I really liked the analysis of how to sensibly define the "left" vs "right" labels. I have some additional analysis to add as well as some criticism to the concept of "right" itself: To me it seems like the shared characteristics between pre-modern societies are a result of societal selection for these characteristics. The ancient world had been an extremely dynamic environment where many different peoples were constantly migrating and coming into conflict with each other. Additionaly, this process had been present for thousands of years and huge number of generations had to face similar challenges for survival. Under these conditions, there had been huge selection pressure for cultural norms that guaranteed the long-term survival for that culture. As a result, pre-modern societies largely follow the pattern that you described. One problem for the idea of a unified "right" arises when one considers the differences in these ancient societies. For example, is the existence of a state and of bureaucracy a "left" or a "right" idea? If we look at the tribal and nomadic societies that were present in many parts of the world (forests, deserts, mountains, steppes, etc.) there was no clear idea of a state and these communities had some form of localized self-governence with some sort of common law. This is not suprising when one considers that the low population density and lack of infrastructure hindered the creation of states in these conditions for a very long time. If we look at communities around major rivers however, we get a completely different picture as these societies tend to form states with a formal bureaucracy. For example, the first such civilization is ancient Egypt and it is notorious for its' sophisticated state structure. Even in antiquity the state had broad control over its' population with a form of command economy (bureaucrats could tell the farmers what and how much to plant), as well as the corvée system (mandatory civil service of the population, mainly for building infrastructure). Another example is the Qin dynasty that unified what we now call China. It is also known as the birthplace of legalism and had sophisticated bureaucracy and legal system. In fact, these institutions are largely what helped it to gain advantage over its' neighbours and subjugate them. Given the above example, it seems to me like what cultural characteristics are optimal for the survival of a society in the pre-modern world varied depending on the circumstances. I gave the example of the effect of rivers but one could see differences for other environmental factors like terrain (plains/mountains/shore/etc.), climate (hot/cold/temperate), humidity (rainy/dry), isolation (islands/mountains/deserts) as well as human factors like surrounding neighbours, technological advancements and cultural trends (for example - religion). Given that, I will say that the idea of a "right" as you defined it is not as uniform as it may seem. Now one has to consider that the modern world is vastly different from the pre-modern world in many aspects. As a single example, most people in the past were primarily concerned with food security as there was a constant threat of famine (no matter if you are a farmer/pastoralist/hunter-gatherer). However, in the modern societies food production is done by a small subset of the population and to most people food security just is a given. There are many such differences, largely due to technology. All modern societies are characterised by things like urbanization, industrialization, digitalization, modern medicine, education and others. Add to that the fact that every decade there seems to be some revolutionaly new technology that changes how we live our lives. Given these factors, it seems to me like the decline of the "right" is primarily a result of the changing conditions under which people live. The old societal structures of the pre-modern world may not be optimal (or maybe are even unfeasible) for the modern societies. If this is the case, then it may not make much sense to look how different modern societies are in comparison to the pre-modern ones but rather to compare the ways in which the modern societies differ from each other (in other words, the "left" vs "right" distinction may not be the best way to analyse societies). To me it seems like a more relevant question is how well adapted are modern societies for survival in a modern world, and the best solutions to that problem may turn out to be some kind of combinations between the reactionary "right" and the revolutionary "left", and additionaly, there should be some unique positions on problems that were not present in the pre-modern world (things like nukes and climate degradation come to mind).
