within the location they are in.
@Chester mandvol Nope. I'm a socdem and we defend capitalism and a welfare society. Which means we support capitalism. We aren't afraid of anything cause we support capitalism. We just want free healthcare and stuff
All forms of Anarchy (Ancoms and Ancaps) turn into Feudalism the moment some people want more wealth and power than others, and other people want a leader to follow. I'd support Anarchy but only if I was a nomadic raider like Attila the Hun or Genghis Khan.
Yeah bro, all of Europe is going to collapse because of Social Democracy. Yes.
@@mehmeterciyas6844 No but their open legs foreign policy will.
saying that SPD and FDP allign heavily (90%) on social issues is pretty insane.
Exaxtly! There is a reason why they sit at the opposite end of the parliament
Calling the SPD social democrats in anything else than what the party's name is, is just as insane...
They basically merged into a tiny CDU lmao.
@@demon-dj7yj they are exactly that. same for the Grüne Partei. if we could call any party in Germany "socdem" it’s the Linke, and even they tend to merge further with the neolib doctrine
IMPORTANT: There is a big mistake in the video that is commented on (not refuted here). The claim that anarchists want to go directly from capitalism to communism is incorrect, and a myth and/or misunderstanding typically propagated by Leninists.
What anarchists oppose is specifically the Leninist transition state (and their understanding of the more general Marxist transition state), where the vanguard party seizes power and transition society to communism - i.e. "Leninism".
They view this specific form of "transitioning" as totalitarian, oppressive and doomed to fail - as well as simply not "Socialist".
What is important is to understand that most anarchists advocate not just one, but two transitional stages.
First: Preconfiguration.
To anarchists the revolution is not a coup, but a popular revolution - sometimes even a potentially peaceful one - that comes as the culmination of working class power - most commonly through unions (the syndicalists). Once the workers have built up their ability to run and manage businesses (through increased workplace democracy and union rule) and the capitalists' power is weakened to the point that the workers - through collective organization - holds more power - they take over. In other words, the transition here happened within capitalism and the workers are ready to take over immediately - with the organizations behind that that are fit instruments to replace the existing hierarchy (syndicalist congress).
Second: The move towards post-scarcity (i.e. what Marx called High Communism)
Once the workers have abolished capitalism, the syndicates take over, or the companies are turned into coops - or, they are rendered to the collective and managed democratically. This however, is not "communism". It is a transitional stage, only without a non-democratic/totalitarian vanguard on top. The revolution occurs and the next step is a form of socialism, where the workers or the people own and manage the means of production. This can for instance mean a syndicate/co-operative economy transitioning into communism (or the anarchists may not even be inclined towards communism and prefers a socialist market system).
*Some anarchists do want to go directly from the the revolution to a "low communist" model, but this would be after the transitioning leading up to the revolution - or; they were writing at a time when small local communities were autonomous.
This seems like this Syndicalism you purport is lacking in political representation, that De Leon's Industrial Union theory is able to supplement. Interestingly enough The October Revolution was conducted in like fashion to a De Leonist revolution of the only remaining governing body being workers councils, as Lenin was inspired by De Leon.
In addition to workers obtaining numerical and economic power through an industrial union, a political party in opposition to the bourgeois parties should be erected for the sole purpose of getting voted into the bourgeois state and to dismantle it as well as itself leaving the Industrial union to restructure itself into a organizing congress whose constiteunt members are representatives of various industries to plan the economy. Eric Hass has a good descriptive piece about the Industrial Union congress here: slp.org/pdf/others/siu_pam.pdf and here's a short video with Hass: th-cam.com/video/_apBa-Gx5mo/w-d-xo.html
And here's De Leon's refutation of your Anarcho Syndicalism here: slp.org/pdf/de_leon/eds1909/aug03_1909.pdf
@@sithofdarkness8927 I am not supporting syndicalism/anarcho-syndicalism, I am simply correcting an error - though it is worth noting that the Soviet system as originally purported by Lenin was identical/comparable to the political system supported by most Anarchists at the time, which is also why they joined forces.
Fungy Bungy would likemindedness not included shared ideals and values? Syndicalism and unionism is so far the only practical method of change/revolution I’ve come across that deals with how to effectively create substantial social and material change. I think even egoists fit into it since unionism exists to empower individual workers. In the autonomist tradition, worker also includes the unemployed, students and whatnot as the working class/proletariat is all inclusive and varied. A union can be a union of students or academics like scientists or people whom share a hobby, not just manual labourers like we usually conceive of them. I think this fits in well with anarchism
@@sithofdarkness8927 To bad Lenin undermined the political power of the soviets for the politiburo
Too bad an apache can take out all the revolutionaries in a go.
