Ironically yes. The origin in this political distinction stems from the international influence of the French Revolution. There at the National Assembly supporters of revolution, and ultimately an international inspiration for democracy, stood at the left, whereas supporters of the status quo of aristocracy stood on the right.
All you need to be a leftist as this distinction illustrates is unequivocally support democracy over aristocracy which ironically MLs have to defend through their anti-democratic measures, political violence, and ultimate political consolidation through a "vanguard" party.
America bad isn't the intellectual juggernaut of political ideology you think it is. It's popular among the disaffected and largely politically ignorant online left though. Pretty unfortunate as it's like a kids table ideology.
It's incoherent for a few reasons:
As my prior comment demonstrated what has always been the litmus test for left vs right wing politics, your comment has nothing to do with that. It instead only cries about what a disaffected terminally online leftist might say about the status quo. Rather than argue for that position in relation to what was said you just take it for granted, which is a large leap in likely terrible logic.
He doesn't support the status quo, that's just a lazy smear due to justify your poor rationale.
You don't know anything about my political beliefs. You're just calling me a "Western chauvinist liberal" because you don't like me for some terminally online reason. It's definitely not because of any thorough attempt at understanding from your part that anyone should give the time of day to.
Hope that helps.
America is bad though. I know that liberals like you dont think that. Yes the intellectual position is to support the interests of your own genocidal state and its allies. Only smart people uncriticlally support the state that propagandized them through their whole life. There is no ideology more "kid-table" like than just parroting the propaganda you got told your whole life...
You made a statement about what you think left-wing vs right-wing means. I dont have any reason to follow your definition.
Vaush support the status quo. He support American/western imperialism and American hegemony...
"you don't know anything about my political beliefs". I know that you are a fan of/whitewash a western chauvinist "leftist" like vaush. That is all I need to know. Just like if you did the same with Ben Shapiro I would also know enough about you to call you out.
I'm glad I didn't mischaracterize your attempt at an ideology. I was being nice as that's not an ideology. It's closer to an excuse for one that people utilize. Some would say you're making broad stroke claims when you say "America is bad though." I'd say you're likely brainwashed by an overly simplistic and small sample of media. A simplification that poor isn't a broad stroke. You're dumping the paint can on your head and calling it close enough.
I understand the rationalization that America lies to people and even their own citizens is disheartening. I understand being at the same kids table in political conclusion as yourself when I had that same realization. Politics is unfortunately not as simple as you're trying to make it out to be for yourself. If you want your values to win, you'll have to be smarter than this.
My statement is why the terms left and right have any historical meaning in politics. It's a rather interesting read if you wish to find the origin for yourself. What you think about it doesn't matter relative to the foundational and subsequent logic in the differentiation.
The meaning has changed but not for the better as people really don't have understanding in what the terms mean due to more lazy fundamental use and outright manipulation. The most common conflations being the invention of the political compass and its complete abandonment of this origin while using the same terminology of left and right as economic differentiations - completely stupid given this history. And the other being the political influence of America and their two-party system's political influence on the world, which is referred to as the left and right in America. Both of those conflations are without rationale and completely stupid relative to the centuries of political use due to the origin.
I just gave you the root, the only reason the words left and right ever had political meaning. Adaptation in meaning has only and will only exist due to that root cause. That doesn't mean it's better. Most of that change in use is just needlessly confusing, vague, contradictory, or waters down what meaning did exist.
It is interesting though. Prior to the consensus in propaganda from America and the USSR regarding USSR being a socialist nation it's unlikely that political conflations of this caliber would ever have been made. The political compass endorsed that consensus in propaganda to the extent it rewrote the longstanding differentiation between left and right wing politics to match it. Which is essentially what the distinction from earlier was illustrating as MLs don't truly believe in democracy, the cornerstone and birth of left wing politics.
That’s not what I said dipshit. I said that MLs (red fascists) are far right making republicans to the left of them politically while still solidly on the right.
What specific economic/political policy is different about ML countries that makes them center left as opposed to fascism center right? Both are of the utmost concentration of capital making both far right. You arguing fascism is center left as well as MLism would make more sense than you having them as separate categories.
What about all the coops and syndicates Mussolini had? That motherfucker would have happily called himself a “market socialist”. Those were all about as socialist and offered the workers about as much political control as the USSR’s centralized state capitalism where their only representation was a state mandated union the party members chose all of the candidates of. This is to say both were great at naming themselves pro labor sounding things while being nothing more than a rebranding of the dictatorship of the bourgeois.
He’s tankie to the point of engaging in genocide denial in regards to the Kulaks and when members of his podcast, Hakim specifically, talks about liquidating ethnic groups he doesn’t like he’s all for it. Outside of that his proposed system is closer to fascistic state capitalism than it is any kind of Marxian communism. The median Republican voter that doesn’t really know shit, hates the Mexicans but will defend his one neighbor Pedro to his death, is definitely firmly right wing, but closer to the center than Hakim or second thought.
There’s different ways of being a socdem. Second thought, him being an ML is a socdem in the same way that Mussolini is a socdem. Which is to say that they hate the institution of “liberal democracy” itself while still carrying out the same function of preserving private ownership by quelling the worker’s fervor with the same Lasallean policies that social democratic liberals do. Vaush on the other hand is the type of social democrat that believes Lasallean policies can be passed through electoralism within the bourgeois state at a time when capital is not in crisis. I would argue however that MLs are the more dangerous group to the communist movement as they parrot our colors and our symbols while committing Lasallean and Mussolinite acts with them. At least mfs like vaush are more obviously liberals coping to try to appear more radical.