I don’t jive with the whole “Striving for utopia is pointless” because striving to do the impossible and failing and learning in the process is a fundamental part of the human condition. (Weight training for example)
Yep. I hate how pessimistic people have become. The left will tell you Utopia is possible, but its one with no gender roles at all, were everyone is literally the same and were no one is really that rich or impressive. The right will vaguely jesture at how Utopia seems impossible, ignoring all the facts that make atempting the impossible usually the right choice, and overall just act like a bitter parent, that is projecting their bitterness at their boring life trough ''tough love'', teaching the kid that nothing good can ever really happen in a secret repressed hope to make them as miserable as they are
This video gives me useful words to eplain some of my fears, thankyou for that. Proud of this algorythm pull tbh For instance, i like the current direction of things in a way, we are doing a gradual movement towards uptopia, even tho its hard to see because both left and right have decided that constant pessimism is the right aproach to look at the world. But think about it, materialy we are doing better than ever compared to history as a whole, socially you are allowed to experiment alot, living as a thinker is easy, sexual freedom is comically high, and technology gives us access to information that makes work easier and growth more effective. There are problems for sure, i remember being a teen in the 2010s and seein anything i found fun or atractive be labeled either satanic by my grand parents or toxic masculinity by my teachers, we have a genuine chance to be ethnically replaced in Europe and there are incoming pension and housing crisis. My fear is that we will not realise how easy to solve these problems are, with just a little more patriotism we can generate the political will to stop the immigration issue, with just a little populism we can fix stuff like housing, etc. But historically we have needed to be WAY more reactionary to protect ourselves from these crisis. So my fear is that we will rubber band HARD towards the right, and with that we will lose half of what makes life appealing. Going to the gym is cool BUT no sleeping arround, thats a sin, also nothing but hetereosexual sex in marriage to concieve children, and preferably with someone of your own race. And i know, if youre in your twenties the first incstinct is to go ''lmao based'' but, do we really want that? Are we really gonna go back to calling half the spicy, interesting things in life depravity and prohibit them? Thats the type of discourse that you hear from a right winger thats then caught in a gay orgy. I feel like hte left have been such bad winners, they have been laughing at the right for so long, that when the right inevitably takes power, because the left has become puritan church levels of opressing, and in short, young men want a life more fun than constant self hate and purity testing, we might slingshot too far to the other side and go from this wierd woke puritanism to the handmaids tale or something. And then the pessimists on both sides will start jerking off and being like ''yeah fuck yeah i knew Utopia was impossible i feel so validated right now''. To me it seems so clear that despite the worlds problems we can build some sort of paradise here , but the divide isnt left vs right its optimistic vs pessimistic. Its the left winger explaining how going to the gym is opressive because youre getting stronger and more beautifull than them, or Trent Horn trying to explain the concept of any type of sex thats not missionary while holding back throwing up. I dont want that boring life, but to the right my desires make me a degenerate and to the left they make me an opressor. Idk, im still sort of creating my set of ideas and how to spread them, but i just dont feel the need to have that many enemies, but im afraid that its gonna be hard not to make them because a good chunk of the population has a needjerk reaction when you describe any sort of Utopia, we have been conditioned to be pessimistic for a while now and i honestly dont understand why
Why does the contemporary Right reject addressing climate change? It doesn’t fit your definition of the Right of advocating for societies to become stable and sustainable.
This is a generality of the right as a broad movement that spans all cultures and times. How it is portrayed within eras and societies doesn’t always fit that framework perfectly. Climate change is seen as something we’ve never had before so why would it happen now? And as I Christian I can admit it is heavily influenced by the idea of God providing for our world so we don’t have to worry about things going wrong.
It seems to me a coalition of big businesses who stand to profit for denying climate change + people who understand that the climate crisis is being used as a moral imperative to justify the pursue and expansion of left wing agendas.
I think because most of the 'wunderwaffe' ideas on solving climate change are either pointless or will have an overwhelming negative impact, which makes right-wingers suspicious of the intentions of these efforts.
To be fair, if you were drafted during the Vietnam War - and heard the stories and watched the news - you WERE scared of the North Vietnamese. It would be like being drafted to fight Russia in Ukraine, albeit against a superior foe (North Vietnam) and even more treacherous terrain.
I planned a follow up to a video by someone else, but I will talk in it about something you missed, but I will make this video a companion to mine when I release it.
@@courtssense don't expect anything before March, that's when I plan to be releasing new stuff, and I'm preparing untill then. The video in question won't be the first, or in the first 20 most likely. If we get in touch, I'll give you previews to some.