This was so informative thank you
Get a real education then. Or never vote
For those who don't know, HOXHA is pronounced as HOJA (or Hodja). In politics, it refers to Albanian Enver Hoxha.
A vanguard part will materialize on its own if we read enough? Dude PSL is literally forming a Vanguard rn
idk if I get this. Is the PSL forming a vanguard in a way that other US socialist/communist parties aren't?
@@SpiderWick12 they're the only ones creating an explicitly Leftist Post-Capitalist advocating party.
@@draunt7 Is the CPUSA not creating such a party?
@@SpiderWick12 Perhaps, but it's too thickly plagued with Class reductionism and not seriously organizing for local power the way DSA is. PSL is the closest org to a Cadre party we currently have atm.
@@draunt7 Interesting.
Hassan is mostly right in his explanation, even Myself I am leaning into Marxism/Leninism category. Leninism is not so much a revolutionary ideology as anti-imperialist ideology. Theoretical explanation of imperialism is the biggest contribution of Lenin to the theory.
yeah, say that to 15 countries that definitely weren`t colonised
@@smotretvseru You have a strange definition of "colonised'. if you mean east europe, they had higher level of living then USSR. There industry was develop as minimum to same level like in USSR. So, no, they were not colonies.
@@smotretvseru not really, but to that point this is what happens when ideology meets reality. States after revolutions have inherited many things like nationalism and imperialism, those can't dissappear in a day. They have to be in some way recouperated and withered away slowly.
Concessions have to be made.
The thing is, when did we collectively deluded ourselves into thinking social and economical are not related in any way. Your economic philosophy is often informed by your social values.
I'm socialist but I'm moderatly socially conservative on some issues.
I'm socialist but I'm moderatly socially conservative on some issues.
“America deserved 9/11” - Karl Parx
neoliberalism and social democracy may have similar social positions, but the Neoliberal does not truly care, as their economic policy perpetuates the crap they claim to be against, so neoliberal social positions are disingenuous
Nancy PELOSI is the perfect example
Of a neo liberal
so this is how I learned I'm a neoliberalist and why I should change my thoughts on why I am X(
One little thing, Richard Wolff is a Marxist, not an anarcho - syndaclist. All marxists advocate for worker councils, the distinction between anarchists and marxists is with the state - which wolff advocates for. In fact, Richard wolff denounces Chomsky's anarchism.
I took a revolutions class for history this year we learned about the Russian Revolution, alongside that we learned about all of these terms. It was very interesting!
It hurts my brain that people think North Korea or China is communist
@@papichulo4171 eh I mean sure but do we really count North Korea?
@@papichulo4171 it's not around the 90's during the arduous march markets were reintroduced thus reintroducing a class dynamic within the DPRK. China's current system is more favourable for the agrarian working class than the DPRK's
@Mitch Howe I thought we all agreed it was a true dictatorship.
Kim Jong Il abandoned Marxism, North Korea is about as communist as Myanmar
@@papichulo4171 North Korea isn't socialist. Workers don't own the means of production.
I never knew pokemon challenges got clapped by Hasan but guess he claps everybody. Never even knew they had any beef or acknowledged one another
Hasan actually has alot of based takes and tbh he is actually starting to be one of my favourite youtubers alongside people like vaush and olly thorne
me too!
@@anarchychicken69 thats great comrade !!
Is Jake Tran good?
@@paulai.santiago6885 i don't see him being leftist or even talking about theory like hasan etc though. he's only pointing out neoliberalism problems but just stop there, doesn't see further especially not with materialistic analysis. hope that makes sense
YOURE BASED!!!
Also within anarchism there’s socialists who want to keep money or other kinds of exchange as a transition to communism, catalonia for example was an anarchist state for a while and certainly wasn’t a direct transition to communism (in fact, some referred to it as “democratic socialism”, in contradiction with how this guy defined that too)
Omg i love that at some point he unbanned pokemon challenges since this happened lmao
I love that there was an EpochTimes ad before this video.