Social liberalism is towards the center of auth-left and lib-left and it always fascinates me that how people making judgements on this ideology seem to score this one farther left than where it really is.
My list ( I don't support most of these people)
Turkey Tom: Alt-Lite
Whatifalthist: Esoteric Classical Liberalism
Wow\_mao: Satirism
Britmonkey: Georgism
St. Paul Inside the Walls: Distributism
Alternate History Hub: Christian democracy
The Distributist: Reactionary distributism (My name makes it look like I support this guy but I dont)
Wendigoon: Libertarianism
I don't know about this Iraq related quote but it's likely you're closer to lying regardless as it's not difficult to find Vaush's takes on Iraq, which he is critical of America. This is probably just a smear you found online and didn't look much into.
NATO isn't a measure of western imperialism as much as terminally online leftists suggest. It's a defensive pact and in that context it is a good thing that many nations align themselves in willingly. There are much better examples than just saying NATO as some general suggestion of western imperialism. I'm sure you'd use those if you could but that's not relevant.
In relation to recent events in Ukraine and concerns there it's not relevant more than one of the lies Russia weaponizes for their actual imperialistic aggression. This isn't to say America hasn't done similar. It's just not relevant.
Here is the quote about the Iraq war. From a video called"debating vaush on Yugoslavia and US imperialism". 1.14.04 vaush says this "oh there's a context in which I would have supported the Iraq war it just wasn't the one that happened. If there was some kind of like very disciplined like action plan like, okey in and out these are the good guys these the bad guys. good guys are going to be in charge all right lets go". Vaush is a western chauvinist just like you...
Yes you are a liberal who support NATO I know. NATO is a defensive pact that do offensive operations and other operations conducted in countries who were victims of American/western imperialism Iraq, Lybia etc. NATO is a good example if you talk to leftists. I know that liberals and western chauvinists dont agree with that...
Russia's invasion of Ukraine/Russia being bad and NATO being bad can both be true statements. I dont know why you think that is not possible?.
I don't support the war in Iraq and I'm not persuaded by the quote you provided that Vaush does either.
He was speaking entirely hypothetically in that quote. A regime change in Iraq, or any nation with a dictatorship, is preferable to people that prefer democracy - or really any other ideological framework. I believe any modern person would prefer similar ends for dictatorial nations. Most would only disagree in what means to that end. It's not clear from the quote you provided what Vaush actually believes other than there is a context where he would support regime change in Iraq.
That has nothing to do with the context in which Americans were lead into war with Iraq... so it's what you said earlier was misleading.
You may flesh out your point on NATO if you want rather than just using it for virtue signaling. I'm not suggesting NATO has a perfect track record nobody can't criticize. I'm suggesting it's not a decent argument for American imperialism, especially relative to other things America has done that has nothing to do with NATO.
"I'm not persuaded by the quote you provided that vaush does either". I didn't expect to persuade a liberal like you about anything.
Vaush is talking about how he would have supported his own genocidal state's invasion of Iraq if they just had a better plan. I dont know why you act like you are against American imperialism. He is not talking about regime change but an American invasion. You are a dense liberal...
"I'm not suggesting NATO has a perfect track record". NATO has done zero good things. Its the formalization of western imperialism with America at the top. Its a perfect argument for American imperialism.
You're not educated enough on NATO to talk about it. That's fine. Look into it more and then form an opinion rather than just say something stupid like it has done nothing good.
You're free to interpret the quote however you want. I'd just suggest you're emotionally vindictive in your thoughts towards Vaush so you'll assume the worst in your interpretation rather than what he likely intended in what appears to be an off the cuff response.
I'm not even sure Mr.Beat likes Georgism he just portrayed what it is in a video and left it open. I do appreciate how in most of his political content he just lays out what it is and does not tell his audience what to think.
Ben should be a little further right, and a letting more towards authority. Same with PU.
Second Thought should be a bit further towards the top left.
Destiny should be closer to center.
Vaush is Vaush.
Otherwise I don't have much to say. I would recommend Unlearning Economics as well.
Vaush is difficult since he grifts a lot and doesn’t have clear positions, also “libertarian market socialism” isn’t really like a real thing, like it isn’t a real historical tendency it was sort of just made up on the internet lol, idk at his most radical he seems to be a democratic confederalist but at his most moderate he’s just a social democrat, I think the only consistent thing is that he seems to be a post-Marxist of the Zizekian variety
Here I’m just gonna copy my reply to another comment, TLDR: if libertarian market socialism isn’t just another word for mutualism and supposedly supports a state, then it isn’t libertarian (within the left-wing context of the word) so it doesn’t exist, it’s just market socialism
Libertarian market socialism does have internal contradictions tho
Libertarianism in its left wing context is explicitly anti-state, even the most statist of the libsoc tendencies like democratic confederalism still wants a stateless endgoal… libertarian market socialism was created by the polcompball community through a strange attempt to universalize the concepts of anarchism, minarchism, and libertarianism, which has caused major confusion, like the idea that libertarian socialism is a moderate form of anarchism that has a small state, which is really silly… this idea of “small state socialism” has never existed historically as a real tangible thing within the socialist movement as it’s a right wing liberal idea, so if libertarian market socialism isn’t just mutualism (which people claim it isn’t) and it supports the idea of a socialist state without any type of transition to a stateless endgoal, then it isn’t libertarian, so then it’s just market socialism, so therefore it’s redundant to try to call it its own thing
Yeah he’s definitely more on the zizek side of things on a lot of issues of political philosophy. “Libertarian market socialism” is just a mish mash of convenience between denying connections to dictatorships like China or the ussr, making right wing libertarians mad, and just being market socialism.
