The Myth of Binary Politics: How The Political Spectrum Is Lying To You

[@nolancer5974]

"The political binary is the dumbest of all. It's based on the seating system in the old French legislature, and I refuse to base my life on anything French." - Michael Malice

[@tugalic3979]

Only good thing to base on the french is right-hand traffic

[@levongevorgyan6789]

His last name comes from French

[@Cartoonnetworkisamazing]

@@levongevorgyan6789yep can confirm as a french speaking person

[@yaujj65]

Well France started the zombie apocalypse. So it's fine to dislike them. (Walking Dead reference joke)

[@S1AR_DUS1]

@@tugalic3979even then it’s statistically proven that left hand traffic is safer and causes less accidents because roughly 90% of people are right handed and that’s the hand that always has control of the steering wheel in cars built for driving on the left. When you drive on the right you use your right hand to change the gear box (Yes I do know automatic cars are a thing but not everyone uses them)

[@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding]

Here is my political spectrum: Based (youa gree with me). VS Cringe (You disagree with me).

[@mortonthiockol2387]

Yep, sounds about right. From what I've seen that's what those mean now.

[@AllyRoseGarden]

Alt-lite = agreed alt-right = bullsh*t Sjw woke = super bullsh*t

[@DjDeadpig]

The political compass and the test as well is evidence that online politics has failed.

[@HawkThunder907]

By this thing, Im a communist.

[@hismajesty6272]

Yeah. I’m more of a Republican/low government kinda guy, and it said I’m an authoritarian leftist (probably because I hate monopolies).

[@lessimcdowell9897]

I can help you guys figure out what you are.

[@lessimcdowell9897]

Before the 1700s, monarchs and elite landowners couldn’t control all the land, most of the land was controlled by tradesmen that passed their trades down to to their children. They would also pass down their surname which was mostly local trade names like potter, miller, and shoemaker. When these tradesmen left their hometown they wouldnt go by their local surname they would go by a characteristic from their region or maybe even the name of their village. When steam power came it also brought in production lines which meant it was now more efficient for 10 people to produce a good than 1 tradesman. This mass production put the tradesmen out of business and it turned them and their children into the first low skilled class on earth. The owners of factories would take 98% of the surplus from workers. What is surplus value? It is the profit made from labor, if it only costs 15 cents to produce a good, and that product then sells on the market for $10, than the surplus value is $9.85. So this is what helped lead to the French Revolution, in that war it was Republican vs loyalist, the republicans were for revolution and the loyalists were for the monarchies. When republicans became disillusioned with war and began supporting monarchies again they became conservatives and the remaining republicans became libertines or liberals. Lavador is right when he says conservatives want to stay still and liberals want to keep moving. So if you support the tradesmen getting more than the 2% of the surplus they create you are a liberal, if you are for a manipulation of the labor market to maintain a low skilled class to benefit the owner class you are a conservative.

[@lessimcdowell9897]

Socialism is used as an umbrella term but all it is is a business model called a worker cooperative, the history of the co op is fuzzy but all you need to know is that the workers were attempting to break away from the owner class/ employers during the French Revolution and own their own capital and control the distribution of their own surplus. A worker cooperative is usually organized by local low skilled workers that pool together resources to start a private for profit business. There have been occasions in history where there was hostile socialist takeovers of businesses, mostly in the early days where only a few people owned capital and commerce was scarce. Private companies like co ops do not accept outside investors. a worker cooperative goes a step further than this by making the workers the only major investors. This explains why the janitors get paid same as the harder jobs, both invest the exact same money. The mission objective of a co op is not only financial independence but job security. Each member of the company owns an even percentage of the business, so the more co owners there are, the less personal profit each co owner will gain. Sometimes production cooperatives outside cities or populated areas will share their profits with lower valued service workers so they have access to services, these are called sister co ops. Each co owner also receives one vote on the board of directors, they hire and fire managers and co owners and vote on production and service schedules, this is like voting for how much money you want to work for and everyone works together to achieve this goal. The managers make about 4 to 5 times more than the other co owners, but they also own an even share and 1 vote on the board. Ties are broken by the managers vote. Socialists make profits only from production and services, their brands are not publicly traded or owned. Think of it like a corporation of trust fund babies with even shares but they actually work. This is socialism, the workers owning the means of production and distributing the surplus evenly(except for managers unless self managed.) many people are taught in capitalist countries that socialists support dictatorships but the original socialists advocated for people’s Democratic republics and that makes sense because they also advocated for democracy in the workplace. If you support this you are a classic socialist

[@The_New_IKB]

The French Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for humanity!

[@ayanpandeydpsn-std9005]

Nope ,not all.

[@rarescevei8268]

Not all bad

[@orange_mapping]

Well you should blame the Americans for that since they inspired the French. France is basically a failed USA while USA is the bane of this world

[@MonarchismFan]

@@rarescevei8268you don’t get the reference

[@MonarchismFan]

@@ayanpandeydpsn-std9005you didn’t get the reference

[@catmonarchist8920]

Sad that the British system is older but people swap sides rather than have a fixed seating plan so a republic got to define history.

[@RickJaeger]

How Roundheaded of you!! A Cavalier like me will never agree to this!

[@Albanian_crusader]

Maybe the real political compass were the friends we made along the way

[@trust.worthy]

Far-right Far-left Im Far-ting

[@jonathanathor117]

I like Far-ming

[@Vitlaus]

*Lord* *of* *the* *Rings* *politics* Monarchists: Men & Elves Communists: Orcs Libertarians: Ents ^ (fuel for communists) Capitalists: Dwarves & Hobbits Fascists: Amazon Prime

[@idontknoq4813]

Hobbits are chill anarchists that smoke weed and dmt.

[@CatotheE]

Amazon Prime? Lol.

[@CryoStrider]

What exactly is supposed to be the difference between "Libertarians" and "Capitalists"?

[@Dominus564]

Lol at Fascists being Amazon Prime!

[@troo_6656]

Honestly if Ents are libertarians I take it. I remember how they fucked up Isengard when they got pissed. Can't be a fuel if the fuel can throw massive rock in your precise direction.

[@hismajesty6272]

I took the political compass test, and oh my. I am a conservative Republican. I am permissive of lifestyles I religiously object to, and I have friends from all walks of life. I like low government influence on daily life. The test had me as a slightly left wing, slight authoritarian. (The opposite of policies I like). The political binary is a tool to classify everyone and everything into neat little categories, but real life and actual beliefs are more all over the place than any classification tool can possibly explain.

[@tempejkl]

I mean, many people find out that they’re actually socialist because of the political compass. There’s a reason it was so popular before, the reason there’s not many socialists is because people don’t actually know what it is (well americans).

[@retrox684]

@@tempejklI mean defends on the socialism we’re talking about. Big difference between ML USSR and Tripartism Nordic Model.

[@johnteixeira6405]

@@tempejkl If so many people "find out" they're socialists because of the political compass test and the political compass test is proven to be very poor at properly indicating someone's politics, what do you think that says? I guess a better question would be: Are you even going to bother to use your brain to figure it out?

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

​@@tempejklIt's more to do with the political compass test having garbage questions and categories.

[@idontknoq4813]

@@retrox684 the nordic countries aren't socialist.

[@necropolistc6357]

how is Mussolini right wing when he was a very outspoken socialist?, I never trusted that test

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

Mussolini condemned socialism

[@CatotheE]

In his 20's.