I remember when one of my teachers in like middle school said france was a communist country because they had a cap on the amount of hours per week you could work
How is that not communist? The state controlling how long you can work is absurd. Someone that takes 5hrs to finish a job vs someone that takes 2hrs. It's literally controlling what you can do
@@lastnamefirstname4678 And yet France has a state, classes, and money..holy shit look at that it's almost like France meets none of the definitions of being Communism
@@harpoonmcfierce9697 you don't literally have to be the soviet union to be called communist lmao. That specific aspect is a communist thing
@@lastnamefirstname4678 Putting a cap on how much you can work is not Communist lolol if anything it's Authoritarian..please for the love of God tell me you understand that Communism and Authoritarianism are two completely different things
@@lastnamefirstname4678 If the the limit on how much the employer can expect you to work is the result of negotiations, aka demands from the workers. Then how would that be communism? You Americans are so concerned with labels that they loose all meaning :)
During the Spanish Civil War the was a significant part of the country that was close to a communist society for a time.
Among the current accusations that mask wearing is Communism, I've been thinking;
If you define communism (little c) as any social relationship based on the concept of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need " then yes. Wearing a mask to prevent yourself from spreading disease, to the best of your ability, is literally that
According to that you could argue that Christianity and any kind of charity are also communist. Americans love both and should drop both to not become communist
@@Ulas_Aldag But why do the charities exist in the first place? (dw I got the joke lol, but still)
@@ron4tron taking a shot at the side of a barn here, but... capitalism?
@@Ulas_Aldag Einstein is a Socialist 😂
That's not what it means... Plus, that's not how it goes. It's "From each according to their production, to each according to their need."
It moreso corresponds to meritocracy: "From each according to their production", ie, how much you work, that much you get; "to each according to their need", ie, how much you need, that much you get (so you own the fruits of your labour, but also, if you need some help, you also get welfare from social safety nets).
As a Cuban, I can tell you that all the means of production are not government controlled, most farms are owned by farmers who can get land from the government.
Factories are government owned along with corporations, however there are also cooperatives that are owned by a the laborers that work in that cooperative, these tend to be very successful for those workers.
And no, it’s not classless, but there’s also no billionaire level people
yea the socialism stage
The State planners and party bureaucracy basically functions as bourgeoisie. Eventually the bureaucracy will envy the liberal democracies bourgeoisie and will dismantle the system like in the USSR or China I'd assume.
imagine if he ran a video like this today with all the RP frogs watching dear god
Im from Sweden and no one is calling the Nordic countries for Socialist.
Bernie kept saying those countries were socialist just to make the American people more open to socialism. It was insane. If you can't be honest about your ideas then maybe those aren't good ideas.
Got so bad that the Swedish or Norway president said they weren't a socialist country and loved capitalism haha
Technically, a communist state has existed. In 1848, Paris became the Paris Commune, a true Communist civilization. It lasted for about 2 weeks and then the government was put down by French forces.
It actually lasted for about 2 months, i wonder what could’ve been
a communist state is a contradiction. Read. Marx.
Not really. A "commune" just means community or village. There were still classes, hierarchies, money and the state. It was socialist, yes, council democratic to be exact (pretty cool), but not socialist.
Once again, communism is just the end goal to socialism, but we aren't yet so advanced to reach it (we need really good technology to achieve automated post-scarcity economy).
This video is a classic in my eyes.
hasan your videos are honestly so informative and im so grateful that you make these holy shit
Anyone else notice Jan from PokemonChallenges arguing with Hasan lol. The internet is wild.
my dad is an anarchist but he hates communism, its kinda sad to see because its a response to the trauma he faced when the USA blocked trade with our county for establishing a communist/socialist democratically elected leader
Anarchism is literally a form of Communism lmao
typical amerikan imperialism
started to marinate some defrosted chicken breasts instead of heating up frozen pizzas. Half oil, half soy. Some black pepper, red peppers and garlic if u have it. Just have it in the fridge. Damn son. My taste buds are rock hard.
As a german i am very sorry for that Pokemon dude. I can just assume that he is part of the so called "FDP" ( Freie Demokratische Partei or Free Democratic Party) what he is reffering to is that they are socially speaking pro gay marriage, abortion etc. What he doesnt mention is that they are for german standards extremely pro capitalism. In an very unhealthy way. Which is technically speaking economically but obviously has major effects on all aspects of life. Predominantly negative effects on the working class by deregulating the market. What he doesnt understand is that espically deregulated capitalism leads to social problems.