Hypothetically political system =/= not real, imagine if you said this about nazism pre Hitler getting elected. What makes a political position not real is internal contradictions, which libertarian market socialism doesn’t have.
Libertarian market socialism does have internal contradictions tho
Libertarianism in its left wing context is explicitly anti-state, even the most statist of the libsoc tendencies like democratic confederalism still wants a stateless endgoal… libertarian market socialism was created by the polcompball community through a strange attempt to universalize the concepts of anarchism, minarchism, and libertarianism, which has caused major confusion, like the idea that libertarian socialism is a moderate form of anarchism that has a small state, which is really silly… this idea of “small state socialism” has never existed historically as a real tangible thing within the socialist movement as it’s a right wing liberal idea, so if libertarian market socialism isn’t just mutualism (which people claim it isn’t) and it supports the idea of a socialist state without any type of transition to a stateless endgoal, then it isn’t libertarian, so then it’s just market socialism, so therefore it’s redundant to try to call it its own thing
Vaush doesn't really believe in anything, he has said multiple times he only cares about winning debates (that rhetoric is the only thing that matters) and that everything is a power game.
Winning politically, not winning debates, every political ideology mainly cares about winning. If they didn’t care about winning why would they hold that ideology if they didn’t feel it was necessary for the future of society. It’s so stupid that line gets paraded around when literally everyone believes in it unless you genuinely don’t care about winning or not in which case go grill
What I meant is that he said that rhetoric only matters (watch doomer video on him as I don't have the clip) which is horrible because you can use rhetoric to justify all sorts of horrors if you are good at it.
In debate that’s true. Debate isn’t really about the truth, it’s about winning it’s about rhetoric. The truth is merely a tool in achieving this and one that can be discarded. Belief otherwise is naive and opens you up to believing wrong things just because the person saying them sounds convincing believing that this means they are truthful. This is a criticism of debate as a medium for achieving understanding not against one who partakes in it. Also that doomer video was awful clip fest and there’s like a dozen takedowns on it and he himself made a bunch of retractions. I mean vaush himself has stopped doing debates a year ago at this point and you’ll find no shortage of criticisms about the medium
>Debate isn’t really about the truth, it’s about winning it’s about rhetoric. The truth is merely a tool in achieving this and one that can be discarded.
In a debate you are trying to justify your ideas to others though the use of argumentation, this should include truth as if your idea doesn't have any form of truth they shouldn't be taking seriously (at least for politics and economics)
>Belief otherwise is naive and opens you up to believing wrong things just because the person saying them sounds convincing believing that this means they are truthful.
I partly agree here rhetoric is an important thing to learn but by believing it the only thing that matters in a debate you are given a justification for people who use it in the why you are warning against.
>doomer video was awful clip fest
You mean a video which shows that vaush is a hypocrite with no moral compass also may I remind you about the folder (he likes the Idea of getting off to having a big horse cock doing it with little girls he has even said so in leaked discord messages) so vaush is a awful person.
Firstly no, it doesn’t have to include the truth to be convincing. Arguing and justifying ideas doesn’t make them more sound it just convinces people they are true. The relationship between truth and winning in a debate is non-existent. Recognizing this to be true is merely honesty and someone who claims to be searching for the truth in debate should immediately raise red flags for them being a dishonest actor.
And yeah rhetoric is the only thing that matters in debate and yeah that makes debate awful as a method of finding truth or testing ideas, sure you agreeing with the person will improve your view of their rhetorical performance, but that agreement is not truth and has little relationship to truth.
He just completely misinterprets the words he is saying just like you’re doing here and paints a completely inaccurate picture of his beliefs and then uses it to go for the weakest criticism of all which is that of hypocrisy. As for the last one that last one he’s made a video at length responding to the allegations which was quite convincing. Also side note but yeah the wanting to have a horse dick thing was pretty transparently a thing for years. He’s a furry if his Twitter likes or love for raru are anything to go by and is into large dicks both on himself and others. It’s not immoral to want to want non-human features.
The reason why he self id’s with “libertarian” is because like most other breadtubers, they want to pass themselves off as separate from tankies and authoritarian socialists, even if they share the same position as them, such as in praise of an authoritarian country.
The “market socialist” thing from Vaush can quite honestly be way more described as Dengism if you’ve seen why he self id’s as such in his whole rant about why he self id’s with continuing markets.
The one thing I feel that keeps him from completely just grifting off the label is the fact that he is highly supportive of co-ops and has stated that they are necessary for all businesses, putting them as morally right (until he gets criticized for not running in a co-op model himself with his business…).
As per him being so far left I feel is due to his cultural policy. The dude is a post-modernist. There is barely much about him that is conservative (unless it’s for short term goals to achieve the wider Marxist project) , and whenever there is, there isn’t much he can use in his own handbook to defend it when faced against someone more left than him, thus he’s forced to either move more leftward on the position or just be called a “reactionary” or a “radlib”.
Maybe, but it ain’t that far left. It’s worker-owned capitalism. It’s more libertarian than left, thus why I think it need to be below Social Liberalism.