[@troopersteve2992]

Because according to political theorists because it has nationalism in it, it must be far right, and they purposefully ignore all the leftist traits in fascism for the sake of making it right wing, same with Nazism despite arguably being more left leaning than fascism. I argue it is part of the Hitler football Lavader described and the common ground solution was just to make them both wicked right wing which they are not.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 _"Mussolini condemned socialism"_ Wrong. He didn't. He denounced Marxism, not socialism. _“You cannot get rid of me because I am and always will be a socialist. You hate me because you still love me.”_ - Benito Mussolini , As quoted by Mussolini after he was expelled from the Italian Socialist Party in 1914. _“Do not believe, even for a moment, that by stripping me of my membership card you do the same to my Socialist beliefs, nor that you would restrain me of continuing to work in favor of Socialism and of the Revolution.”_ - Benito Mussolini Speech at the Italian Socialist Party’s meeting in Milan at the People’s Theatre on Nov. 25, 1914.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

@@CatotheE _"In his 20's."_ He started out as a Marxist, then became a (national) syndicalist and never stopped being a socialist.

[@MonsieurDean]

Ayo based?

[@nice_ol_history]

Neat-o

[@epistemo3442]

didn't expect you to be watching Lavader's video and I would say this is pretty based.

[@StarsBarsAndCheese]

Definitely

[@wrjtung3456]

I love segregation

[@Gloverfield]

More like least honest historian...

[@ManiacMayhem7256]

Reagan was indeed largely focused on neoliberal trickle down economics, however he did have many Protestant conservative beliefs standard for his time and he wasnt much of a libertarian in practice

[@Cartoonnetworkisamazing]

Yeah but he’s still considered a neoliberal

[@niarlatotepbasset]

Reagan also introduced the “No fault divorce law” .

[@Pan_Z]

"Trickle down economics" is one of the stupidest, fallacious, propagandist economic terms in modern times. Supply-side economics, as its known, called for tax cuts, deregulation, and reduced government spending. While the latter never happened, the result was double-digit unemployment and inflation being eliminated. The economy boomed, and the growing wealth inequality critics latch onto precedes Reagan, starting with the US severing itself from the gold standard.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Making reasonable criticisms of Ronald Reagan is fine but say Supply-Side economics, not that slander term.

[@ManiacMayhem7256]

@@robertortiz-wilson1588 Don't many supply side economists disapprove of the way Reagan went about it to some extent?

[@darthutah6649]

In regards to royals being apolitical, the actual origin of the terms left and right came from the French Revolution. The right wing was composed of those loyal to the king while those on the left wing were against.

[@Lili_Chen2005]

You're certainly correct on this, but I've found these lables to be more of a guide of reference rather than something to be scrutinized. Most people seem to need a simplistic explanation that is easy to digest rather than the technical answer. It's rather rare to get into the nuances of these things outside of an academic atmosphere.

[@yoshibobo]

I agree with you, but I think that mindset is holding us back. If people start to hear others talking about politics more realistically they will become more familiar, and the topic will be perceived as more popular and worthy of discussion. Not to mention how these simplistic models of politics with overlapping language and differing intentions are confusing to the average person and prevents better understanding by creating a feeling of hopelessness when trying to understand.

[@sullathehutt7720]

And herein lies the root of the problem. Human beings are too stupid on average to develop or even understand a coherent program for civilization.

[@buolindo8795]

Nowdays, people don't judge a policy on whether they think it is good. They think it is good, if it is on their side of the political spectrum

[@jacksonmowell3859]

Do a video on how and why the American and Western media pander to women constantly.

[@jacobjgleggy1854]

Please keep on reposting that then

[@jacksonmowell3859]

@varalderfreyr8438 Just across the board with all media.

[@fingchingbing4805]

​@@jacksonmowell3859 because we live in a gynocentric society where women are half (if not more) of the population, where women must be catered to at all costs.

[@vicenteromerovega1480]

So politics are non binary xd Bad joke I know

[@Alec_Douglas114]

A new Lavadar Video and my birthday: What more do I need?

[@aktuellyattee8265]

I went into this video stating out loud to the air in my room that, well obviously right-wing vs. left-wing is individualism vs collectivism... duh! Thank you for correctly confirming how always correct I am.

[@Gingerphile00]

yawn. you libertards are as interesting as watching paint dry.

[@tctyt]

It's Freedom vs State Control instead.

[@aktuellyattee8265]

​@@tctyt It is in practice, but people don't necessarily recognize or acknowledge that. That's why the Libertarian left exists.

[@user-xm9ed8ej6p]

As long as i get older, i came throw several political spectrums (first nationalism, then conservatism, then liberalism, now - a kind of mix of socialism, liberalism and nationalism). But after all I realise that all of this idelogies have nothing to do with the people and a state, but are used for some political interests of politicians themselves or some public persons. All I desire (as most people) - is to make life better in every aspect. Why can't I prefer leftist methods for some problems (if it's effective) being right-wing

[@ananon5771]

To talk about libertarianism, there are libertarians that are also to the right like hoppeans, but it does not believe in state enforcement of these values, so you could say it's a moot point. Also a large part of why American libertarians tend to associate with the right more simply cause the American right treats them better and takes them more seriously.

[@HappyGuy-cn9po]

Libertarians just agree on individual liberty. In other words, “You’re good to do what you want, and I’m good to do what I want. Don’t mess with me, and I won’t mess with you.” So while a right-wing libertarian will agree with socially conservative views, he will allow for a left-wing libertarian to have his freedoms.

[@troo_6656]

To put it more accurately. Any libertarian that isn't delusional hypocrite is on the right, because traditional values are far more compatible with liberetarinism than what the left wants.

[@deancorso6693]

Who the fuck takes Lolberts seriously lol

[@ananon5771]

@@deancorso6693 Seems the Argentines are giving it a chance.

[@deancorso6693]

@@ananon5771 and they're bound to fail.

[@thomas777803]

I would disagree a little on the last point about Naziism. Economically it's definitely socialist. Though it's social policies definitely fall outside of the left-right dichotomy as it promotes not tradition, but a revolutionary new German identity.

[@hispalismapping155]

socialism is when state

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

Economically it is not socialist. It is social-corporatist.

[@kevinohiggins3868]

define a socialist economy. Hitler allowed private ownership of industry and forced them to produce what the state said to produce. It'st just state ownership with a nice private veneer, wheras Mussolini and Statlin wen't full mask-off@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046

[@troopersteve2992]

Id argue original Nazism was third positionist, such as the movement in Czechoslovakia, but Hitler brought it more to the left and made it more leftist.

[@kevinohiggins3868]

@@troopersteve2992 can you say what you mean by him making it leftist

[@user-DeLorean-Dude2024]

21:15 I have a joke regarding Nazism being neither far-left nor far-right. It's called Far-Centrism! *Drum sounds* Get it?

[@Spido68_the_spectator]

It somewhat kinda is.

[@S.D.323]

I do not get it

[@averyspence3983]

We should have a political cube, the Y axis is how authortarian someone is, x axis is how much of a capitalist someone is, and lastly z axis is how progressive someone is.

[@Eu-Abreu]

A political compass that differentiates and divides clusters of ideologies from colectivist to individualist (left to right) and revolucionary to conservative (up and down) is a good proposal. Although I think it is more appealing to colectivist, because it doesn't reduce polarity enough, doesn't fight back the tendency to "ideological religion" and reduces debate to group wars (like colectivist want). What in my experience reduces my tendency to catalog someone and myself, is Hans Eysenck model, that makes me think in terms of what my position is in relation to specific constructs, like in a "level scroll bar chart" (you can use a lickert scale, for example). Example: Comunitarism - - - - o - -individualism Interventionism- - - o - - - non-intervetionism Multilateral to unilateralism... And so on and so forth.

