I think that it's just an attempt to overly simplify where people stand politically. One that would be hard to categorise I believe is Theodore Roosevelt. The History Channel did a documentary about all the Presidents up to George W Bush and they summed up TR thus, "(...) The Republicans' worst nightmare had come to pass, Theodore Roosevelt was no longer just a heartbeat from the presidency, he was the president. TR as he liked to be called, was a complicated man, a mass of contradictions, and he could not be bullied. He was a Conservative, yet he fought for reforms. He was a hunter, who started the conservation movement. A hawk on war, who won Nobel Peace Prize. Perhaps the only thing that can be easily understood about him is that he was an original." Much like how people rank presidents, I feel that there's a desire to group politicians into one of two boxes
Nah. Both definitions are are necessary to separate political ideas. The reason that they are devisive is because people have made it devisive. We just need to accept that people have different opinions and that's fine. Though I believe we should make the compass more complex to separate the more complex factions of both sides.
Yea, saw a video from a man who lives in Sweden but was from Yemen. People called him left wing in his home country but when he moved to a new country people call him alt right.
This whole political spectrum is nothing but a hindrance as it makes non mutually exclusive ideas mutually exclusive. It puts limits like "you can't do that because you're this" and then pretends it isn't ridiculous.
@@thevillager8339 I figure if you get called a lunatic liberal by those on the right or a crackpot conservative by those on the left, you e found the right spot.
@@jacobalvord3480I disagree with taking this as a matter of principle. If you consider compromise between two positions to always be superior, then when someone wants to do something horrible to everyone, this logic locks you into saying ‘the smart move would be to do something horrible to half of people, or to do something half horrible to everyone.’
@@smoothtalkwith2014 nah. You have to be smart enough to know the difference. Compromise is a good thing. Blindly doing things because it's the center of two opinions is a fallacy.
@@MrChinesename It is VERY hard to find unbiased information on the topics I am going to talk about, but basically during the "pandemic" the attack of the institution and (elites organization) on basic rights (in Canada) under the excuse of a crisis, and the discrimination of those who refused to comply with the new totalitarian anti-constitutional, unethical and irrational guidelines has been something that a lot of people went along with driven by fear, mass induced psychosis, paranoia or just following the representation of authority figure. something along those lines might be a good example, their was also that similar thing that followed a similar path of event called ALL HUMAN HISTORY, EVERY TYRANNY, AND THAT THING THAT HAPPENED IN GERMANY. but don't worry as they all said "That would never happen HERE"
when those on the left get caught doing "bad things" they're held accountable. when people on the right do "bad things" its always someone else's fault.
I'm just 10 years younger and here for the same reason. Politics is very confusing, especially when just about everybody lies through their teeth - on replay.
Just know most people will agree on most topics. In fact, for many people they only truly care about a handful of issues if not one issue altogether. For example, some people are only concerned about abortion, the economy, healthcare or immigration.
Mr. Beat i feel conflicted if you check out his stuff. Let’s just say it is place to not to be enlightened but to question whether having a human mind was a mistake or not.
The problem is politics in the United States has moved so far right. To illustrate, Democrats are not moderate republicans and Republicans are so far right. To be a centrist right now it’s to be a Republican. I consider myself far Left, and feel that leftist should move the political spectrum back to the Left so it can balance out. It’s gotten so crazy that Bernie is basically considered a centrist in Europe.
I'm getting pretty worn out on the whole left-wing right-wing and red state-blue state this that or the other. I think Life's a lot more complex than red blue left and right
That’s why being independent isn’t as bad as people that are religiously left or right say it is. You get to make your own choices and understand the nuisances of politics.
8:16 The plural of "axe" (pronounced like 'AKS') is "axes" (pronounced like 'AK-siz'). The plural of "axis" (pronounced like 'AK-sis') is "axes" (pronounced like 'AK-seez'). Both plurals are _spelled_ the same, but they are pronounced differently, specifically in the second syllable.
Both sides lump up each other with the extremists, that is why we can't have proper discussions. Every debate is about beating your opponent rather than finding a common solution. It becomes almost like a rap battle with fans of each side cheering and clapping after their side says something clever. But i guess when there is so much money and corruption involved in politics, it makes it impossible to have a proper debate.