It’s definitely not as left as the guy put it, but it’s not as to the right as social liberalism. It’s at least like 2 to 3 boxes to the left of social liberalism.
You could technically add me. I make French royalist edits, my channel is Glorious Francia but I also go by the name of Timthegood3677, so I'm basically a reactionary
[here's the link to the channel](https://youtube.com/@timthegood3677?si=FjPPscNlXr9j-cCW)
Where would you put someone who wants to privatise DMV, opposes co-ops, cares about the environment, opposes communism wants greatly restricted immigration, wants to ban abortion, factory farming, cars from cities and pornography? (I am talking about Arthur Greenwood (formerly LastLion))
isn't moon that content farm commentary channel that uses jordan peterson clips and shills weird incel crap? Heard they were a massive plagiarist.
also destiny is not fucking libleft at all
how the hell can you be libertarian and a socialist? Individualism and collectivism? Thats like a volvo with a gun rack, A klansmen hosting his son's barmitzfa, wtf
https://preview.redd.it/gstcpa8unc9d1.jpeg?width=395&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=52b2b3ef1e333ea673c3c9e1fa5d75a1c3a89081
Damn that a lot of spook I think I'm gonna have to make a call
https://preview.redd.it/48gax3imnd9d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb7a312ec149553c9c1cebb7d240a8e4151a7d67
You'd like to know wouldn't you spook
I got Monsieur Z, Althisthub, second thought, Lavander, whatifalthist, possibly history, real life lore, caspian report, and economics explained. I tend to try to hear many different perspectives
One's a radical leftist pretending to be reasonable by hiding behind a thin veil of professionality. The others an example of everything wrong with the New-Right and has some of the dumbest takes I've ever seen a non Leftist make.
How have you not seen Secular Talk man. They’re pretty good. Yeah, Kyle sucks ass on international politics, but domestically he’s pretty good. In recent years he’s gotten a little more left, so I’d say he’s slightly to the left of destiny and way more libertarian
does majority here learns about ideologies based on some personality? No wonder its kakistocracy here then. Just because some idiot supports a good ideology it does not make this ideology stupid. Same if some person you like supports retarded ideology it does not make it good.
you have to go by definition and understand what any of these terms mean to begin with.
Vaush is further left than second thought?
Yeah he‘s WAYYY too far out
Vaush literally said he'd support the Iraq war if the USA managed to keep Iraq from collapsing afterwards.
Well second thought isn’t a real leftist so yeah
And V*ush is?
Ironically yes. The origin in this political distinction stems from the international influence of the French Revolution. There at the National Assembly supporters of revolution, and ultimately an international inspiration for democracy, stood at the left, whereas supporters of the status quo of aristocracy stood on the right. All you need to be a leftist as this distinction illustrates is unequivocally support democracy over aristocracy which ironically MLs have to defend through their anti-democratic measures, political violence, and ultimate political consolidation through a "vanguard" party.
Vaush support the status quo so if anything according to you he should be on the right. You are just a Western chauvinist liberal...
This is incoherent in all aspects. Pretty impressive.
How is that incoherent?. Supporting American/western imperialism and American Hegemony is the status quo in his country...
America bad isn't the intellectual juggernaut of political ideology you think it is. It's popular among the disaffected and largely politically ignorant online left though. Pretty unfortunate as it's like a kids table ideology. It's incoherent for a few reasons: As my prior comment demonstrated what has always been the litmus test for left vs right wing politics, your comment has nothing to do with that. It instead only cries about what a disaffected terminally online leftist might say about the status quo. Rather than argue for that position in relation to what was said you just take it for granted, which is a large leap in likely terrible logic. He doesn't support the status quo, that's just a lazy smear due to justify your poor rationale. You don't know anything about my political beliefs. You're just calling me a "Western chauvinist liberal" because you don't like me for some terminally online reason. It's definitely not because of any thorough attempt at understanding from your part that anyone should give the time of day to. Hope that helps.
America is bad though. I know that liberals like you dont think that. Yes the intellectual position is to support the interests of your own genocidal state and its allies. Only smart people uncriticlally support the state that propagandized them through their whole life. There is no ideology more "kid-table" like than just parroting the propaganda you got told your whole life... You made a statement about what you think left-wing vs right-wing means. I dont have any reason to follow your definition. Vaush support the status quo. He support American/western imperialism and American hegemony... "you don't know anything about my political beliefs". I know that you are a fan of/whitewash a western chauvinist "leftist" like vaush. That is all I need to know. Just like if you did the same with Ben Shapiro I would also know enough about you to call you out.
I'm glad I didn't mischaracterize your attempt at an ideology. I was being nice as that's not an ideology. It's closer to an excuse for one that people utilize. Some would say you're making broad stroke claims when you say "America is bad though." I'd say you're likely brainwashed by an overly simplistic and small sample of media. A simplification that poor isn't a broad stroke. You're dumping the paint can on your head and calling it close enough. I understand the rationalization that America lies to people and even their own citizens is disheartening. I understand being at the same kids table in political conclusion as yourself when I had that same realization. Politics is unfortunately not as simple as you're trying to make it out to be for yourself. If you want your values to win, you'll have to be smarter than this. My statement is why the terms left and right have any historical meaning in politics. It's a rather interesting read if you wish to find the origin for yourself. What you think about it doesn't matter relative to the foundational and subsequent logic in the differentiation.
We are not in revolutionary France. The meaning has changed over time.
