Don't forget the Black Army in Russian civil war too.

To think, the Spanish civil war started because Ferdinand couldn’t even have a son.

@@roseandsword.And the Greens, the Leninist, etc, etc.

Spanish civil wat left: first we win the revolution, then the war Spanish civil war right: first we win the war, then we decide what to do And unsurprisingly, the side that fought harder and completely concentrated on winning militarily before arguing about politics won.

average leftist behavior tbh, they just hate each other lol

I see what you did there

After all right is always right

Because I’m right and they’re left

Also apparently 14

We have rights they don't

And all it takes is a slight deviation from the norm.

"Soladarity forever!... unless somebody thinks slightly differently from me"

Just had an interaction with a bitch like this 💀🤣

Only when they are in front of a camera or a bias journalist

Projection is rule #1 for leftists.

You should read any non anarchy leftist book

Real

So they are just overgrown children

@@Underb00t You could say that.

Time preference…

The Race that hates humans The most: Humans

It all comes down to 1) Class consciousness and 2) Theory of change. There can't ever be any solidarity between leftists and progressives-- and definitely not between leftists and liberals because they simply are not on the same team, and they're not even aiming for the same outcomes. I will explain. Since these words are so convoluted and now everyone is using them interchangeably, we'll start with some definitions: a) LIBERAL: The term "liberal" has been pretty much standardized going all the way back to the European Enlightenment era and its related intellectuals. The short strokes are that the liberal enlightenment was fundamentally elitist, pro-capitalism, pervasive among the petite bourgeoisie, favored bourgeois politics, often favored eugenics, and also adopted somewhat humanitarian values viewed as intellectually progressive without actually challenging class hierarchy. So, as Chris Hedges expounds so brilliantly in his 2009 book, 'Death of the Liberal Class,' it's clear how this remains the liberalism of the Democratic party, its media machine, Hollywood, and liberal academia. "Wokeness" is pervasive among the liberal class, because it is a useful tool for obfuscating and silencing class consciousness and class struggle. b) PROGRESSIVE: These are the insidious figures among much of the former Bernie Sanders contingent along with various lesser progressive politicians such as "the Squad." This is where theory of change becomes important. Progressives proclaim almost all the same values as leftists with exception to their very obvious and disturbing silence on imperialism and colonialism. Their fantasies of European-style social democracy depend on exploitation of the global south and perpetuation of capitalist dystopia, but they do not acknowledge this. Instead, they was poetic about a "nicer capitalism," one that mostly benefits people domestically, and take little interest in the machinations of empire abroad. Progressives adhere staunchly to the mythologies of "harm reduction," "lesser evilism," and reform over revolution. This is why, although they will *say* they are for (almost) all the same things as leftists, they don't hesitate to sell out their values when the election comes down to yet another Democrat versus yet another Republican. The truth, which few progressives admit to, is that for most of them these leftist values such as universal healthcare are not existential for them. They tend to be fairly privileged managerial class liberals that hold farther left ideals than their liberal counterparts but aren't willing to inconvenience themselves or put anything on the line to get them. But instead of admitting openly to that (because it sounds bad when you say it out loud), they'll tell you they are being "strategic," "rational," "adult," etc. and scoff at anyone telling them that the system OBVIOUSLY cannot be reformed. c) LEFTIST: Leftism *begins* at anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, anti-militarism, anti-colonialism (permutations of the same things, but just to spell it out unambiguously), and centers class struggle and working class solidarity above all else. This is because a thorough examination of revolutionary movements proves that all sweeping, systemic social and political change relies on these two things. They veer away from cancel culture, culture wars, and pointless virtue-signaling over woke cultural values. Although leftists are for equity for all people, they do not agree that there is a path to those outcomes either through aligning with the bourgeoisie-- as progressives continue to do-- or through fighting downstream battles between smaller and smaller sub-factions of society, each arguing over whose individual interests should come first. Leftists were usually liberals or progressives at some point earlier in their political activity, and became radicalized over time generally with a copious amount of self-education about how power works in capitalist systems. This is why you will not see leftists voting for Democrats, and rarely will you see them making common cause among progressives with exception to the Palestinian liberation struggle. Leftists are justifiably suspicious of progressives for reasons that should be obvious given the above description of them, but most pointedly because they know progressives will nearly always sell themselves out to the liberal machine when the going gets tough, thereby making them unreliable allies. So this should clear up the mystery of why there is "in-fighting" among the so-called "Left," which people often define according to their own whims convoluting the entire subject beyond recognition. You cannot fight a battle with people that are not seeking the same ends. If your aim is to make a nicer capitalism and "reform the Democratic party," the people that see an urgent need to burn the entire system to the ground are not going to join your team. If you're too scared of letting the red team win the inning and telling yourself the blue team will make your life slightly less horrible, again the people that recognize *the entire system is the problem* are not going to have anything to do with you. This makes for irreconcilable differences-- in fact, the only faction among those I just described that are ACTUALLY "The Left" are the leftists themselves. The progressive and the liberals are just Democrats. So it is unconstructive and disingenuous to present this as a bunch of people on the same team arguing over petty grievances that just can[t put their personalities aside. The end.