Great video but there’s several flaws . 1.The idea of revolution doesn’t come out of naivety and/or just being punk for the sake of being punk. Even in the example of the October revolution that you gave point this flaw in you thesis. People didn’t rebel/revolt just for the sake of it they did it because of the material conditions they were living in. They wanted it to change. Same can be said for people fighting injustice like racism, sexism etc… Those issues have impact and affect peoples live in the negative way. However it’s true sometimes they way or tools people use for changes may not appropriate or wrong. 2. Survival and Dominance two different things. Nation back then didn’t not only look for survival but dominance. Survival doesn’t belong to particular spectrum of ideology it’s just human nature.
3. Movement of revolution isn’t a movement of great men. Revolution doesn’t happen because of some middle class messiah who look to rescue the lower. Contrary to example you gave with Lenin, revolution happen because of complex movements. Several people come together in order to changes their conditions isn’t just a great man or messiah. History happened not because great man but because combination of material conditions, will of the people, and man’s genius.
1. My point is that revolution comes as the result of the search for a better life and ultimatvely utopia. People want change because the social institutions that are made for survival (Sexism, racism, etc) are opressive and when they are no longer needed they are torn down. 2. In an environment like ancient times survival could only be secured through dominance. Only a powerful empire can defend itself from conquest by another powerful empire. 3. Before all revolutions we can see the rise in power of a rival class. In the french rev it is the rise of the Bourgeoisie, in russia it was the inteligensia. Could you give me an example where a revolution does not come from an ambicious rising class?
Thank you!!!I was waiting on this response. He also omits that revolutions happened in those so called “reactionary” societies. And to be honest I’m really tired of people trying to fit the nuances of human society and development on a graph. Because in order to do that you need to omit details
@@courtssense Regarding point 1.) - Sure people want a better life and maybe an utopia . The dismantling of oppressive system stems from the need to liberate oneself and survival. The systems of oppression aren’t for survival they are about gaining power & conserving power (Coloniser don’t colonise because they trying to survive. They do expand and dominate) . My point is those institutions of oppression weren’t essential but forced. 2.) Survival ≠ domination even in the period of time. This thinking is reductive . Even back then nation coexist because survival can’t be done on one’s own. 3.) Revolution don’t need a messianic class. It doesn’t need because of revolution as a grass roots level (way before the intelligentsia came people already had the need to revolt and were dissatisfied with the system). Examples the Haitian revolution/rebellion ( slave revolt), the post colonial and colonial struggle.
@@condimentofmassdestruction9114 It's just crazy to think that anything could be done without the guidance of very particular leading figures. There is, obviously, in revolutions, the participation of "the people", that are the ones unhappy with the regime, but it's almost always only a "destructive" force, "the people" do not actvely participate, to any meninfull degree, in the construction of the new regime (or of its ideals), the people partake in revolutions, but this is just destruction moved by dissatisfaction, the "ideals" and outcomes are *always* informed/driven by leaders and the inteligencia ("the plebs may overtrow the king, by it's his cousin that rules next"). "The people don't play for ideology and power, they play for comfort, and are played by those who seek power and promote ideology". And in the strictly ideological sence we are using here, the overtrow of a specifc regime is not nescessaraly "revolutionary", since it doesn't nescessaraly (and almost never up to the modern age) imply divergence from the "reactionary" principles.
10:09 honestly i identify with a lot of these things in the reactionary (including organizing society like a monarchy) but i still consider myself libertarian.
That's because all right-wingers walk the same path - there's nothing surprising about monarchists happily rubbing shoulders with Nazis... as you probably already do.