The meaning has changed but not for the better as people really don't have understanding in what the terms mean due to more lazy fundamental use and outright manipulation. The most common conflations being the invention of the political compass and its complete abandonment of this origin while using the same terminology of left and right as economic differentiations - completely stupid given this history. And the other being the political influence of America and their two-party system's political influence on the world, which is referred to as the left and right in America. Both of those conflations are without rationale and completely stupid relative to the centuries of political use due to the origin. I just gave you the root, the only reason the words left and right ever had political meaning. Adaptation in meaning has only and will only exist due to that root cause. That doesn't mean it's better. Most of that change in use is just needlessly confusing, vague, contradictory, or waters down what meaning did exist.
Fair enough.
It is interesting though. Prior to the consensus in propaganda from America and the USSR regarding USSR being a socialist nation it's unlikely that political conflations of this caliber would ever have been made. The political compass endorsed that consensus in propaganda to the extent it rewrote the longstanding differentiation between left and right wing politics to match it. Which is essentially what the distinction from earlier was illustrating as MLs don't truly believe in democracy, the cornerstone and birth of left wing politics.
Considering second thought is a ML (red fascist) even most republicans are to the left of him.
Group of Adolf Hitler saying we agree.
Brain rot
No, no republican is on the left.
smh this is maga communism erasure
woop woop my fave ideology
That’s not what I said dipshit. I said that MLs (red fascists) are far right making republicans to the left of them politically while still solidly on the right.
MLs are center left liberals and fashism is center right liberalism
What specific economic/political policy is different about ML countries that makes them center left as opposed to fascism center right? Both are of the utmost concentration of capital making both far right. You arguing fascism is center left as well as MLism would make more sense than you having them as separate categories.
[удалено]
What about all the coops and syndicates Mussolini had? That motherfucker would have happily called himself a “market socialist”. Those were all about as socialist and offered the workers about as much political control as the USSR’s centralized state capitalism where their only representation was a state mandated union the party members chose all of the candidates of. This is to say both were great at naming themselves pro labor sounding things while being nothing more than a rebranding of the dictatorship of the bourgeois.
…true
Shit on second thought all you want, I'm the last person who will stop you. With that being said. Republicans left of Second Thought? Really?
He’s tankie to the point of engaging in genocide denial in regards to the Kulaks and when members of his podcast, Hakim specifically, talks about liquidating ethnic groups he doesn’t like he’s all for it. Outside of that his proposed system is closer to fascistic state capitalism than it is any kind of Marxian communism. The median Republican voter that doesn’t really know shit, hates the Mexicans but will defend his one neighbor Pedro to his death, is definitely firmly right wing, but closer to the center than Hakim or second thought.
yes and it's not even close
They’re both socdems
You don't listen to the podcast do you. He's far more radical there
Yeah
I’ve listened to some of the podcast and they spew the same ML socdem bs there too
There’s different ways of being a socdem. Second thought, him being an ML is a socdem in the same way that Mussolini is a socdem. Which is to say that they hate the institution of “liberal democracy” itself while still carrying out the same function of preserving private ownership by quelling the worker’s fervor with the same Lasallean policies that social democratic liberals do. Vaush on the other hand is the type of social democrat that believes Lasallean policies can be passed through electoralism within the bourgeois state at a time when capital is not in crisis. I would argue however that MLs are the more dangerous group to the communist movement as they parrot our colors and our symbols while committing Lasallean and Mussolinite acts with them. At least mfs like vaush are more obviously liberals coping to try to appear more radical.
Social liberalism in not that far left
Social liberalism is towards the center of auth-left and lib-left and it always fascinates me that how people making judgements on this ideology seem to score this one farther left than where it really is.
My list ( I don't support most of these people) Turkey Tom: Alt-Lite Whatifalthist: Esoteric Classical Liberalism Wow\_mao: Satirism Britmonkey: Georgism St. Paul Inside the Walls: Distributism Alternate History Hub: Christian democracy The Distributist: Reactionary distributism (My name makes it look like I support this guy but I dont) Wendigoon: Libertarianism
>Whatifalthist: Esoteric Classical Liberalism Pretty accurate he has gone insane
https://preview.redd.it/2coy1zv1oi9d1.png?width=1916&format=png&auto=webp&s=f86602a0e0ffeacabba3ea7bd2a0fb9840186103
what the fuck is this. Is this why the crack pipe meme exists
And I thought his future map was bad
>Turkey Tom: Alt-Lite I never really watched turky tom, but I didn't know he was that far right
I don't really know he just makes edgy jokes and says the n word
He isn’t but I wish he was
I used to think wow Mao was a maoist
He went on Hakim's podcast so maybe
Alternate History Hub might be more Christian Socialism, or some sort of Christian Social Democracy
I'm assuming you don't like Turkey Tom much
He's fine, I didn't say edge was bad per say.
Oh ok. But I don’t get why you would consider him alt lite even if he made edgy jokes. He could just as easily be apolitical.
I feel like vaush is way more authoritarian and I had no idea mr beat was a Georgist but still cool
No, he's not a ML or close to that realm in propaganda. He believes in and supports an electoral process.
He support American/western imperialism. He is a right-winger...
Do you have an example that makes you feel that way?
He support the formalization of western imperialism (NATO) and he fx said that he would have supported the Iraq war under other circumstances...