@@worldadventuretravel too long, didn’t read lol

@@worldadventuretravel shortest leftist comment

​@@worldadventuretravel you ever hear "brevity is the soul of wit"?

You could also day to lëftist pro-Gāza "pr0testers", about "how does it affect them personally?" and see hilarity ensue

@@averdadeeumaso4003 They’ll pull up the MLK quote.

@@averdadeeumaso4003 Gaza idiots are far-letoids. They are trying to insert themselves like parasites into the moderate left.

"why You guys want to have intercorse with a dead chicken"-me

Yeah, the standards people have, what they're willing to sacrifice their dignity and self-respect for, and what price they're willing to sell out their values and morality, totally doesn't affect society at all, especially if a bunch of people act in a way in which they sacrifice their morals regularly for things such as money or self-indulgence or clout on the internet. Totally not right? I swear, these people have no sense of how their actions affect others. No wonder they're the types who are always causing riots and looting stores and just overall being bothersome idiots. As for the question, that isn't a dilemma at all. If everyone did that regularly the world would be a worse place, and it'd lead to a slippery slope of even more depraved things than that. Once you normalize such a terrible thing obviously people will start looking for the next high.

Agree , there are disaggrements between right wingers , but they are for different reasons compared to left-wingers

no, most libertarians are the biggest degenerates and/or jewish

Very well said. Right wing tends to agree on values but differ on the reasons, while the left wing agree on the reasons but differ on values.

Thats like saying a progressive's goal is to progress society, therefore they all agree with each other. You cant just say they agree and then list all the things where they disagree, that makes no sense. And you cant be serious when you say a monarchist and a libertarian have the same values, theyre miles apart from each other.

@@IsabelleExodus the thing is not everyone agrees on what progress is Some leftists focus entirely on economical issues while others on civil ones. Just look at how the German Left party had a split over that very issue with a new communist party that is socially conservative. Their idea of progress is the workers revolution, while for other leftists is a society in which everyone can do whatever they want without being judged

Robespierre had the exact same kind of thinking. In "On Political Morality" speech he argued, among other things, that terror is good as long as he was doing it because "his goal was to protect liberty".

@@tepesobrejac4360 based.

He was a Marxist so what did ya expect?

@@tepesobrejac4360 Left wing revolutions in a nutshell lmfao

As an Italian, I hate how much most Italians either don't know what a slimebag he was or celebrate him as hero, simply because he was imprisoned by the fascists. He is one of the clearest example of "if what's stopping you from committing evil is lack of power, that doesn't make you good."

"To be united by hatred is a fragile Allianice at best" Darth Traya

Except it’s the exact opposite. It’s about holding people to a moral standard, and not compromising just because those people are the same race as you or whatever. For example, if their leader lied about the crowd size at their inauguration ceremony, they’d lose respect and criticize what is an obvious lie thanks to the clear photographic evidence. Conservatives on the other hand, will see anyone pointing out the correct crowd size as disloyal and will unite in hatred against the obvious out group who don’t conform to the in-group loyalty.

"war crimes now, talk later"-seethtzentch

Leftists are not nearly as based as Sith though.

No wonder why they always complain about EVERYTHING. Like seriously do these people ever talk about anything positive?

I’ve never heard any Christians argue over this.