What is China? Well since the terms are relative and represent several axis on which you could plot China it depends which you are going to pick. The idea is that people with the same ideas collaborate and there is some underling trend that could be representative of this politic distinction. Those that supported monarchy collaborated with supporters of the church, against well....everybody else. This is obvious example, as the church and monarchy were on top of the power structure and benefited from being on top. But why did a lot of conservative hierarchies also flock to the right? Why was capitalism pushed to the right from liberalism and a focus of politics after monarchy fall? The same reason, those two also represent several different power structures. The question is why is anarchicapitalism on the right while Marxists-Leninism on the left. That is the biggest question for me. Why? Well that is because capitalism is obviously on the right,e verbody agrees with this and so that automatically puts anything that call itself socialistic (anti-capitalistic) on the left. Ignoring that feudalism, which is also on the right, is anti-capitalistic. It would be more accurate that those terms are actively being highjacked by political actors to fit their narrative. So they stop being useful in underling the basic natural distinctions in politics. Hiearchy vs equality (of power)
You are correct these labels are beyond vague. In the case of china I would say that they are economically reactionary, socially conservative, politically revolutionary and again a general mix of left and right.
The essay was interesting until 18:40. Up to that point the chain of thought was ingenious. At that point it turned into ridiculous. For the sake of TH-cam intellectual entertainment, history must not be distorted. Too bad, because I was enjoying it.
This isn't accurate at all... but I like that you seem to have given it a sincere try. But you lack huge amounts of information... You also are rooted in a Marxian / Fichte This gnostic / cultlike view of a special knowledge of how history unfolds has been known to be false for over a hundred years.
I don't really follow with the gnostic part of your comment, how is my essay Gnostic or rooted in Marx? Would be interested to know your argument. Thanks for the comment
Equality Dynamic Plastic Material Acquired
Hierarchy Static Rigid Spiritual Inherent
In general lot of crossover here
I really liked the analysis of how to sensibly define the "left" vs "right" labels. I have some additional analysis to add as well as some criticism to the concept of "right" itself:
To me it seems like the shared characteristics between pre-modern societies are a result of societal selection for these characteristics. The ancient world had been an extremely dynamic environment where many different peoples were constantly migrating and coming into conflict with each other. Additionaly, this process had been present for thousands of years and huge number of generations had to face similar challenges for survival. Under these conditions, there had been huge selection pressure for cultural norms that guaranteed the long-term survival for that culture. As a result, pre-modern societies largely follow the pattern that you described.
One problem for the idea of a unified "right" arises when one considers the differences in these ancient societies. For example, is the existence of a state and of bureaucracy a "left" or a "right" idea? If we look at the tribal and nomadic societies that were present in many parts of the world (forests, deserts, mountains, steppes, etc.) there was no clear idea of a state and these communities had some form of localized self-governence with some sort of common law. This is not suprising when one considers that the low population density and lack of infrastructure hindered the creation of states in these conditions for a very long time. If we look at communities around major rivers however, we get a completely different picture as these societies tend to form states with a formal bureaucracy. For example, the first such civilization is ancient Egypt and it is notorious for its' sophisticated state structure. Even in antiquity the state had broad control over its' population with a form of command economy (bureaucrats could tell the farmers what and how much to plant), as well as the corvée system (mandatory civil service of the population, mainly for building infrastructure). Another example is the Qin dynasty that unified what we now call China. It is also known as the birthplace of legalism and had sophisticated bureaucracy and legal system. In fact, these institutions are largely what helped it to gain advantage over its' neighbours and subjugate them.
Given the above example, it seems to me like what cultural characteristics are optimal for the survival of a society in the pre-modern world varied depending on the circumstances. I gave the example of the effect of rivers but one could see differences for other environmental factors like terrain (plains/mountains/shore/etc.), climate (hot/cold/temperate), humidity (rainy/dry), isolation (islands/mountains/deserts) as well as human factors like surrounding neighbours, technological advancements and cultural trends (for example - religion). Given that, I will say that the idea of a "right" as you defined it is not as uniform as it may seem.