[@kevinohiggins3868]

the normal polcomp already kind of has clusters. Top left [communist/ML], top middle [fascist], bottom right [ancap], half-bottom right [libertarian], bottom left [ancom], half-bottom left [progressive], centre-right = neo-lib, top right doesn't really make sense but it's theoretically Reactionary/Traditionalists/Monarchists Also collectivists aren't the only ones who do "group wars", you just have to talk to libertarians to see how much individualists wight over whose the true individualist lmao, meanwhile most authortiarians agree on most issue and are extremely chill with disagreement. I've seen Marxist-Lenininst's and Maoists who would be shunned by 90% of the left debate rfar right people like Richard Spencer but get snubbed by normie leftists.

[@IsmaelSantos-xv9qf]

@@kevinohiggins3868 Except that Fascism and National Socialism, like all forms of Socialism, are Left.

[@gergelyritter4412]

The main issue with these compasses is that it's difficult to make more complex. Technically, to improve accuracy, you could just add mpre dimensions. To the collectivist-individualist point you could also add social issues, economic ideas and many more. The problem is, that it's difficult to make a 3d political compass. Another issue is, that you cannot visualise anything above 3d. So even if you want to make it more complex, you can't display it.

[@xpasza1775]

Thanks for the amazing political spectrum. Now I totally understand why Anarchists have historically worked with Communists and why Libertarians cooperate with Fascists. Very usefull indeed.

[@xXShmendanXx]

I always have said the political compass would be perfect if it was 3d and included an axis for social conservatism. But a political cube would be quite hard to read.

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

8values is probably the best. It's got 4 spectrums. Authoritarianism vs Libertarianism, Capitalism vs Socialism, Globalism vs Nationalism and Conservatism vs Progressivism

[@xXShmendanXx]

@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 It is very good. But hard to translate to some sort of plotting system. I think it's worth moving on from the political compass to a system like 8values anyways, except for entry-level political understanding

[@Web720]

​@@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046 It should be globalism vs isolationism, not nationalism.

[@urbrandnewstepdad]

it would be interesting to know lavader's thoughts on dugin

[@yobalmer8936]

Prob negative

[@rdrgzbrtlm]

It´s just like white and black. I prefer Hayek spectrum: liberalism-socialism-conservatism with liberalism (individualism) opposing the other two.

[@TheFlubber06]

Just because libertarians are opposed to a violence-based state prohibition on profligate and degenerate behavior doesn't mean we want to allow it: It's just that families and property-based contracts are more effective at prohibiting such behavior than states are.

[@IamaCosmonaut]

And those things only work when people can trust eachothers, but throw in bunch opportunistic assholes and your society will fall apart until the people have had enough and reimplement government violence.

[@TheFlubber06]

@@IamaCosmonaut That's why you are free to exclude, separate, secede and disassociate as well as to include, unite, and associate. The state, who are the opportunistic malefactors to worry about anyway, is still not necessary.

[@Erich_C]

Thanks for this video. As a Nationalist Third-Positionist, I really appreciate it.

[@Noobish_Camper55]

Talking politics to a European as an American is near impossible. The world views are extremely different. Even the world view off neighboring countries vary so greatly. I think the biggest difference is many Americans have some level of libertarian ideology regardless of where they place themselves in politics which isn't seen much in other parts of the world.

[@onemoreminute0543]

The world has outgrown the left/right dichotomy.

[@ProPopulo106]

The only comment I would make about libertarians being "not conservatives" is that much of the libertarian ideology in the United States is trying to reverse big government policies in the US and CONSERVE the old US traditions. Under any other nation, you could make the case that libertarianism is not a conservative movement, but the original legal doctrine in the US was very libertarian in nature with "freedom" being a main topic. This is especially true if you look threw some of the Founding father's journals and documents along with the notable works of the Constitution, declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights.

[@IsmaelSantos-xv9qf]

Conservatism is Preserving the Status Quo. Progressivism, as in the real definition not the Leftist activist definition (they use your same language but a different dictionary, mind that), is about Changing the Status Quo. If your SQ is Libertarianism (or Classical Liberalism) then seeking to preserve that Liberal state of affairs is to be a Conservative. If you want to change the SQ into something else, like a tyranny, then you are a Progressive. Now look at current year Progressives and how Maoist their methods are. Now you know what the end goal of the activism of recent decades is all about.

[@ProPopulo106]

@@IsmaelSantos-xv9qf I agree, conservative movements in the US and EU might be conserving something different, but it both of our "progressives" act like Maoists.

[@troo_6656]

Right vs left wing make sense and maps on pretty well if we talk strictly economics. The left focuses on the welfare state while the right wishes to have the economy unshackled... I think you can see where I'm going with this. The right vs left in economics maps suspiciously well onto individual vs collective. THAT'S why we ended up where we ended up, because right wing economics encourage individualism while left wing require strong state to enforce them. This gets muddled in the cultural aspects and political parties and you end up with oxymorons like state capitalism. Now here comes further complication. A lot of people didn't think about their position very much so you end up with people who like their individual freedoms, but arguing for left wing economics because they don't know any better...or because they are simply hypocrites and want that freedom for themselves and too stupid to see they won't end up at the helm. That's how you end up with oxymoronic idiocy like libertarian socialism...or really any flavour of anarchism.

[@applesaucelarry813]

Lol. Fascism is right wing though. The real divide of the right and left is hierarchy vs egalitarianism.

[@saltytwofer]

@@applesaucelarry813 There's a few charts and graphics of "marginalization indexes" and "privilege pyramids" built on collectivist ideas, and push institutional and state polices to remedy those oppressor vs oppressed dimensions presented in those graphics, which clearly reflects the hierarchical doctrine of the left. For the modern left, they believe humans that are "cishet" white men are at the top of society, and must be legally and socially engineered into their rightful place below or among all the other groups that all the straight white men have oppressed throughout all time. Justice demands it. *Any disparity in straight white men's favor is proof of unfair benefits to each individual white guy* and is attributable primarily to their melanin, genitals, and orientation. *Hard work is a myth except for nonwhite non-men, and so is merit.* The left isn't "more egalitarian." Today's left just tries to achieve equality of outcome through terribly unequal laws, which is the only way you *can* do such a thing. That's not my idea of social justice. That's just marxism adapted outside of the class axis. It's a joke, because it treats people as fungible based on their characteristics. A white guy steals my grandfather's car, and the left's idea of "racial justice" is effectively just to have some different white guy give up a different car to a different black guy. Whether it's reparations or affirmative action or quotas, that's the inescapable shortcoming of many of their "egalitarian" efforts.

[@Admiral-General_Aladeen]

Wrong You did the meme😂 Let me guess you are from the US? Because the right wing=more economic/individual freedom is a typically american point of view. You only think that because that is how recent economics/politics developed in the US. For example even in the US a lot of right wingers are pro goverment if the goverment enforces thier policies and thats even without mentioning europe.

[@Admiral-General_Aladeen]

​@@applesaucelarry813nope

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

@@applesaucelarry813 _"Lol. Fascism is right wing though."_ Wrong. Fascism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist ideology based on National Syndicalism which they adapted from Georges Sorel. It's adjacent to Marxism.