@@crusader2112 it was an argument between Christian philosophers in the 6th - 7th centuries

@@bobskywalker2707 Okay thank you.

@@crusader2112 np. Have a good day man

@@bobskywalker2707 You too. 👍

MD GANG MD GANG

true, if you want to do something you have to go outside and organise, form a union, join a party and organise protest groups, otherwise youre just screaming into the void that is twitter

yeah, so many people don't even think to get off twitter for a while before writing essays on left unity or the lack thereof - they manage to at the same time overstate the problem and underestimate the causes

Absolutely. Only politics is simply navel gazing. Entirely pointless.

Ding ding ding ding! And anybody who starts bringing up random ass ideologies in a discussion is suffering from internet politics, it's like you said, the same kick someone would get from arguing over their favorite video game faction. On a similar note leftists suffer to this from an extent more than right-whingers do, leftists generally are much more invested in their political thought than the average right-winger and it so it's essentially their hobby to think and discuss politics leading to more disagreements on different individual subjects causing leftist infighting and the formation of internet ideologies

Ba'athist infighting in a nutshell

Id go with saddam ngl

@@Thinkers_Notebook Id go with Assad

true xD

I’ve noticed that too. Even when I disagree with somebody on the center right about some thing, we usually keep it more in line with a debate than an action fight. Whereas if I actually met somebody who was a far left person, I would probably fight with them more aggressively. Even though we’re supposed to agree on most things. Now right we nut job on the other hands is a different story but even with them I find that there’s at least something I can agree with them on and we can focus on that.

I guess your center left.

​@@andreavoigtlander1087What social democrats have historically been

Cus you ain't a leftist

well social democrats are liberals at their core, conservatives and centrists too are liberals, there isnt much ideological difference, you all believe in liberalism and are thus natural allies, social democrats are just the concessionary wing of liberal movement

They don't seem to discuss the economics of communism that much, they only talk about figures and only figures

They hate tradition as well. I mean, I just saw a random video in the recommendations on the right side of Lavader's video from The Vaush Pit that was titled _America is Returning to Tradition (And That is Bad)_ .

It has it's roots in occultism.

​@@novostrangerMainly because any discussion about marxist economics would ends in like two seconds, it always brings poverty and misery, without fail. Even Lenin recognized that economic prosperity was in last place in the series of political and ideological transformations the revolution brings to a society.

​@@cesargonzalez4146 The fact that the far left cares more about purity more than Nazis lmao

its ironic that communism and socialism praises power for the workers or the common people yet they're hostile to even fellow communists if their views are slightly different

Absolutely not. Im a conservative and fully against fascists. If you look AT their economy and goverment its quite socialist And Im baffled by support of Palestine too.. who created PLO under Hitlers command to eradicate jews AS the original charter said "from the river to the sea, of jews Palestine shall be Free" It was made up by Arafat and Amin al Husseini. Theres also the golden square of iraq, who also worked under Adolf

@@SebastiansSebastian-fc4pj bruh i am not a communist but who even say that national "socialists" are socialists (in everything but name) anymore? And fascism had nothing to do with socialism, not even name. Even Hitler said that he would steal the word "socialism" from socialists. And I think that he quite succeeded.

​@ASimpleBoy-nq4ln Fascism literally grew out of socialism. The man who invented fascism was a lifelong socialist, and it came about from the realization that the proletariat hates socialism and will never willingly revolt.

@@SebastiansSebastian-fc4pj Don't know what country you're from but Jews share very different cultural values from the native populace of whatever country they happen to reside in. as well as different religious practices. Conservatives and fascists largely agree that their own way of life needs to be protected and favor traditionalism, they just disagree on degree of application, centralization, and methods. Whether or not you support Palestine isn't particularly relevant to the topic of social values, and the fact you brought it up to begin with and view it as relevant is quite telling.. Shalom!

If you put leftists in a domed habitat on the moon and came back in 1,000 years, provided they did not destroy themselves, you would find an ancient pagan theocracy revolving around natural laws and symbolism derived from the degradation of provisional science, and rationalistic materialism. It's a religious revolution, (whether theistic, atheistic, or anti-theistic) based on the exaltation of once secular concepts that they believe allow control of natural law by their priests and martyrs.