I always considered myself a SocDem, but I've recently realized I lean more towards Anarcho Syndicalism. I'm not versed on theory, but I'm familiar with many of the concepts. What's a good place to get started reading theory? I'm a caregiver, so I work from home and have plenty of time on my hands. Any recommendations? I would greatly appreciate it.
Hasan is so used to listening to Benny Shabibo he's gotta speed up peoples voices so they too sound like an Alvin and the Chipmunks reject.
In South Korea, neoliberals are also considered left-wing. The most left-wing party isn't even socialist and is considered far-left. One of the effects of bordering North Korea.
while i mostly agree, and don't stan the vanguard too hard, it kind of did "magically come together" in 1917. The Bolsheviks had almost zero support that same summer, and just kept plugging away talking to workers. I forget where I pulled the quote and I'm not digging through 30 books, but a worker had asked Lenin how he'd convince him that he's right, when the Bolsheviks had so clearly lost to the Mensheviks, and Lenin said that it wasn't his job to convince him but that life would. And by October it had.
Again, not saying it's what will happen, but just that the vanguard does kind of "just happen." And it didn't take everyone reading all the theory, just consistent leadership. Not every worker in pre-soviet russia read and understood marx or lenin. But they kept hearing what Lenin and the Bolsheviks had to say, and eventually the material conditions became such that they realized Lenin had been correct, and they flocked to him.
Lenin's Bolshevik Revolution was funded by The Bank of Rothschild via a secret train car full of Gold. Life finds a way, eh?
@@MK_ULTRA420 its wild how nazis just run around in the open now. can't wait for hunting season.
@@traberge It's wild how leftists still can't decide if personal firearms are a good or bad thing. Good luck hunting; it's guns & bullets vs bongs & dildos.
@@MK_ULTRA420 if you think we don't have guns... keep thinking that :)
@@traberge Owning guns make you right wing or a criminal ;)
The Left is very firm on taking civilian guns away. I can't wait for them to have a civil war over this and other wedge issues like LGBT for kids.
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. . . well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men. - Captain Luke said it well!
Neoliberalism is an economic ideology, not a political one. It HAS no social elements. Go see noncompete’s video on liberals for further explanation.
Neoliberalism's political ideology is meant to be a cover for their economic ideology. People are willing to support debt slavery if it has leaders who are LGBT Women of Color.
Yes communism has never been achieved. But you beat the memes by adding “and it’s not going to be achieved for a long time, even if we switch to socialism like next year”
Hahahaha i am from Brazil and the idea of neoliberal being left is laughable
The closest thing I've seen to actual communism was in an episode of "The Last of Us" when Joel meets up with his brother, and his wife (played by Rutina Wesley) explains that they are communists. Otherwise it's just people misusing a word as an insult the same way they do with the word woke
I feel bad for PokemonChallenges 😭 he’s a cool guy, it’s not his fault he’s a neolib
I came down to the comments looking for this. Im like bro Pokémonchallenges is tweaking. Did not expect to see him here lol
...And small-group socialism like the Zapatistas.
P.s. the take about Peter Kropotkin was great. He was such a Chad.
Never expected to see Pokemon challenges lol
As far as I knew Socialism is an economic arrangement pertaining to individual economic enterprises, not society as a whole. He basically defined socialism as an alternative form of communitarianism. If an economy is 51% comprised of either worker cooperatives, direct equal partnerships, or individually owned and operated business that economy is a majority socialist economy. This is precisely why few countries have ever been socialist, let alone communist.
Socialism: workers ownership (posession, control, also both work) of the their means of production, inconjunction with a democratic one person one vote democratic system of inter-enterprise internal decision making, when an enterprise contain 3 or more people. Consciousness democracy when a two person partnership, or direct control when a enterprise is operated by a single individual.
Example: worker cooperative, direct partnership (2 person enterprises), individually owned and operated business.
communitarianism: A theory or system of social organization based on small self-governing communities. An ideology which emphasizes the responsibility of the individual to the community and the social importance of the family unit.
Communism: A moneyless, classless, stateless society.
Nordic/West-Germany model is quite literally 'social democratic corporatism'.
(use Google if some nouns, adjectives or verbs etc I use are unknown) 😬
Usually meaning workers unions and employers organization negotiate how profits society produces are shared and which government then prints to a law.