[@irmaosmatos4026]

7:34 anti-immigration is a social conservative issue only in Europe, Asia and the USA, Latin Americans don't have as much as problem with it as Americans do.

[@parkermcginley3708]

Your political graph is the only one I’m a centrist on, and as a conservative Catholic I think a measured approach on individual vs. collective is necessary to maintain a stable society

[@jayfreechavez0000]

I notice you gained new subscribers and supporters in your channel. I'm glad you get the recognition you deserve. I'm genuinely happy for you Sir.

[@nord_anon4406]

Left-wing = egalitarianism Right-wing = hierarchy The more egalitarian an ideology is the further to the left it is. The less egalitarian an ideology is, the further to the right it is. Thats it, it's that simple. Edit: I disagree with your conclusion that the real political divide is between collectivism vs. individualism. I believe the real divide is between egalitarianism vs. hierarchy as I explained above. And furthermore seeing as equality and hierarchy are irreconcilable opposites, just like right and left are opposite directions, I see no issue with still using the terms left and right in politics. Also on the subject of Fascism and National Socialism, I know both of these ideologies consider themselves to be "beyond left and right" as you explain in the video, nevertheless I still consider them both to be on the right because they are both anti-egalitarian. Conservatism is right wing because it seeks to preserve an existing social order, which is usually hierarchical in nature, but conservatism is not the only right-wing ideology, just the most well-known one. One does not necessarily need to be conservative or reactionary to be considered right-wing, just anti-egalitarian/pro-hierachy, hence why I consider revolutionary ideologies like Fascism and National Socialism to still be right-wing despite not being conservative or reactionary in any way.

[@moviereviews1446]

You are correct sir. Good comment

[@epistemo3442]

Pretty much this. The most fundamental characteristic between the two is egalitarianism and hierarchy.

[@applesaucelarry813]

How is fascism and nazism not reactionary?

[@epistemo3442]

Fascism and Nazism isn't reactionary in the sense that it is revolutionary.

[@Wilkob528]

@@applesaucelarry813 "The Fascist doctrine has not taken De Maistre as its prophet. Monarchical absolutism is of the past, and so is ecclesiolatry. Dead and done for are feudal privileges and the division of society into closed, uncommunicating castes. Neither has the Fascist conception of authority anything in common with that of a police ridden State." - Giovanni Gentile

[@aganib4506]

I appreciate this video, Lavader! I subscribed to the leftist (soviet-style socialism/communism) ideas throughout high school and early college days. However, I am a post leftist at this point in my life but I am fascinated by your clarification of fascism and corporatism. If only there was a leader in the Philippines that could implement corporatism and even Monarchism, my motherland could have had a unified identity and my people would have been better off focusing on themselves and improve their way of life. If it were to happen, I would love to return to the motherland from here in the US and help create that change. So, thank you for making this video!

[@greyfells2829]

​@@WHYIMHERE350civilian militias using anti-drug laws to settle personal scores is not "good", it's a bandaid for a failed state and a fragmented society.

[@bighillraft]

Imagine identifying with "post-leftism", literally just taking all the good parts out of libertarian socialism Ideologies like that are just poor man's substitute for actual political knowledge

[@lukashradecky5492]

Literally the equivalent of leaving Scientology for the Nation of Islam

[@AllyRoseGarden]

Ph are always AuthCap and AuthCon, it's a shame they couldn't decriminalized soft drugs for medicinal use like marijuana and kratum, they totally need divorce for severe cases like shabu addict and drunkard husband who totally physically and sexually abused his wife and children or the wife was gold digging gambling addict and had extramarital affairs to her gigolo/paramour and she treated her husband like a punching bag for not being manly/masculine enough and she physically and sexually abused their children, which is bad and god awful things happened😥😱😨

[@anthonyruby2668]

By the 2040s, The name and word "Hitler" is probably going to lose its sting eventually and will go back to a silly Yosemite Sam character like back in the 1940s cartoon, unable to be taken seriously anymore cause of overuse

[@urbrandnewstepdad]

i feel like the political compass works pretty well. it encompasses the mainstream left right binary while also having the collective individual spectrum on the up/down axis. its simple enough to be easily taught to people yet complicated enough to provide nuance.

[@NPC-bs3pm]

Yeah i like it. Personally i am more disturbed by people that don't want to accept ANY spectrum of politics but Good vs Bad. Some people think you are born a blank slate and can be molded into the perfect political group (Communists and some other Collectivist extremists). Others believe that you have some inherent characteristics that are in play aside from upbringing. I'd rather LET PEOPLE BE different in thought and appreciate that mind for what it is. There is a Evil on the Left and the Right that can spawn but to disregard all of ones NATURAL state of being is WRONG.

[@Kirovxx]

@@NPC-bs3pmwell for the left anything that isn’t left are evil as they are promoting ‘capitalism’. Basically if you aren’t left you are decadent.

[@canibezeroun1988]

I think it needs to have a traditional-iconoclast axis. It would help define right wing as private government and left wing as public government. This would out fascism and communism on the left but separate them by tradition.

[@ManiacMayhem7256]

Nah I think honestly it's pretty bad. It's just a worse version of the Nolan chart. A far better measurement is the 12 axes.

[@ManiacMayhem7256]

​@@canibezeroun1988 There wasn't much traditional about National Socialism or Italian Fascism

[@eldirector1936]

As a third positionist, I always get authoritarian left.

[@johnnotrealname8168]

Only 11 minutes late and I feel like most on the right know this but an analysis is welcome.

[@michakosmala5468]

I can agree with you. I am a monarchist-conservative-liberal. I believe that the state should be a monarchy with aristocracy, without much power, for people should be accountable for their own actions. With such ideology, I'd be situated at the centre of your system, which would be funny, for people consider me to be "radical" (i dont believe so, but they do they) Conservatism, because of the "victory of liberalism" of the XIXth century, now wants to preserve not only culture, but also the free market - most conservatives believe so (of course sb may be a feudalisy, but that is not only a rarity, but also anti conservative in some sense [pro-conservatie in the other]) Because of those reasons, I belive that a kind of accurate system of placing ideologies is the political comass with the "progressivism - social conservatism" slider. With that, we can fairly accurately say that sb believes in a free market/social market, is authoritarian/liberal and put his stance on social issues.

[@troopersteve2992]

Great video as always Lavader. While I oppose political measurements and prefer the complicated multi political world answer, your scale I think while flawed would be a much more accurate one than the current one, it can encompass the farthest of anti society ideologies as independent while the compass cannot, also has a place for third position ideologies to fit nicely in collectivism.

[@jirislavicek9954]

The efforts to mark fascism as right wing ideology comes from the USSR. The communists wanted to distance themselves from the fascist movement and introduce themselves as the polar opposite. As the "liberators" from fascism.

[@ssocar96]

I prefer Collectivism on the Left with Individualism to the Right with Ayn Rand.

[@CatotheE]

I've always preferred the political triangle. One corner for liberty. One corner for equality. One corner for order (Fraternity or tradition). People can be placed on it depending on what they value the most. The three big ideas of the 19th century find themselves in one. Liberalism, nationalism and socialism. Edit This was a great video. I wasn't sure about the part where you explained why fascism wasn't reactionary at first, but I do get your point. I'm not sure that I agree with it though. I don't think there's an inherent contradiction between a revolutionary and a reactionary. Being a revolution means having a sudden impact on society and reactionaries want to restore things that were practiced in the past (nationalism, militarism, traditionalism etc.).