One second longer and it would be perfection.

?

*Also what happened during the Soviet "liberation" of poland from the nazis - here in poland often called "The Red Terror" (or at least thats how I translate it)

yep American left basically thinks Eastern Europe and Central Asia were "liberated from Nzai's it's pathetic

As General Patton said, "we fought the wrong enemy"

@@henocksherlock3340 huh? the fuck do you mean by that. Also - is that a confederate flag you fucking virgin. Do you take me for a nazi or something?

@@henocksherlock3340we should have and could have fought both, Nazis after all are just race leftist.

Fascists hate capitalism? That seems incorrect considering that fascists movement are usually supported by capitalists to defend their wealth from socialist.

Yes, you’re exactly right, and there’s political theory that proves this. Marxist dialectics is all about contradictory ideas coming together and forming a synthesis. This is why the Nazis were so successful, they played into the polarized political nature of post WW1 Germany. It was attractive or at the very least, tolerable to the most people. And if not for the wealth of nations outside of Europe (primarily the US) and the amount of meth hitler and the army was addicted to, they may have well have won. It’s the perfect synthesis of contradicting ideals. Both the far left and far right operate in similar ways, purges of opposition. They hate the same people, their economies operate in very similar ways. Hitler realized this, Marx realized this with his vitriolic antisemitism and his conflation of the bourgeoisie and the Jewish people. Hitler only put those ideas in practice, that’s why he hated the USSR, he thought it had become to be overwhelmed with Jews. The USSR was “too friendly” with Jews by initially being in support of zionism. But after the war we see Stalin shift, the rhetoric against the Jews is steeped in hatred and the ethnic cleansing begins. Stalin was only continuing Hitler’s project. Despite how much people hate it, there is a reason why economists compare Nazi Germany to the USSR. What we’re witnessing now in the US is scarily similar with the breakout of the war in Israel. The far right and far left are starting to align.

honestly the eastern communists (USSR DPRK PRC WARSAW Pact) have nearly identical values and fairly similar policy to that of the fascists that being nationalism extreme militarism expansionism imperialism and the replacement of religion with some sort of state worship as well as a sense of ethnic or racial superiority. The only thing they really don't agree on is the role of women in society

They say Hitler wasn't a real socialist. They call conservatives fascists. They make the claim that fascism isn't a form of socialism. They also say Stalin wasn't a real socialist. They also call social democrats fascist. They also make the claim that Stalinism, Marxism-Leninism, Maoism (sometimes), etc. aren't "real" forms of socialism.

not really no, in all forms of practice, fascism is capitalist. it retains private ownership, class rule and wage-labour relations. if you look at history fascism only rises with failed social revolutions or during economic collapse of capitalism. the job of fascism is to protect the capitalist mode of production by any means neccesary, this is not what classical fascism is like of course, but classical fascism is mostly dead and only levadir himself actually endorses it (under the name corporatism, but even Mussolini admitted that fascism is corporatism) decent book on this subject would be fascism and social revolution, its pretty long but also pretty informative, and it explains where fascism ideologically and economically came from, what caused its rise and what is its purpose. you could classify the rise of fascism to two main parts, rise of classical fascism, and rise of modern fascism first fascism manifested itself as what id call medievalism, the one Levadir advocates for, this was a middle class ideology and advocated for skilled producers owning their means of production, similar to how pre-industrial capitalism worked, with skilled craftsmen "masters" and their apprencices working in artisinal production. in its second epoch, fascism arose out of the crisis of rate of profit, during 1920s and 1930s, as a solution to this crisis, and it was quite popular in many countries, it advocated against labour saving measures, against socialism, against capitalism, but when put into power, it assumed its true class role as a big bourgoise ideology, serving only the richest industrialists.

funnily enough, one of the founder's of communism Friedrich Engels wrote a book about that, read "History of Early christianity" by friedrich engels to learn more

​@@drunkenslav2334you don't use an apostrophe to make a word plural.

@@mrosskne yee im not native speaker

Cultural hallmarks and repositories tend to arise organically. Marxism did not.