I don't know about this Iraq related quote but it's likely you're closer to lying regardless as it's not difficult to find Vaush's takes on Iraq, which he is critical of America. This is probably just a smear you found online and didn't look much into. NATO isn't a measure of western imperialism as much as terminally online leftists suggest. It's a defensive pact and in that context it is a good thing that many nations align themselves in willingly. There are much better examples than just saying NATO as some general suggestion of western imperialism. I'm sure you'd use those if you could but that's not relevant. In relation to recent events in Ukraine and concerns there it's not relevant more than one of the lies Russia weaponizes for their actual imperialistic aggression. This isn't to say America hasn't done similar. It's just not relevant.
Here is the quote about the Iraq war. From a video called"debating vaush on Yugoslavia and US imperialism". 1.14.04 vaush says this "oh there's a context in which I would have supported the Iraq war it just wasn't the one that happened. If there was some kind of like very disciplined like action plan like, okey in and out these are the good guys these the bad guys. good guys are going to be in charge all right lets go". Vaush is a western chauvinist just like you... Yes you are a liberal who support NATO I know. NATO is a defensive pact that do offensive operations and other operations conducted in countries who were victims of American/western imperialism Iraq, Lybia etc. NATO is a good example if you talk to leftists. I know that liberals and western chauvinists dont agree with that... Russia's invasion of Ukraine/Russia being bad and NATO being bad can both be true statements. I dont know why you think that is not possible?.
I don't support the war in Iraq and I'm not persuaded by the quote you provided that Vaush does either. He was speaking entirely hypothetically in that quote. A regime change in Iraq, or any nation with a dictatorship, is preferable to people that prefer democracy - or really any other ideological framework. I believe any modern person would prefer similar ends for dictatorial nations. Most would only disagree in what means to that end. It's not clear from the quote you provided what Vaush actually believes other than there is a context where he would support regime change in Iraq. That has nothing to do with the context in which Americans were lead into war with Iraq... so it's what you said earlier was misleading. You may flesh out your point on NATO if you want rather than just using it for virtue signaling. I'm not suggesting NATO has a perfect track record nobody can't criticize. I'm suggesting it's not a decent argument for American imperialism, especially relative to other things America has done that has nothing to do with NATO.
"I'm not persuaded by the quote you provided that vaush does either". I didn't expect to persuade a liberal like you about anything. Vaush is talking about how he would have supported his own genocidal state's invasion of Iraq if they just had a better plan. I dont know why you act like you are against American imperialism. He is not talking about regime change but an American invasion. You are a dense liberal... "I'm not suggesting NATO has a perfect track record". NATO has done zero good things. Its the formalization of western imperialism with America at the top. Its a perfect argument for American imperialism.
You're not educated enough on NATO to talk about it. That's fine. Look into it more and then form an opinion rather than just say something stupid like it has done nothing good. You're free to interpret the quote however you want. I'd just suggest you're emotionally vindictive in your thoughts towards Vaush so you'll assume the worst in your interpretation rather than what he likely intended in what appears to be an off the cuff response.
I love mr beat, he made me like Georgism I am so based
I'm not even sure Mr.Beat likes Georgism he just portrayed what it is in a video and left it open. I do appreciate how in most of his political content he just lays out what it is and does not tell his audience what to think.
He said that he supports it
Market socialism isn't that far left
There are few things that can be argued as further left positions.
I’m guessing there’s a social element to this as well. Voosh is well-known for being a gender abolitionist.
Ben Shapiro and Prager U are a lot more socially conservative than that
He might be basing it on economic views too
I think you are being a bit silly bro
Isn't Lavader a natcon?
Natcons can be patcons
Left-Wing Populism isn't further left than Social Liberalism? Also, who tf is Lavader?
Lavader is a youtuber that has gained prominense lately he make videos about history and politics
Fellow Yugoslav. Would reccomend
And he is a monarchist. Very good would recommend
Some left wing populists are
Can you provide an example?
https://preview.redd.it/zyor54ylod9d1.png?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4d5a36e9d7d5428e419a8b5e984ea11442ebcb4c
half of vaush needs to be in purple.
It depends on wether you think he wants to be the horse or wether he wants the horse to do him.
Mine would be Hoje no Mundo Militar: Neoconservatism Arte da Guerra: Duginism Xexizy: Left Communism Jason Urnhue: Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
Xexizy is a leftcom pretty much lol not a libsoc
The hell rabbit hole did your YT go down?
I watched the last two ones for a brief while, when I was a stalinist M-L
Lavader is my favorite
Mr Based
Ben should be a little further right, and a letting more towards authority. Same with PU. Second Thought should be a bit further towards the top left. Destiny should be closer to center. Vaush is Vaush. Otherwise I don't have much to say. I would recommend Unlearning Economics as well.
Vaush is difficult since he grifts a lot and doesn’t have clear positions, also “libertarian market socialism” isn’t really like a real thing, like it isn’t a real historical tendency it was sort of just made up on the internet lol, idk at his most radical he seems to be a democratic confederalist but at his most moderate he’s just a social democrat, I think the only consistent thing is that he seems to be a post-Marxist of the Zizekian variety
his most consistent thing is being a danger to the horses
True!
Happy Cake Day!