[@CatotheE]

@@jhngrg8132 Nationalism and militarism are a lot older than people like to think. At least in the Italian, Spanish and Portuguese cases, they weren't secular either. Catholicism was the state religions. I wouldn't call racism modern either. That goes back far.

[@CatotheE]

@@jhngrg8132 "Most kingdoms were multiethnic", That depends on what you mean by ethnic, but generally that applied more to Empires. Even Rome started off as an ethnic thing for Italians. That's why in Virgil, Augustus is described as leading the Italians into battle on Aeneas' shield. Not the Romans. Militarism has existed at least since Egypt. No. People in ancient times definitely saw race and biological racism existed before the 19th century.

[@CatotheE]

@@jhngrg8132 Cato was conservative. This goes back way before the enlightenment.

[@Codreanu_Prezent]

I hope you keep educating on the third-position. Not enough people have the ability to understand the 20th century politics as you do. There used to be someone who did what you did called 'Cultured Thug,' but he's gone quiet.

[@crusader2112]

Another great video Lavader. 😎👍 Peace ✌🏻

[@Rockbullet-su9go]

Ronald Regan was no real libertarian. He signed into law the Machine Gun Ban of 1986!

[@PremiumToad]

The easiest way to show how flawed the political spectrum is is by trying to plot fascism on it. It has far left wing economic ideas but with several far right wing features. But this isn't and can't be represented on the compass. Instead it says that only authoritarian centrists (its at the top of the center on most compasses) are fascists which doesn't really make any sence.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

_"but with several far right wing features. "_ No. It has none. Fascism was purely a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology, adjacent to Marxism.

[@sempersuffragium9951]

Though the political compass has many, many problems, I do still believe it is accurate in describing a political situation, so long as you limit it to only one location and period. Because the fact is, politics is binary: It's either yay or nay and the politicians must form coalitions which transcend the various differences between them. And the main difference is still: are you on the progress wagon, started by the French Revolution, or did you get off it, and if so when

[@KougarManx468]

I had a thought about instead og there being a political compas or spectrum , that there should be a political tree like there is a family tree of a species , but the problem with this proposition is that there is no consensus as to what is the 1st ever political ideology like theire is a common consensus as to what is the 1st ever mammal if we use evolution as it's basis .

[@user-xb5eo2bm1n]

Finally someone said it! The left-right spectrum is bs! The individualism-collectivism spectrum makes MUCH MUCH MORE SENSE!

[@StetoGuy]

I too have come around to the idea of collectivism vs individualism nowadays, and it's great to see others come to that conclusion too. I agree, it is far more accurate at categorizing ideologies as it has a consistent logic that can be applied for every ideology's fundamental ideas. Though, every time I argue this people loose their mind that Fascism and National Socialism are lumped with other socialist ideologies.

[@kevinohiggins3868]

the idea of fascism/NS ect. being EXTREMELY different to normal Marxism-Leninism/Maoism ect. is just ideology tbh. Everyone else can see they are similar. IMO I believe there ar e 3 dypes of states: 1. Democracies, which are all in plutocracies in reality 2. Monarchies, doesn't necessarily havi to be a actual monarchy but has the spirit of a state seperated from the people for an elite. Franco, Salazar ect. 3. People's State's: From Hitler's Germany to Gadaffi's Libya to Kim's North Korea, these state's put the people first and are ideological. A normal dictator would never go half as far as these guys go, as they are fundamentally ideological unlike most dhictators, and usually view the people as being the state in some way, unlike liberal democracy where they are fundamentally seperate but osmehow suppored to be represented and Monarchy where they are assumed to be lesser. The People's State's believe they *are* the state, and so everything the state does is tacitly with their consent.

[@johnteixeira6405]

Only leftist lose their mind at that, which should tell you everything you need to know. They don't like it because it makes them look bad. Just like calling a pedophile a pedophile, they probably won't like it very much. They don't want to be associated with nazi's despite their association with national socialism.

[@beastofdarknesss]

Wow someone described fascism correctly.

[@omegarealmsbans1914]

Honestly, Islamism is a much larger and more pressing issue for the Left-Right political binary than National Socialism or Fascism that is increasingly just accepted as Right-wing anyway. How do you categorize a movement that is anti-racist and anti-Western and anti-Christian, but also incredibly traditional and religious as well as anti-gay and anti-feminist?

[@thermionic1234567]

And has murdered over 600 million people…

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

_"than National Socialism or Fascism that is increasingly just accepted as Right-wing anyway. "_ They are not. Both are far-left, socialist 3rd position ideologies.

[@omegarealmsbans1914]

@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. They are though, Nazism is counted as a Right-wing movement by both the Left, the Center, and even the vast majority of Conservatives and Rightists. I don't deny that the schools of thought that led up to National Socialism and Fascism had roots in Left-wing thought. The end result is still considered extreme Right, and those within those circles also call themselves Far-Right or Right-wing.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

​@@omegarealmsbans1914 _"Nazism is counted as a Right-wing movement by both the Left, the Center, and even the vast majority of Conservatives and Rightists. "_ National Socialism was a totalitarian far-left, socialist 3rd position ideology based on ethnonationalism. It's adjacent to Marxism. Nothing to do with right wing of any kind. People on the right believe that the best outcome for society is achieved when individual rights and civil liberties are paramount and the role - and especially the power - of the government is minimized.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

@@omegarealmsbans1914 _"The end result is still considered extreme Right, "_ Extreme right would be Anarcho-Capitalism.

[@DarthDread-oh2ne]

Great job on the video.

[@charmyzard]

Why do I get the feeling authors like Lavader are the new school of politics? When my Mexico reformed in 2018 on an essentially peaceful revolution and I got into politics, I noticed the discrepancies with calling either left or right wing on a different political landscape than the west. I think everyone ESPECIALLY outside of the west could benefit from at least slight reforms to the denominations.

[@onemoreminute0543]

11:09 And that right there is something that absolutely terrified me when I first realised it. The terrifying realisation (to me at least) that the Nazi's never saw themselves as necessarily preserving the conservative status quo, but that they saw themselves as 'progressive' and 'tearing down the status quo'. All their state enforced atrocities - forced sterilisation, genocide, massacres, creating an economy geared solely towards conquest and exploitation- was seen by them as progressive and modern and new, as the next step forwards for humanity, not a retreat to the past. That realisation terrified me as it flew counter to my understanding of how we should develop as a human society. How do we avoid turning into another Third Reich or ruthless imperialist? Simple, we just follow revolutionary ideas that preach modernity and progressivism which don't try to stubbornly uphold the status quo. That will prevent us falling into the trap of history! But then that stance is somewhat hollow if the Third Reich and the European colonisers also saw themselves like that. Not as traditional and archaic, but new and modern. We could very easily fall into their mindset of commiting evil, unfazed by the inhumanity of it as we are confident everything we do is a step forward, not backward.

[@DJMacX]

Great Video! I started to think about the left/right categories not being accurate when this whole wokeness stuff started. Some people calling for communism are pushing rather individualist stuff with this whole queer agenda stuff. I would say that I am rather left wing economically speaking on some issues, but conservative from a moral/sociatal standpoint (traditional gender roles, family etc.)