As much as I am a Social Democrat.. Yup.. absolutely correct. I hate most Leftist ideologies except Social Democracy because honestly? Most of us are f#cktards. Who wouldn't survive a minute unless being precise with how they wanna start the new ideal Govenrment that we want. And I am basically doing that. Starting from scratch, starting with Philosophy and applying Psychological behavior to use it to get out of oppression. Legal Revolutions if the walls seperating State buildings and people are surrounded by 4-5 layers of people Protesting. Philosophy to know how to recognize the terms, WHEN and HOW to overthrow. Leftists Are dumb And the sole reason I am not a Monarch is because I don't believe much in inheriting positions or much power. But my idea can work with Monarchy. Feel free asking me on specifics.

Nomad riding raiders.

From what I’ve seen, it’s likely a semi-constitutional monarchy with Nordic-style Welfare Programs and Conservative Policies regarding social issues

Papal states

@@ironzombie39ngl that’s pretty based

​@@ironzombie39Literally heaven on earth.

Good insight, more people need to realize this.

well you could really try reading few of these leftist books, Lenin wrote like 50, marx also wrote around 80, Engels wrote quite a few ones too

@@drunkenslav2334 Ive read the communist manifesto. Also read one book by Engles although I forget which one. I'll admit I should probably read more of their work. But even still from what I see much of their ideology is based on groups. Even aside from them looking at modern leftism. X racial group did Y to Z racial group and now the entire group must pay. X economic group has Y amount more than Z economic group and has to pay. X gender has Y advantages of Z gender and now Z gender must have more advantages. And the worst ones are the ones that say X group needs to unite AGAINST Z group because of Y reason. Modern leftism appeals to the lowest comment denominator as a descrininated group and demands greater and greater resources from those farther away from that group, and the farther they get the more they demand. You see it now with feminism vs trans vs Palestine vs socialist. They are all "left" but if a war were to break out rest assured they'd have internal conflict

@@spiffygonzales5160 issue is, you consider liberals and socdems left, when in the grand scheme of things they are right wing, differing marxists and anarchists can work together, and its not really about demands, the endgoal is a classless society for the far left, for the centre left its "things stay the same but slightly nicer" these two forces thus tend to clash

Doesn't utopia mean nowhere?

Generally more on the intellectual right that this doesn't really happen because they get away from the Republican mega-centric worldview unless you have relations with the Nazis with much bigger in group if you don't belong to that you're called a shitskin

E.g., if you are: third position, Fascist, NS, and any flavor of "Real Right" - then: you are FED. *something, something, Trump 2024*

Pretty sure you’re just sensitive

@@rustym.shackelford5546This is the most annoying thing of the right. “Let’s organize guys we can make something happen!” And everyone assumes you’re a fed bc you want to actually do something

@@generalfletch7043 I was called a WEF shill because I said chitin isn't poisonous to humans and that it's not a protein, while also stating that I am against eating bugs.

the noble worker suffers the most 🙏

​@@drunkenslav2334👍

@@drunkenslav2334 Based t. Right-winger

Friendly reminder that national socialism is a far left ideology, only traditionalists, libertarians and nativists (and some loosely defined groups such as patriots and conservatives) can be considered right wing And because their ideas arent intrinsically opposite, they can coexist, leftists on the other hand are doomed to infighting because the point of leftism is power and only one can be in power at a time

@@Mrlighthouse1000 Friendly Reminder, No one asked.

It’s stupid for the right to fight amongst each other as being united despite our differences is what makes them stronger than the left

No it’s just adjacency effect: relatively small distances are exaggerated and all “ideologies” sufficiently far from you collapse into one position

I have an issue with the far-left because they pretend to be inclusive and tolerant, which is more deceptive, and they're in control of major institutions such as academia and entertainment. Everyone is in agreement the far-right is crazy

Hakim thinks North Korea is just some normal regular country where absolutely no one is starving lmao

@@pickleism253 you could visit it if you wanted, and just talk to locals if you speak korean

​@drunkenslav2334 I can't, I'm american, if it's not North Korea banning me, it's the Us

Never tell a gay tankie to look up article 122 of the USSR penal code.