Now one has to consider that the modern world is vastly different from the pre-modern world in many aspects. As a single example, most people in the past were primarily concerned with food security as there was a constant threat of famine (no matter if you are a farmer/pastoralist/hunter-gatherer). However, in the modern societies food production is done by a small subset of the population and to most people food security just is a given. There are many such differences, largely due to technology. All modern societies are characterised by things like urbanization, industrialization, digitalization, modern medicine, education and others. Add to that the fact that every decade there seems to be some revolutionaly new technology that changes how we live our lives. Given these factors, it seems to me like the decline of the "right" is primarily a result of the changing conditions under which people live. The old societal structures of the pre-modern world may not be optimal (or maybe are even unfeasible) for the modern societies. If this is the case, then it may not make much sense to look how different modern societies are in comparison to the pre-modern ones but rather to compare the ways in which the modern societies differ from each other (in other words, the "left" vs "right" distinction may not be the best way to analyse societies). To me it seems like a more relevant question is how well adapted are modern societies for survival in a modern world, and the best solutions to that problem may turn out to be some kind of combinations between the reactionary "right" and the revolutionary "left", and additionaly, there should be some unique positions on problems that were not present in the pre-modern world (things like nukes and climate degradation come to mind).
Far and away the best description of politics I've encountered on TH-cam.
As a leftist the video ironically made me more convinced of my worldview.
After all Entropy must increase.
I don’t jive with the whole “Striving for utopia is pointless” because striving to do the impossible and failing and learning in the process is a fundamental part of the human condition. (Weight training for example)
Yep. I hate how pessimistic people have become.
The left will tell you Utopia is possible, but its one with no gender roles at all, were everyone is literally the same and were no one is really that rich or impressive.
The right will vaguely jesture at how Utopia seems impossible, ignoring all the facts that make atempting the impossible usually the right choice, and overall just act like a bitter parent, that is projecting their bitterness at their boring life trough ''tough love'', teaching the kid that nothing good can ever really happen in a secret repressed hope to make them as miserable as they are
Great video, got recommended in the algorithm!
Hey man, i love your war thunder videos :)
This video gives me useful words to eplain some of my fears, thankyou for that. Proud of this algorythm pull tbh
For instance, i like the current direction of things in a way, we are doing a gradual movement towards uptopia, even tho its hard to see because both left and right have decided that constant pessimism is the right aproach to look at the world.
But think about it, materialy we are doing better than ever compared to history as a whole, socially you are allowed to experiment alot, living as a thinker is easy, sexual freedom is comically high, and technology gives us access to information that makes work easier and growth more effective.
There are problems for sure, i remember being a teen in the 2010s and seein anything i found fun or atractive be labeled either satanic by my grand parents or toxic masculinity by my teachers, we have a genuine chance to be ethnically replaced in Europe and there are incoming pension and housing crisis.
My fear is that we will not realise how easy to solve these problems are, with just a little more patriotism we can generate the political will to stop the immigration issue, with just a little populism we can fix stuff like housing, etc. But historically we have needed to be WAY more reactionary to protect ourselves from these crisis.
So my fear is that we will rubber band HARD towards the right, and with that we will lose half of what makes life appealing. Going to the gym is cool BUT no sleeping arround, thats a sin, also nothing but hetereosexual sex in marriage to concieve children, and preferably with someone of your own race.
And i know, if youre in your twenties the first incstinct is to go ''lmao based'' but, do we really want that? Are we really gonna go back to calling half the spicy, interesting things in life depravity and prohibit them? Thats the type of discourse that you hear from a right winger thats then caught in a gay orgy.
I feel like hte left have been such bad winners, they have been laughing at the right for so long, that when the right inevitably takes power, because the left has become puritan church levels of opressing, and in short, young men want a life more fun than constant self hate and purity testing, we might slingshot too far to the other side and go from this wierd woke puritanism to the handmaids tale or something.
And then the pessimists on both sides will start jerking off and being like ''yeah fuck yeah i knew Utopia was impossible i feel so validated right now''. To me it seems so clear that despite the worlds problems we can build some sort of paradise here , but the divide isnt left vs right its optimistic vs pessimistic.