[@steelbreaker25]

Yes, the traditional political compass is not nuanced enough. Me as an example - I advocate for the restoration of powerful monarchy, social hierarchy, nobility and hereditary titles, but also I'm pro legalisation of many drugs(with controlled commercial selling), cosmopolitan society and freedom of religion(secular monarchy). This makes it hard to neatly align with either left or right, because this is perhaps a mixed and nuanced take. However, at the same time, I would say that I strongly disagree with most people who label themselves as left, progressive, communist etc on most things.

[@IronMar1O]

I mean… it’s technically a better “compass” but for day to day politics it doesn’t seem like the best way of categorize your party or your political views

[@potatokitty]

Only issue with an idea of a compass is that whoever makes it will always be biased, unfortunately.

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

Communism (In theory) is not what you described it at all. Karl Marx described communism as Stateless, Classless, Moneyless and Socialist. While yes, many communist states did have governments, IN THEORY (can't stress in theory enough), they were only temporary. Define collectivism as "more power to the group/society" rather than state Again, just a nitpick. I am neither a communist nor a socialist

[@IsmaelSantos-xv9qf]

@@novinceinhosic3531 And in any case, you can interpret "the State dissolves in Communism" as in "dissolves like sugar in tea", that is, it becomes so totalitarian and embedded in human activity that there's no longer a difference between individual and the State. All in the State, nothing outside the State. Thus it "dissolves".

[@IamaCosmonaut]

But the government is the body of the society that represents the people. In theory you can talk about rainbows and unicorns all you want, but you can't ignore the reality that everytime power is collectivized in society to the people, the government will always become the embodiment of that power. Wether it's communism or democracy etc.

[@onemoreminute0543]

If I may (rarely) throw my hat into the modern political ring, another sort of binary classification system I'm not a big fan of is 'oppressed and oppressor' ways of viewing every conflict in the world. It proposes the simplistic view that there is always a clear cut victim and victimiser, and so suggests to us that it's actually very easy to take moral sides on certain matters based on who's bigger or smaller. The issue I have is that this binary is unhelpful in cases where victims can also be victimizers. Heres a challenge to that binary - was the Soviet Union a victim or victimiser during WW2? They helped Germany carve up Poland and tried to annex Finland, as well as occupying the Baltic States and parts of Romania. They conducted the Katyn massacre in Poland and deported thousands of eastern Europeans to Siberia. They also committed mass rape and ethnic cleansing in East Prussia at the wars end. At the same time, their population suffered in unspeakable ways during Operation Barbarossa and the Nazi's attempts to ethnically cleanse Eastern Europe. The siege of Leningrad, the massacre at Khatyn, the Hunger Plan, the sickening treatment of Soviet POW's... The fact that the extermination phase of the Holocaust began during Barbarossa...were these not the signs of a victim? They were victims, undoubtedly. And they were victimisers too. They were both oppressors and the oppressed. The same applied to the likes of the British Empire and USA during the conflict, though perhaps not to the same level. It's an example like this where the oppressed/oppressor dichotomy falls to pieces.

[@anonymous-cq7wj]

i think that if we're talking about states, the only consistent position from the 'oppressed and oppressor' point of view is that great powers or aspiring great powers such as the Soviet Union, the British Empire, and the USA during WWII cannot be categorized as oppressed. the only states that would fall under the 'oppressed' part of the dichotomy are underdeveloped states that were for the most part formerly colonized and are still exploited by great powers (also known variously as the Global South, periphery, or third world.) that's why you may see a lot of far leftists take neutral stances on say, ukraine vs. russia, because they see them both as exploitative capitalist and 'imperialist' states (according to the Leninist definition of imperialism.) i don't think i agree with the oppressed/oppressor worldview either but i hope my comment made it a little bit more clear

[@onemoreminute0543]

@@anonymous-cq7wj Yeah, I agree that from a consistent position that all those states were not oppressed. The issue I have is when the dichotomy is used for individual conflicts which negate a more complex reality.

[@palatasikuntheyoutubecomme2046]

Fascism isn't economically socialist. It is social-corporatist, that is, that it tolerates business, however business must co-operate with the government. For example, in Mussolini's Italy, "Syndicates", which would be made up of representatives from workers and employers, would work together with the government to come up with a plan for the economy. It did NOT want to outlaw private business. Fascism is: Economically: Social-Corporatist Civil: Authoritarian/Totalitarian Militarily: Super militaristic Socially: Reactionary (despite you claiming otherwise) Just a nitpick. I am not a fascist

[@anonymous-cq7wj]

i think - in theory - some versions of fascism can also be non-militaristic, but that hasn't been common historically

[@POCKET-SAND]

"Private business" By forcing corporatism into existence and giving the state final say in all manners, they did effectively outlaw private business. It's no longer a private business simply because the state says it is.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

_"Fascism isn't economically socialist."_ By definition it was. They specifically designed a system to manage their socialist economy, Corporatism. It was a system where sectors of the economy were divided into syndicates (which were nationalized Unions that then elected their own members into government as well as democratically run their workspaces. Each profession and field had their own Syndicate, which in turn, operated symbiotically with its composed members), whose activities and interactions were managed and coordinated by the government. The idea was to let the state control and direct the economy from the top-down without itself owning the means of production.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

_"that it tolerates business, however business must co-operate with the government."_ Sure. That is what we call a Command economy... you know, in which a central governmental authority dictates the levels of production that are permissible and the prices that may be charged for goods and services. Government officials set national economic priorities, including how and when to generate economic growth, how to allocate resources, and how to distribute the output. This often takes the form of a multi-year plan. This all is part of the socialist economic system.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

_"It did NOT want to outlaw private business."_ They didn't need to, because they controlled them via syndicates... and "private" businesses weren't even a thing really. By the year 1933, Mussolini had already nationalized over 75% of the Italian industry. As stated by Mussolini himself; _“The Fascist State directs and controls the entrepreneurs, whether it be in our fisheries or in our heavy industry in the Val d'Aosta. There the State actually owns the mines and carries on transport, for the railways are state property. So are many of the factories… We term it state intervention… If anything fails to work properly, the State intervenes. The capitalists will go on doing what they are told, down to the very end. They have no option and cannot put up any fight. Capital is not God; it is only a means to an end.”_ - Benito Mussolini As quoted in Talks with Mussolini, Emil Ludwig, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Company (1933)

[@lexter8379]

Your conclusion has several problem. Puting right libertarianism next to anarchism makes no sense, those two ideologies are complete opposite (at least Soviets and Fascists have authoterian state) but ancaps have authoterian economical system that in practice is no different then a state and anarchists are socialists. So your spectrum goes from no private ownership to some, a lot and no again. Also collectivism and individualism are more lense of analysis or tools, you could easily be a Soviet-style socialist and individualist who simple things the biggest individualistic freedom you get is by living in such a state. Some (mostly fascists, religious and conservative) ideologies take something above individual but they do it in vague idealistic sense, like nation, ethnicity, god (or possible workers sure). Where would the progressive market socialist be, on the same spot as conservative neoliberals? Or is progressive freedom more collectivistic then economical freedom for capitalists? Just so you know the line you made if looked as big state vs small state then it would make sense, but it would just not be represented by actual political affiliation, collaboration and history. Right liberterians would rather work with conservatives then with anarchists and democratic socialist would rather work with anarchists and liberals than Marxists or fascists. Marxists would rather work with liberals or even fascists then with anarchists. Because its about democracy, about equality vs hierarchy.