@@drunkenslav2334 I do want to actually visit North Korea cause I believe that both sides are flat out lying about the situation in North Korea, I don't think it's a leftist utopia that tankies think nor do I think that it's a utter hellscape where not having a photo of Kim Jong Un will lead to you and your entire family to be executed, I do know that it is secretive and authoritarian.

the right barely infights lol

@@redcrown5154 Possible, but then you'd have the Alt-Lite and Alt-Right existing, though I'm not sure if they fight each other or not.

@@redcrown5154They in fight a lot, just not as vocal about it compared to left wingers

@@redcrown5154 Depends on where you're looking and how stable home politics are, right wing politics can just as unstable as left wing. Ask the Tsar, white Russian army, Nazis, Italian Fascists, British Absolutist Monarchists, how united the right can be when their state is falling apart . The right isn't willing to cooperate for a state that isn't stable, same happens to the left, most coups in 21st century are because of right wing military coups, not many people are disunited when their governments are stable and they're not being abused.

There's only two sides, those who care deeply about race, and those that don't.

i mean you should look into "political economy" to explore htis topic further if youre curious

Interesting perspective. I don't see people talking about how people have such drastically different ideas on the importance of politics.

There’s one atheist channel called the Court’s Sense, and he has a video on Honest Atheism vs Dishonest Atheism. It’s a really interesting video and I say this as a Catholic.

Secular humanism appeals to many atheists and that ideology also makes a moral pitch. Secular humanism also denies the weight and significance of religious or spiritual experience, the abstract and the unconscious collective, which I disagree with greatly. I respect atheists who mind their own business but many do not. Atheism was integral to the tyrannies of the 20th century such as Maoist China and the USSR, where religious minorities were persecuted heavily as a means of making the population totally faithful to the government, and obviously religion is a threat to that. The reason why religious people resist tyranny so much is because they believe in a power that even rulers and kings should be subordinate to. I'm a live and let live kind of dude, so either extreme is an L to me. Atheism can be just as damaging as religious faith. Imagine if atheists were the majority of humanity for most of our history, we'd have a reverse situation going on. Can't really claim to be less damaging inherently and be taken seriously when you haven't really been around for a very long time. Give it some time, atheism will also rack up some questionable stuff. In fact postmodernist atheistic society has already done quite a bit to us as a species

@@crusader2112 Interesting channel

Even years ago the cracks between the groups seemed clear how they stayed together has been phrased as: shared enemies, shared struggle, and a glob of malicious forces.

Loved her, one of my favourite Sith

The right accepts people. the left accepts labels.

Although I could retaliate by stating the same.. I won't because you are right and because I don't like the "eye for an eye" basis. I go with: "eye for an eye makes the world Blind"

I'm an Aussie jew im less bothered by neo nazis then I am islamofascist and leftys

@@satiricgames2129 Why is that when neo nazis would obviously target you for your ethnicity

Thats cause the modern neo fash has abandoned hatred of jews. Its not profitable or useful Arab fascists tho.. yeah they never ended their ways. They still go strong with their organizations like PLO, Hamas, ARA, FAL, Golden Square of Iraq and NBP. Even Houthies

Honestly, I *wish* the right was less united. I'm a libertarian, and I think libertarians would be better off uniting with the vaguely-freedom-loving moderate left, rather than with the conservatives. I want some anti-state unity.

Honestly as a suporter of a current libert rigth goberment,most things that have anger me the most is other libertarians saying you're not an actual libertarian or something,f*k them

Same here. It's what made me right wing. People who claim to value tolerance the hardest have 0 tolerance for people who are different. People who claim to value diversity all want everyone else to be the same. People who believe in love are the most hateful people you'll ever deal with. People who believe in equality are the first to create internal cliques and hierarchies to keep people separate. They run on feelings perpetually though, so they don't see it until it eventually turns against them.

Once upon a time I agreed with liberals, nowadays the liberals disagree with me. They went running left and I didn't follow.

And that's why you're a right winger. In my admittedly limitedbunderstanding the right prioritizes the status quo, while the left prefers being flexible and changing​@@andrewgreeb916

I used to lean around Center till around 2020-2021, now I consider myself as left leaning.

id rede you to explore some of these leftist ideologies, they offer plenty of books on how they view the world, wage labour and capital and "Fauerbach and end of classical philosophy" could help you understand the leftist mindset a bit more

To me, that sounds social-democratic-ish But over all, it really does not matter

​@statmc8357 Idk, Collective "coalesce" like thinking has gotten to where we are now. Labels should not be identifiers to any particular person or individual. We need to break barriers if we're going to make actual changes, no more petty remarks, egoism, or narcissistic tendencies. Just be more on having good, neutral discussions.