During the negotiations, workers can push back against employers by strikes for example, which costs employer side money daily, while union pays the wages. Unions get money from small fees workers pay, to unions controlled funds which often are funds that are invested in global markets for more leverage to fight over their share of profits.
This all is very much dependent on low corruption level and high trust in democratic institutions such as free press which is currently "cut" over social media and citizens not being provided investigative journalism, like press is publishing press releases of the powerful instead of investigating the truth behind them.
So I'm not sure this model is doable in USA right now, unless fix some basic things in society...
(changing governance system to parliament and electoral system to party-list proportional representation couldn't hurt but instead you want to change markets from capitalist to socialist for the entire planet, because that will get left the votes they need to repel fascism from status quo..? Which often leaves an impression of "US left being it's own worst enemy" ... Probably stemming from Dunning Kruger effect when getting into "new ideology in US, or Leftism", so anarchism sounds like a solution that will fix it all...?)
portugal's flag in the back is just *chef's kiss*
Hasan acting like a king in this stream
Hasan: "I hate all this fighting between leftists"
Also Hasan: (dunks on other types of leftists that he disagrees with).
(I'm talking about the first part of the video)
Ok but, what is the portuguese flag doing there in the back? I wanna know the purpose of that
lmao did not expect fucking PokemonChallenges to show up and get BTFO
That "anakiddie" label is pretty offensive and condescending. Libertarian-socialism or left-libertarianism (including all flavours of (left-)anarchism) vs e.g. Marxist-Leninism is a questions of what your are prioritising. You can be an anarchist and a student of Marxist theory. You can also work with Marxist-Leninists.
I agree. Love hasan but don't claim to hate infighting then put down other leftists for their differences. We're a lot more powerful working together than apart and it's the only way I believe we will ever overcome capitalism.
I consider myself a anarchist in the sense that I believe the ultimate goal of society should be to strive for the ruler less society, one in which we balance freedom and societal needs and have rhe balance of anarcho-communism. The reason I do not want to fully identify as a communist is because I believe there is a risk of losing sight of those goals when we achieve the goals of communism.
Iroquois nation was close to being communist
Thanks for showing this Hasan.
Wait why does he have a Portuguese flag behind him
It's a blanket. It makes him feel safe at night,i bet.
this distinction between social issues and economic issues is meaningless. Most social issues are directly tied to economic ones.
me: turns the video to 2x speed
hasan: turns the video to 1.5x speed
It took me 13m 35s to notice the Portuguese flag in the background...
There actually has been a true communist society: Revolutionary Catalonia. They were anarchosyndicalist/anarchocommunist and they did suprisingly well. It ended because of Stalins intervention in the Spanish civil war against the fascists.
Cataluña revolucionaria was not communist. Syndicalists are not communist, which is why they difger from ancoms. And the way they organized was trough syndicalism.
So they used money and markets.
@@waltercapa5265 Most anarchosyndicalists are anarchocommunists. Anarchocommunism is an ideal Anarchosyndicalism is a strategy. The governance of catalonia was rooted in anarchosyndicalism and anarchocommunism. Youre right to point out that im wrong by calling it a communist society though.
@@aiuifohzosfdh But it isn't true. Maybe there are some ancoms that would accept a market that would dissappear eventually, but some syndicalists want markets to stay because they consider it a necessary tool. I believe mutualism also happen to be a case of market socialism, but not sure about that.
wait, I watch both HasanAbi and PokemonChallenges
i laugh a bit everytime i hear communist state
That PokemonChallenges dude was talking mad shit.
In Ireland we have two big centre right parties who are almost identical. The biggest difference is what side they were on in a civil war 100 years ago.
A handy way to figure out European political parties at a glance is to see what party they're affiliated with in the EU parliament. One of our centre-right parties (FF) is in ALDE (liberal), which is the same European party as Pokemon's German "neoliberal party" (I assume he's talking about the FDP)
The other Irish centre-right party (FG) is in EPP (conservative) which up until last year also contained Viktor Orban's fashy Fidesz party.
The reason I bring this up is that you wouldn't be able to tell which of those parties was the liberal one if you were only looking at Irish politics. If anything "liberal" FF representatives are more likely to publicly hold more socially conservative views than "conservative" FG because it's a big tent party with a disproportionately older, rural, Catholic voter base.