[@karthikboyareddygari568]

As a libertarian, I have actually come to associate right with hierarchy and the left with equalitarianism. It is true that I'm definitely not socially conservative, but I think a good deal of socially conservative behaviors are necessary for long-term stability, but that doesn't mean I think it's warranted to mandate them for example. I'm very much a "vices are not crimes" (cf. Spooner) type of person, but I also am not "bleeding heart" and am happy for people to deal with the consequences of their own actions. I've also used the lens of individualist vs. collectivist many a time since collectivism is what seems common to most of the tyrannical regimes, but of course people object to that because they don't want to be grouped with the Noozis (as MentisWave would refer to them). CallmeEzekiel has a video about the differences between liberalism and libertarianism, and that's where I first heard the hierarchy vs equality distinction for right vs left, respectively, and it made a lot of sense to me. Ultimately you'll have multiple axes (economic, social, authoritarian, collectivist, etc.) that you can place each ideology on, and usually the more axes the better it is at distinguishing ideologies, but I highly doubt that you'll be able to make a metric space out of it or anything to objectively measure how "close" two ideologies are.

[@lexter8379]

The terms are relative and are used in a specific common way. "The right is an umbrella term for compatible ideologies with historical conservative movement that tries to protect, uphold natural hierarchies of past aristocracy." This is way you have right libertarianism and fascism, because that is historically how those ideologies evolved inside liberalism. While on first glance monarchists, anarcho-capitalist and fascist could not be compatible if you look at their core ideological believes (anti-democracy, pro social hierarchies, anti-egalitarianism) you will see that the steps towards all of them are fairly similar and compatible (removing social protections, give power to police and military) and that they collaborate with each other more tightly. Especially when the bulk of the right is conservative capitalism neatly combining social oppression and economic oppression - just not their extremes. Also monarchism is a remnent and a template for them, top down hierarchical system, but also one that lost to liberalism and had to evolved to preserve its core tendency. The left however is simply the opposition to this hegemonic power of the right. This broad definition about how the terms are used is what makes it difficult to otherwise define. This is why you can have authoritarian top down dominant hierarchy of Soviets on the left next to anti-capitalist anarchists. This is why black ethnostater are often thrown to the left. This definition of the words is terrible and created artificially by propaganda (from USSR mostly) and it makes us blind. The actual most basic distinction in politics is top down hierarchy vs political equality. That is the very first and obvious category of social structure you could possible have when you look at politics at all. Then you can look at combination of power structures in relations to that (for example economical, political, social and interpolitical (between political units)). Any other distinction is in my opinion either stupid or specific and not the very core.

[@boaoftheboaians]

Lavender, I like your political compass, it definitely is easier for someone like me who can't find a simple position to fit in or provide a simple answer to where I would like (I just feel taking the "left-wing" or "right-wing" position is being biased and short sighted in the long run.... if i was asked which wing i was on, my answer would be something like "that's the wrong approach to our problems in society, I can't answer a question like that, the logic doesn't add up.") You could even bring and note down the role of cultures into this.... like, I can see China, the Philippines, and pretty much most if not all countries with Islam in their ideology as being on the collectivist side more while the West and Latin America would end up more on the individualist side, especially concerning the nature of their cultural values. I personally use my own political compass I custom made as well which is similar to yours, although this compass puts more emphasis on power distribution, aka whether the authority (the ruling party) or the masses (the people being ruled over) have more power over the other, and my compass also takes into account desire, specifically of whether the masses want to have more rights for themselves, or more power to the authority aka the state (You get four wings out of this, Genuine Democracy, Genuine Dictatorship, Ineffective Democracy (aka democracy but the ppl want a strong authoritarian leader, I live in one aka the Philippines), and People-Loving Dictatorship (aka a dictatorship but the dictator prefers to have the people well off, also honestly the rarest example, the only two clear examples I can think of rn is Singapore under Lee Kuan Yew, and the Brazilian Empire under Pedro II.)

[@AllyRoseGarden]

Tbh, I hate Marcos family, Aquino family and CPP NDF NPA equally! At I'm not pula and pinklawan

[@auraguard0212]

Individual and Collective were in Stellaris. ...They now meme the divide making no sense, having replaced it with Authority and Equality, which are equally incoherent. (You can be Communist in it, but this being a space fantasy, you can sorta make it work.)

[@deadliftingtubas5623]

Horseshoe theory, (people who can’t think can’t see the obvious proof.)

[@markov.4356]

I love how your new spectrum very quickly turned from "collectivist social theory" to "how totalitarian is the state"

[@Kingless_Kingdom_2]

7:46 you gonna mention Hoppe?

[@cavi900]

19:40 Eureka! Now on the libertarian and anarchist side call that the right and on the communism and fascism side, the left with shades of both in between (which Lavader has done) and we have the Left-Right political spectrum without the ridiculous and pointless Y axis or Marxists and Libertarians muddying up the waters! And it cuts the Gordian knot created by self-interested parties trying to re-package themselves or their opponents to be more easily sold to an audience.

[@gergelyritter4412]

Honestly, more people should be taught about politics in a similar way that you teach us here. Sadly, this won't ever happen, because bringing politics into school always results in indoctrination of sorts.

[@kevinohiggins3868]

Honestly the Political Compass was incredibly good and useful in showing actual politics in comparison to the autistic right-left binary for people who have completely contrasting views. Having Fascism in the top middle and communism in the top left is perfect for throwing off stupid assumptions, as most people would probably think Fascism in the top right or far right and that they were "opposites" of communism in some way. The reason why Left-Right spectrum exists is because the Neo-Liberal world order benifits from it. Neo-Liberalism is socially and economically liberal. The allowed RIGHT is economically liberal but socially conservative, the allowed LEFT is socially liberal but economically socialist. The thing is, when they get elected, it's not like you get some mix of these positions, when a right winger is elected you ONLY get economic liberalism and when a left winger is elected you ONLY get social liberalism. Then the only allowed alternatives are even more individualist options like social+economic liberalism without statism [libertarianism] and left-wing anarchism. In the end these people want the same things that the system already gives but more, so they are playing into/tacitly supporting the sytem [since they view liberalism as a shit anarchy/libertarianism and authortiarianism as way worse]. The ACTUAL oppositions [authortiarian collectivism, social traditionalism and economic socialism i.e. fascism, marxism-leninism ect.] remain boogeyman that everyone agree's should never be allowed [yet they're the only historically viable alternatives lmao]

[@nicolastroncoso9390]

You are wrong from the moment you mix terms. "Conservatism" is a social and values position, not politics. "Classical liberal/minimal government" is an economic one. There may be right-wingers who are not conservative, who are in favor of abortion and drugs (in Europe such as Estonia there are examples), they may also want to intervene in the economy. The right is the acceptance and defense of hierarchies, the left wants egalitarian leveling policies. and we can tell when a person is right or left with a brain scan, which means they are objective differences

[@baselius662]

I disagree that collectivism vs individualism is a adequate replacement, though I agree with your arguments against the left-right spectrum. For example Catholic soical teaching would not fit as it emphasises the relationships between persons above either the state or the individual called personalism. It would just repeat the third position problem in the left-right divide.

[@hsv99finn]

A little late but I think there are a lot of misconceptions in this video and the proposed concept doesn’t hold up because it just doesn’t describe any reality. From my point of view, there is only one functional left/right structure that grasps where people actually see themselves. Every right wing ideology believes in one or more „natural“ rules/laws that can’t be changed and will dictate how we live. Libertarians believe in the law of the market, religious people believe in the laws of god, conservatives believe in the laws of tradition and racists/nazis believe in the rule of blood and race. The left ideologies believe that the rules are made by the society and can be changed by changing that society. Communism stretches this the most by proclaiming to construct the perfect society. The less a person believes in unchangeble laws that dictate how a society functions, the more left that person is.