@@nbafanboy8146 I agree. Like, the words "nazi" and "commie" has been thrown around so much that at this point it lost most of its meaning. So in short, labeling doesen't really answear our problems.

I did

Utopia is ill-defined because any Marxist worth their salt REJECTS Utopianism. In fact Marxism is Scientific Socialism and it's break with other socialism is over the question of Utopia. Marxism rejects the concept of Utopia as idealistic. The goal isn't utopia but instead to improve the world by eliminating class relations. Is this considered Utopian? No it is not, it is considered merely an obtainable thing on the long term scale of history. I am not a Utopian, I am a Eutopian.

@@novinceinhosic3531 The clip in reference to the molotov ribbentrop pact that begins at 11:10 in this video. the corresponding footage in the original hakim video 'There was never a "Hitler-Stalin" pact' begins at 11:50 and if you watch, you'll see he's saying what the soviets believed (or said they believed at least) not necessarily justifying it.

Ukrainians and Russians be like

really you could argue that you could classify ideologies according to their class positions, like middle class ideologies, owning class ideologies and working class ideologies you could classify fascism/anarchism as middle class ideologies liberalism as owning class ideology and marxist as working class ideology

​@@drunkenslav2334 there is nothing working class about marxism its a upper and middleclass ideology designed for those who are smart enough to not do physical labour but not smart enough to make good money from it like buisness owners or high end engineers/doctors/professors so they get envious and want to burn down the world working class people don't give a solid fuck about any of that and just want enough pay to live a comfortable life with the feeling that things wil get better for their kids

yeah they hate each other, but they're willing to work together. thats the difference.

@@drunkenslav2334anarchism is not middle class and very much high class as only rich ppl want there to be no government

*world

And why they go out and vote wrong people?

Who?

Because morals are individualistic. Also a true utopia wouldn't need to be enforced by any group or individual, either by threat of violence or other coercive behavior.

@@AzerbaijanOficial Utopias don't exist and never will. The closest you can get is a small community that acts like an extended family and is very selective about the people allowed in. There will never be a situation where no form of coercion is needed for people to live together in that way. There is always an implied punishment awaiting the breaking of rules and there is no way to remove that.

yeah, thats why you need to base your ideology of science not utopianism, there's a good book about it called "socialism utopian and scientific" i recommend you read it

@@drunkenslav2334 There's always a "great book" to explain bullshit. They're usually written in the comfort and safety of an echo chamber by an author who has uninformed ideas about the way people ought to behave and the things they ought to believe instead of lived experiences with how people actually are. There's nothing wrong with being well-read, but it's not a replacement for being properly socialized to human nature. Utopia is a mythological concept and always will be, science is just a series of investigations with varied results which are documented by imperfect observers. Experience teaches individuals to factor these realities into their ideals, so they don't end up getting high on their own farts. Point is, if you want to convince someone of your point of view then don't just namedrop a reading recommendation like you're in a book club. Do your own heavy lifting and make a solid point, in your own words, backed up by your own observations and experiences. The "educate yourself"-retreat tactic doesn't work anymore. Come with receipts or don't come at all.

undertale is leftist? i wouldn't know about that

I thought Undertale was apolitical? Aside from Alphys having a crush on Undyne and Mettaton certainly giving gay vibes, its main theme is basically "Genocide is bad" which is something i'm pretty sure both sides can agree on...right?

@@Cappuccino_Rabbitno, right wing media is very pro genocide. Just look at how they blatantly support Israel

@@Cappuccino_Rabbit Neither side agrees on that. It all depends on who is being genocided.

@@Cappuccino_Rabbit Leftist things undertale has: its fandom, LGBTQ+ themes, focus on racial conflict, pacifism for true ending (it's something more than anti-genocide, it's promoting not using agression on anything at all)

But we would agree that the right is much more united behind Trump compare to the dissident left who will not support Biden?