Its the left winger explaining how going to the gym is opressive because youre getting stronger and more beautifull than them, or Trent Horn trying to explain the concept of any type of sex thats not missionary while holding back throwing up. I dont want that boring life, but to the right my desires make me a degenerate and to the left they make me an opressor.
Idk, im still sort of creating my set of ideas and how to spread them, but i just dont feel the need to have that many enemies, but im afraid that its gonna be hard not to make them because a good chunk of the population has a needjerk reaction when you describe any sort of Utopia, we have been conditioned to be pessimistic for a while now and i honestly dont understand why
Do you have an editor or do this yourself?
By myself, but I am getting more efficient with time, now I can do 4 mins of video per hour
@@courtssense ha, I remember those days. Do you do anything to speed anything up?
Why does the contemporary Right reject addressing climate change? It doesn’t fit your definition of the Right of advocating for societies to become stable and sustainable.
This is a generality of the right as a broad movement that spans all cultures and times. How it is portrayed within eras and societies doesn’t always fit that framework perfectly. Climate change is seen as something we’ve never had before so why would it happen now? And as I Christian I can admit it is heavily influenced by the idea of God providing for our world so we don’t have to worry about things going wrong.
It seems to me a coalition of big businesses who stand to profit for denying climate change + people who understand that the climate crisis is being used as a moral imperative to justify the pursue and expansion of left wing agendas.
I think because most of the 'wunderwaffe' ideas on solving climate change are either pointless or will have an overwhelming negative impact, which makes right-wingers suspicious of the intentions of these efforts.
Eco-fascism
great video glad youtube recommended your channel
El Doctor Plineo Correa de Oliveira habla del proceso gradual de la revolución.
To be fair, if you were drafted during the Vietnam War - and heard the stories and watched the news - you WERE scared of the North Vietnamese. It would be like being drafted to fight Russia in Ukraine, albeit against a superior foe (North Vietnam) and even more treacherous terrain.
I planned a follow up to a video by someone else, but I will talk in it about something you missed, but I will make this video a companion to mine when I release it.
Yeah that sounds good, tell me whenever you upload it.
@@courtssense don't expect anything before March, that's when I plan to be releasing new stuff, and I'm preparing untill then.
The video in question won't be the first, or in the first 20 most likely. If we get in touch, I'll give you previews to some.
Great video but there’s several flaws .
1.The idea of revolution doesn’t come out of naivety and/or just being punk for the sake of being punk. Even in the example of the October revolution that you gave point this flaw in you thesis. People didn’t rebel/revolt just for the sake of it they did it because of the material conditions they were living in. They wanted it to change. Same can be said for people fighting injustice like racism, sexism etc… Those issues have impact and affect peoples live in the negative way. However it’s true sometimes they way or tools people use for changes may not appropriate or wrong.
2. Survival and Dominance two different things. Nation back then didn’t not only look for survival but dominance. Survival doesn’t belong to particular spectrum of ideology it’s just human nature.
3. Movement of revolution isn’t a movement of great men. Revolution doesn’t happen because of some middle class messiah who look to rescue the lower. Contrary to example you gave with Lenin, revolution happen because of complex movements. Several people come together in order to changes their conditions isn’t just a great man or messiah. History happened not because great man but because combination of material conditions, will of the people, and man’s genius.
1. My point is that revolution comes as the result of the search for a better life and ultimatvely utopia. People want change because the social institutions that are made for survival (Sexism, racism, etc) are opressive and when they are no longer needed they are torn down.
2. In an environment like ancient times survival could only be secured through dominance. Only a powerful empire can defend itself from conquest by another powerful empire.
3. Before all revolutions we can see the rise in power of a rival class. In the french rev it is the rise of the Bourgeoisie, in russia it was the inteligensia. Could you give me an example where a revolution does not come from an ambicious rising class?
Thank you!!!I was waiting on this response. He also omits that revolutions happened in those so called “reactionary” societies. And to be honest I’m really tired of people trying to fit the nuances of human society and development on a graph. Because in order to do that you need to omit details
@@courtssense Regarding point 1.) - Sure people want a better life and maybe an utopia . The dismantling of oppressive system stems from the need to liberate oneself and survival. The systems of oppression aren’t for survival they are about gaining power & conserving power (Coloniser don’t colonise because they trying to survive. They do expand and dominate) . My point is those institutions of oppression weren’t essential but forced.