[@bastiat691]

For Libertarianism to work, ie. for a society to function while having maximum personal liberty, the society must have strong social conservative values, so a coherent libertarianism is in fact right wing. (Source I am a Libertarian).

[@vnnwrywn]

I think it would be more accurate to create a diametric spectrum based on positive vs negative liberty, as collectivism is, as far as I understand it, a result of negative liberty, and individualism of positive liberty. In fact, I think every political axis should be based upon philosophical grounds, instead of political (i.e. relating to policy).

[@thesaint2508]

Thank you for this. It’s hard to feel enthused about conservatism in the US when the American “right” is so heavily dominated by individualist ideology and/or ridiculous cults of personality

[@Kingless_Kingdom_2]

7:55 does he know?... ...he doesn't

[@cavi900]

Libertarianism is not an ideology with a strict definition of what libertarianism is. Libertarianism is individual attitudes and preferences with Milei representing the more extreme end of the right side of the spectrum. And to view the left and right as spectrums with shades in between the extremes is important to note as if one were to only consider right and left as extremes with fixed assignments of conservatism and nationalism being exclusive to the right, then the concept of left and right would make no sense. It's all in maintaining a coherent basic definition of right and left.

[@mladen5140]

"On the far left we have communism which believes that the state is everything" Communism advocates for the eventual abolition of the state, what you're describing with the state owning all means of productions would be a specific stage of socialism, state-socialism

[@POCKET-SAND]

And how many times has it made it past that stage? Communism in practice and communism in theory are two different things. In practice, you end up with an ideology that calls for government control of pretty much everything indefinitely, because it's a fairy tale utopia that they are chasing so it will never move beyond totalitarianism.

[@user-nf9cn3vq1v]

The main problem is that the economic and progressive/conservative axis are used as one and the same. Anarcho capitalists and hardcore traditionalists are one and the same according to the political compass. It gets even worse when people don’t even use the two-dimensional model and try to throw the authoritarian/liberal axis into the left-wing/right-wing definition. It dumbs things down to the point of absurdity.

[@bobbyokeefe4285]

I think that there is no such thing as individualism,all societies in the end are all collectivist(the State always calls the shots)the real dichotomy isn't so much between collectivism and individualism but rather between positive freedom and negative freedom,the former views society as one where people's lifestyle/values can have a good or bad effect on the group,and the latter views society as fragmented where people can do what ever they please(as long as it's legal)cause your lifestyle/values don't have an effect on others or society,hence why political correctness is so needed.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

_"the former views society as one where people's lifestyle/values can have a good or bad effect on the group"_ ... in which the rights and interests of the group is emphasized and supersedes the individual, i.e. Collectivism.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

_"and the latter views society as fragmented where people can do what ever they please(as long as it's legal)cause your lifestyle/values don't have an effect on others or society,"_ ... in which the rights and interests of the individual are emphasized, and supersedes the group, i.e. Individualism.

[@bobbyokeefe4285]

Straw man argument,you are on purpose not citing the first part of the comment,in both cases the State/Powers that be,run the show,making them all de-facto collectivistic,hence all it is in the end is,different conceptions of freedoms the people are allowed to have,one can hardly claim that modern individualism is empowering the individual,in some of these places you can literally go to jail for mis-gendering someone or for "Hate Speech" on Social media,if truly individualistic,then the State would not interfere or police people's thoughts or opinions.@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

@@bobbyokeefe4285 _"one can hardly claim that modern individualism is empowering the individual,in some of these places you can literally go to jail for mis-gendering someone or for "Hate Speech" on Social media,if truly individualistic,"_ That has nothing to do with individualism. That is exactly what collectivism is, where the feelings of a certain group supersedes freedom of speech.

[@Historia.Magistra.Vitae.]

@@bobbyokeefe4285 _",if truly individualistic,then the State would not interfere or police people's thoughts or opinions."_ True, which is why the State should either be abolished or be made as small as possible.

[@dominikkopal3941]

great video, keep it up

[@radosaworman7628]

I fear that you have fallen into the trap you described-oversplification of complex topics. Dr. Palvini (known on yt as Academic Agent or AA) have proposed classification of all possible (or known) position in politics using 16 different spectrums- and yes individalism vs colectovist was one of them.

[@ChalcolithicPrizim]

17:34 A better word than “collectivism” is “communitarianism”

[@micahskirvin]

the 9axes test (and later 12 axes test) is a great political test that doesn't just put you in a "A", "B" or "C" camp

[@Sebastianbertolotto1880]

Man, as a Political Scientist i love your "new" spectrum to identify ideologies. Even in the universities is still going left/right mentality. In my career I find out that the spectrum of idiologies is not so much like a line (-) and more like an U, in which, both ends in the extreme tend to be more close align that what they seem.

[@IsmaelSantos-xv9qf]

That U only happens if you subscribe to the fabrication that Leftwing movements such as National Socialism and Fascism were "Rightwing". All forms of Socialism are Leftwing. But because the ones who concocted this chart are pro-marxism and believe that marxism is the ONLY form of socialism (and every other form being "not true socialism" which was an excuse pioneered by Mussolini btw) they shove them to the center or to the Right. I suggest you try using the following 3-axis spectrum of Left&Right: Collectivism (L) - Individualism (R) Centralized Top-Bottom Economy (L) - Free Market Bottom-Top Economy (R) Statism (L) - Minarchism (R) Notice how they build upon each other (a centrally planned economy is easier to implement with an overbearing statist State backed by collectivist ideology and a Free Market requires a small government and individual initiative) but they also apply historically (National Socialists were Collectivists who nationalized the economy, imposing a Top-Bottom system, they also believed in the ideas of Socialism, still they were different from Marxists, not in the sense of being opposites but by being nearly identical).

[@dragonhowto]

I think the tripolar model is the best political ideology model

[@LizardlandArcanium]

You make so many good points but then you proceed to boil everything back down to a "individualism vs collectivism" false dichotomy that is at least as reductive as the original Right/Left binary. An ideology is perfectly capable of having both individualistic and collectivistic aspects. A collective is made up of individuals after all, and there is a balance that can be struck between collective and individual needs/rights without any inherent contradiction.

[@seanbeadles7421]

Noooo why make a video discussing how binaries can’t possibly cover the entire spectrum of political beliefs then end with suggesting an equally incoherent binary :(

[@cavi900]

Let's note first that since the 1930's, Marxists have coopted the concept of leftism and have made themselves the defacto left. This is false as the left can be defined as any collectivist system of government that is organized around a central ideology and the individual is subordinated to the State. The opposite of the left is then a system of more individual's rights with a much weaker central government that is governed less from ideology than from attitudes and preferences. Next, nationalism and conservatism are not organized ideologies but attitudes and preferences not exclusive to the right or the left but can be used by either the right or the left. To call nationalism right wing then makes no logical sense and it only came about due to the post-war European Marxian left's attempt excommunicate National Socialism and Fascism from their ideological religion as Marxian heresies. Finally, to ask a libertarian what is a libertarian will elicit not one coherent answer as libertarianism is so individualistic that every libertarian has their own definition and endlessly argue the point among themselves along with what exactly is the non-aggression principle and when is it violated.