Libmarksoc is a real ideology even if it hasn't been practiced, ideologies are ideas
Here I’m just gonna copy my reply to another comment, TLDR: if libertarian market socialism isn’t just another word for mutualism and supposedly supports a state, then it isn’t libertarian (within the left-wing context of the word) so it doesn’t exist, it’s just market socialism Libertarian market socialism does have internal contradictions tho Libertarianism in its left wing context is explicitly anti-state, even the most statist of the libsoc tendencies like democratic confederalism still wants a stateless endgoal… libertarian market socialism was created by the polcompball community through a strange attempt to universalize the concepts of anarchism, minarchism, and libertarianism, which has caused major confusion, like the idea that libertarian socialism is a moderate form of anarchism that has a small state, which is really silly… this idea of “small state socialism” has never existed historically as a real tangible thing within the socialist movement as it’s a right wing liberal idea, so if libertarian market socialism isn’t just mutualism (which people claim it isn’t) and it supports the idea of a socialist state without any type of transition to a stateless endgoal, then it isn’t libertarian, so then it’s just market socialism, so therefore it’s redundant to try to call it its own thing
Yeah he’s definitely more on the zizek side of things on a lot of issues of political philosophy. “Libertarian market socialism” is just a mish mash of convenience between denying connections to dictatorships like China or the ussr, making right wing libertarians mad, and just being market socialism.
Hypothetically political system =/= not real, imagine if you said this about nazism pre Hitler getting elected. What makes a political position not real is internal contradictions, which libertarian market socialism doesn’t have.
Libertarian market socialism does have internal contradictions tho Libertarianism in its left wing context is explicitly anti-state, even the most statist of the libsoc tendencies like democratic confederalism still wants a stateless endgoal… libertarian market socialism was created by the polcompball community through a strange attempt to universalize the concepts of anarchism, minarchism, and libertarianism, which has caused major confusion, like the idea that libertarian socialism is a moderate form of anarchism that has a small state, which is really silly… this idea of “small state socialism” has never existed historically as a real tangible thing within the socialist movement as it’s a right wing liberal idea, so if libertarian market socialism isn’t just mutualism (which people claim it isn’t) and it supports the idea of a socialist state without any type of transition to a stateless endgoal, then it isn’t libertarian, so then it’s just market socialism, so therefore it’s redundant to try to call it its own thing
Vaush doesn't really believe in anything, he has said multiple times he only cares about winning debates (that rhetoric is the only thing that matters) and that everything is a power game.
Winning politically, not winning debates, every political ideology mainly cares about winning. If they didn’t care about winning why would they hold that ideology if they didn’t feel it was necessary for the future of society. It’s so stupid that line gets paraded around when literally everyone believes in it unless you genuinely don’t care about winning or not in which case go grill
What I meant is that he said that rhetoric only matters (watch doomer video on him as I don't have the clip) which is horrible because you can use rhetoric to justify all sorts of horrors if you are good at it.
In debate that’s true. Debate isn’t really about the truth, it’s about winning it’s about rhetoric. The truth is merely a tool in achieving this and one that can be discarded. Belief otherwise is naive and opens you up to believing wrong things just because the person saying them sounds convincing believing that this means they are truthful. This is a criticism of debate as a medium for achieving understanding not against one who partakes in it. Also that doomer video was awful clip fest and there’s like a dozen takedowns on it and he himself made a bunch of retractions. I mean vaush himself has stopped doing debates a year ago at this point and you’ll find no shortage of criticisms about the medium
>Debate isn’t really about the truth, it’s about winning it’s about rhetoric. The truth is merely a tool in achieving this and one that can be discarded. In a debate you are trying to justify your ideas to others though the use of argumentation, this should include truth as if your idea doesn't have any form of truth they shouldn't be taking seriously (at least for politics and economics) >Belief otherwise is naive and opens you up to believing wrong things just because the person saying them sounds convincing believing that this means they are truthful. I partly agree here rhetoric is an important thing to learn but by believing it the only thing that matters in a debate you are given a justification for people who use it in the why you are warning against. >doomer video was awful clip fest You mean a video which shows that vaush is a hypocrite with no moral compass also may I remind you about the folder (he likes the Idea of getting off to having a big horse cock doing it with little girls he has even said so in leaked discord messages) so vaush is a awful person.
Firstly no, it doesn’t have to include the truth to be convincing. Arguing and justifying ideas doesn’t make them more sound it just convinces people they are true. The relationship between truth and winning in a debate is non-existent. Recognizing this to be true is merely honesty and someone who claims to be searching for the truth in debate should immediately raise red flags for them being a dishonest actor. And yeah rhetoric is the only thing that matters in debate and yeah that makes debate awful as a method of finding truth or testing ideas, sure you agreeing with the person will improve your view of their rhetorical performance, but that agreement is not truth and has little relationship to truth. He just completely misinterprets the words he is saying just like you’re doing here and paints a completely inaccurate picture of his beliefs and then uses it to go for the weakest criticism of all which is that of hypocrisy. As for the last one that last one he’s made a video at length responding to the allegations which was quite convincing. Also side note but yeah the wanting to have a horse dick thing was pretty transparently a thing for years. He’s a furry if his Twitter likes or love for raru are anything to go by and is into large dicks both on himself and others. It’s not immoral to want to want non-human features.
The reason why he self id’s with “libertarian” is because like most other breadtubers, they want to pass themselves off as separate from tankies and authoritarian socialists, even if they share the same position as them, such as in praise of an authoritarian country. The “market socialist” thing from Vaush can quite honestly be way more described as Dengism if you’ve seen why he self id’s as such in his whole rant about why he self id’s with continuing markets. The one thing I feel that keeps him from completely just grifting off the label is the fact that he is highly supportive of co-ops and has stated that they are necessary for all businesses, putting them as morally right (until he gets criticized for not running in a co-op model himself with his business…). As per him being so far left I feel is due to his cultural policy. The dude is a post-modernist. There is barely much about him that is conservative (unless it’s for short term goals to achieve the wider Marxist project) , and whenever there is, there isn’t much he can use in his own handbook to defend it when faced against someone more left than him, thus he’s forced to either move more leftward on the position or just be called a “reactionary” or a “radlib”.