2.) Survival ≠ domination even in the period of time. This thinking is reductive . Even back then nation coexist because survival can’t be done on one’s own.
3.) Revolution don’t need a messianic class. It doesn’t need because of revolution as a grass roots level (way before the intelligentsia came people already had the need to revolt and were dissatisfied with the system). Examples the Haitian revolution/rebellion ( slave revolt), the post colonial and colonial struggle.
@@condimentofmassdestruction9114 It's just crazy to think that anything could be done without the guidance of very particular leading figures. There is, obviously, in revolutions, the participation of "the people", that are the ones unhappy with the regime, but it's almost always only a "destructive" force, "the people" do not actvely participate, to any meninfull degree, in the construction of the new regime (or of its ideals), the people partake in revolutions, but this is just destruction moved by dissatisfaction, the "ideals" and outcomes are *always* informed/driven by leaders and the inteligencia ("the plebs may overtrow the king, by it's his cousin that rules next"). "The people don't play for ideology and power, they play for comfort, and are played by those who seek power and promote ideology". And in the strictly ideological sence we are using here, the overtrow of a specifc regime is not nescessaraly "revolutionary", since it doesn't nescessaraly (and almost never up to the modern age) imply divergence from the "reactionary" principles.
10:09 honestly i identify with a lot of these things in the reactionary (including organizing society like a monarchy) but i still consider myself libertarian.
That's because all right-wingers walk the same path - there's nothing surprising about monarchists happily rubbing shoulders with Nazis... as you probably already do.
I hope your chanel got bigger, great introdpection from both sides of coin...
What is China? Well since the terms are relative and represent several axis on which you could plot China it depends which you are going to pick. The idea is that people with the same ideas collaborate and there is some underling trend that could be representative of this politic distinction. Those that supported monarchy collaborated with supporters of the church, against well....everybody else. This is obvious example, as the church and monarchy were on top of the power structure and benefited from being on top. But why did a lot of conservative hierarchies also flock to the right? Why was capitalism pushed to the right from liberalism and a focus of politics after monarchy fall? The same reason, those two also represent several different power structures.
The question is why is anarchicapitalism on the right while Marxists-Leninism on the left. That is the biggest question for me. Why? Well that is because capitalism is obviously on the right,e verbody agrees with this and so that automatically puts anything that call itself socialistic (anti-capitalistic) on the left. Ignoring that feudalism, which is also on the right, is anti-capitalistic. It would be more accurate that those terms are actively being highjacked by political actors to fit their narrative. So they stop being useful in underling the basic natural distinctions in politics. Hiearchy vs equality (of power)
You are correct these labels are beyond vague.
In the case of china I would say that they are economically reactionary, socially conservative, politically revolutionary and again a general mix of left and right.
@@courtssense Too me I would call them politically atuhoterian that seems to me like much more useful descriptor but I agree with the rest.
The essay was interesting until 18:40. Up to that point the chain of thought was ingenious. At that point it turned into ridiculous. For the sake of TH-cam intellectual entertainment, history must not be distorted. Too bad, because I was enjoying it.
Was Lenin not part of the intelligentsia? Or what do you mean by ridiculous?
That is the very reason we use labels and here you are bemoaning that fact.
It is traditional to spell out acronyms the first time they are used.
What acronym did I not spell out?
Good video
Thanks man
This isn't accurate at all... but I like that you seem to have given it a sincere try.
But you lack huge amounts of information...
You also are rooted in a Marxian / Fichte
This gnostic / cultlike view of a special knowledge of how history unfolds has been known to be false for over a hundred years.
I don't really follow with the gnostic part of your comment, how is my essay Gnostic or rooted in Marx? Would be interested to know your argument.
Thanks for the comment