They're all the fucking same, is my point.
also that laugh at the dude stanning neolibs was the best thing i've seen all week
The reason Americans think 'neoliberal' means 'left' is because the *political* term 'liberal' in the US means 'left' somehow, while 'neoliberalism' is an *economic* term that is far right lasseiz-faire aka 'new' classical liberal economics. Americans aren't educated enough to understand the difference, and just hear the word 'liberal'(=left), so 'neoliberal'=left too. We really need to start using another term for 'neoliberal' in common discourse in America if we expect people to understand what neoliberalism actually is.
Dammit PC, you had to get banned lmao
12:03
Why Hasan made peace with the establishment
who is "the other political streamer" he talks about in 24:12 ?
Destiny i think
density... come on who eles?
@@anarchychicken69 idk man, hasan is the only streamer i watch.
But thanks!
The way that he had to explain so many times ‘why social democracy and neoliberalism are different things’ is SO american😭😭 i mean how can they think of such a thing?
Who is the “only other political streamer” he’s referring to in this video?
Destiny. I def don't recommend you watch him tho
i didn't realize this video was actually a stunlock and not a reaction to the video -__-
Can anyone tell me why Hasan has the Portugal flag in the background? Someone tell what was that stream adventure...
quando descobrires, diz-me tb sff
curious af
@@LunaY0utube lol o dia chegará
Também estou bué às toa
After watching this, I'm trying to figure out whether I'm a revisionist Marxist or a democratic socialist or a social democrat, but I'm so glad I watched this. It was very educational and Hassan's commentary was insightful.
As a Cuban I am very sad Cuba isn’t the country it could’ve been. Beautiful country with good people beaten down by a shitty government
It's almost like communism and socialism relies on people not being shitty....which isn't how most humans are
@@lastnamefirstname4678 yeppp
@K T lol
My Norwegian friends thought Bernie was too right to call socialist.
I’m a bit conflicted because On the surface level Anarchism is, in theory, the only proper way you can overthrow capitalism on a global scale, but it seems less realistic to accomplish than democratic socialism on a practical level.
incorrect chief! capitalism is all consuming and has created a mindset of there can be nothing else. It is the great capitalistic lie! chin up Comrade!
@@Luke-tp6pu I'm confused how communism would work. I mean on the surface and as an idea it sounds great and it would be great, if it worked that is. But it just sounds like a mess to me if it was to become actually real
@@kiiturii No! the redistribution of wealth is easily achievable. all you need to do is make the workers, the people in charge and the profits from labour is shared amongst them. this can be in many ways such as: capital, education, healthcare, homes, infrastructure, commodities etc. these things are already in place in a lot of countries but only to a certain scale. this needs to be expanded upon and make the core of society. one does not work for oneself, one works for everyone. the individual is a bourgeois lie. Capitalism has created a mindset that makes it easier to imagine the end of life on the planet than it is to imagine different societies. it is just a restructuring of society that makes everyone equal. very achievable and practical.
@@Luke-tp6pu I was asking how it would work. This sounds like more dreaming of a perfect world. This is anything but "easy" to implement.
"all you need to do is make the workers, the people in charge and the profits from labour is shared amongst them. this can be in many ways such as: capital, education, healthcare, homes, infrastructure, commodities etc."
What exactly do you mean?
Do you mean these things should be free? I don't see how the profits from labour equals capital, education, healthcare, homes, infrastructure, commodities etc.
Also. All these things come in different qualities. if everyone is equal like you say then who get's the mansions and who is forced to live in a shitty old apartment with one room?
I'm just super confused how you could make this all work. What you responded with just sounds like a pipe dream. Some perfect world with perfect people where no one complains and everyone follows your ideal. Sounds super unrealistic.
@@kiiturii yes you should have 100% free healthcare and education. production only happens from workers working. items are only sold from workers working. why do CEOs get the bigger wage? the answer: they shouldn't. maybe the worker will get lower wages but gets the benefits of not having to pay for healthcare, eduction, rent etc. surely not having to go into financial debt and end up homeless because you happen to get cancer out weights the a smaller wage. though you'd have less expenditure. people who earn more money get taxed more. no one needs 100million let alone 1billion. it is wealth hoarding.
who needs a mansion?
fuck maybe there should be idk building regulations that people have to follow so no one has too much or too little? just you know think a little more.
this isn't a pipe dream. this is a very real thing that will happen or it will be the end. you think it is a pipe dream because capitalism is so all consuming it is now inescapable. you cannot wake up a day with out living capitalism. you should read Capitalism Realism by Mark Fisher. it is free online. easy to find. good book.