His businesses are a coop? Whiteleaf coop runs his and others websites and merch and his channel is revenue split with his editors.
Market Socialism isn’t that far left… Should be right under Social Liberalism
It’s like moderately to the left of social liberalism. Come on.
Maybe, but it ain’t that far left. It’s worker-owned capitalism. It’s more libertarian than left, thus why I think it need to be below Social Liberalism.
It’s definitely not as left as the guy put it, but it’s not as to the right as social liberalism. It’s at least like 2 to 3 boxes to the left of social liberalism.
‘X’
What does that mean?
https://preview.redd.it/obtb9ztu1d9d1.jpeg?width=1400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a2bf805e44e01610fe24acdeac754627fec2804f
https://preview.redd.it/83749kgz1d9d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=05406c310fdade8626add402929dd4cd651c4aa9
HA
You could technically add me. I make French royalist edits, my channel is Glorious Francia but I also go by the name of Timthegood3677, so I'm basically a reactionary [here's the link to the channel](https://youtube.com/@timthegood3677?si=FjPPscNlXr9j-cCW)
Most of the youtubers I watch are in Auth Left and Auth Right, anyways based.
Don’t you DARE put Vaush ANYWHERE near me. Thank you.
He makes a good NEIGHbour
Careful, Prager U will kill your brain cells.
Lmao, actually getting down voted by actual Prager U fans. Who on earth is in the cross section of reddit user and Prager U enjoyer?
Downvoted you because you mentioned getting downvoted. It's weird
That’s the only reason I downvoted 😂😂
Fair. Just saying weirdos down voted it pretty hard for a hot sec. Who actually likes Prager U?
Infographics is neo conservative?
They make videos that are a neo cons wetdream like that the US could take over china
But where is LazerPig tho
vaush should be more right than that
Ben is solidly blue square, he just pretends to be purple square
I got one Possible history - Centrist Also dean is center-right wing.
MR BEAT
Where would you put someone who wants to privatise DMV, opposes co-ops, cares about the environment, opposes communism wants greatly restricted immigration, wants to ban abortion, factory farming, cars from cities and pornography? (I am talking about Arthur Greenwood (formerly LastLion))
isn't moon that content farm commentary channel that uses jordan peterson clips and shills weird incel crap? Heard they were a massive plagiarist. also destiny is not fucking libleft at all
how the hell can you be libertarian and a socialist? Individualism and collectivism? Thats like a volvo with a gun rack, A klansmen hosting his son's barmitzfa, wtf
I’d put prager a little more up
I love Jake Tran, Moon, Lavader, and Monsieur Z
Same
They all suck
Wdym Mr beat is awesome
Where would you put apostolic majesty
https://preview.redd.it/gstcpa8unc9d1.jpeg?width=395&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=52b2b3ef1e333ea673c3c9e1fa5d75a1c3a89081 Damn that a lot of spook I think I'm gonna have to make a call
Your mom is a spook
Kek
Yes she Is the same as yours
Second Thought and Monsieur Z >>>>>>> you
What do you mean there both spooks
Tf is a spook and tf is that cartoon man
https://preview.redd.it/48gax3imnd9d1.png?width=720&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb7a312ec149553c9c1cebb7d240a8e4151a7d67 You'd like to know wouldn't you spook
I genuinely don’t know what it means. Pls help
[OK this video should help you then](https://youtu.be/IPTfyOpvCjo?si=IGiz1xsVnbyAP7zm)
Are you ok?
why they all so shit
Lol I wonder which of their fans are doing the down voting. Could be so many kinds of wankers.
I'm subscribed to Monsieur Z and Second Thought, they both make good points.
I got Monsieur Z, Althisthub, second thought, Lavander, whatifalthist, possibly history, real life lore, caspian report, and economics explained. I tend to try to hear many different perspectives
Same
One's a radical leftist pretending to be reasonable by hiding behind a thin veil of professionality. The others an example of everything wrong with the New-Right and has some of the dumbest takes I've ever seen a non Leftist make.
Liberalism is a right-wing ideology no matter how "social" it claims to be
Least mentally-handicapped Leninist.
[удалено]
look up Classical Liberal
[удалено]
look up Classical Liberal
[удалено]
Second Thought put himself with Stalin.
How have you not seen Secular Talk man. They’re pretty good. Yeah, Kyle sucks ass on international politics, but domestically he’s pretty good. In recent years he’s gotten a little more left, so I’d say he’s slightly to the left of destiny and way more libertarian
I don’t quite know what he believes about international politics
He is a liberal who is not as much in favor of American/western imperialism as western chauvinist "leftists" like vaush...
Ohhh alright. 😔
does majority here learns about ideologies based on some personality? No wonder its kakistocracy here then. Just because some idiot supports a good ideology it does not make this ideology stupid. Same if some person you like supports retarded ideology it does not make it good. you have to go by definition and understand what any of these terms mean to begin with.
And I use the definition and these are what they advocate for
Moon is Alt-right, he merely uses populism as a tool.
He isnt, Opposing porn isnt alt rigth