All right vs. leftist debates in a nutshell. Rightist: “you’re a communist!!” Leftist: “no I’m not!” Rightist: “that’s exactly what a filthy communist would say!!” Leftist: “ridiculous!! I’m actually a moderate! It’s YOU who are the extremist!” Rightist: “nonsense!! Clearly, you are a communist and that’s a fact!! I’m just a moderate centrist fighting against your communist extremism!” Leftist: “no you’re not! You’re a filthy FASCIST! And I’m the centrist!!” Rightist: “oh? So now you’re calling me a fascist?! That’s a completely ridiculous and insane strawman!! Just shows what an idiot you are and that you don’t understand anything!” Leftist: “ha! You’re one to talk! With your bullshit smearing of me as a communist!” Rightist: “but you ARE a communist!! And you calling me a fascist is proof of that!” Leftist: “what?!? That’s EXACTLY what a fascist would say!!” Rightist: “more crazy communist rhetoric!” Leftist: “now you are basically ADMITTING to fascism!!” Rightist: “no I’m not! You’re just seeing bullshit that isn’t there! I wouldn’t expect anything less from a COMMUNIST!!” Leftist: “oh shut up, you stupid fascist!!” Rightist: “you’re a communist!!!” Leftist: “you’re a fascist!!!” Rightist: “you’re a communist!!!” Leftist: you’re a fascist!!!” Rightist: “COMMUNIST!!!” Leftist: “FASCIST!!!” Rightist: COMMUNIST!!!” Leftist: “FASCIST!!!”
After a few more hours of calling each other names, the leftist and rightist then precede to spend several more hours each claiming that they are an enlightened centrist moderate.
This was informative, interesting, and entertaining. You're a great teacher! Thank you (and Mr. Barris) for taking the time to gather and create this presentation!
Me too!! I put on my yellow batman shirt today after not wearing it for 3 months. And watch this guy for the first time ever... and he calls out my shirt??? Yeah I am all of a sudden drawn to watch every one of your videos my guy... good move lol
I can’t wait for the political compass that is a crazy geometrical shape that is impossible to understand and is accepted as the best test! Great job and can’t wait for next Friday!
@@meredithwhite272 Nah, the true political test has 4 axis. 1 axis makes a line, 2 axis makes a square, 3 axis makes a cube, and a 4 axis makes a tesseract. Which can't be visualized properely
The differences between the US and Europe are interesting. First, the colors are swapped in Europe: red is left, blue is right. And "liberal" is a position on the conservative side that wants a small government with not too may rules. That's just the opposite of liberals in the US.
unfortunately the first-past-the-post election system naturally favors two parties with fairly nebulous coalition ideologies in any given election (they don’t have to be the same two nationwide) because a second candidate on any given side of any given issue splits that side’s voters and essentially hands the election to the other side. We need electoral reform for a preferential voting system, like Australia’s Instant-Runoff system or New Zealand’s Single-Transferrable Vote system so people can vote their conscience without hamstringing themselves.
Thank you for having me over Mr. Beat! It's a great video and I'm glad you gave me the chance to take part in it. Merde! P.S: My voice is so messed up because I'm currently in Colorado and I'm not handling the dryness very well.
This is Barris! - French History your content looks like it might be interesting but I can’t get past the cringe-y Terrance and Phillip animation. I kept fearing fart jokes as I watched...
Royalists are the conservatives in Britain. Conservatives in the US want to conserve what the founding fathers put in place when they formed the country. Conservatives in Britain are much different than Conservatives in the United States.
Me sat in the U.K. *GOD SAVE THE QUEEN* also at this point, I’m in favour of the queen taking a shot at governance again, she certainly couldn’t be worse than the majority of our and the world’s current politicians.
@@ajl8975 Don't spit childish idiocy. I'm happy United Ireland, Independent Scotland, and hopefully England Republic will be the near future. I wish it can be sooner so we can stop naming everything after that old hag. 🙄
@@Muusoc999 Yeah most Americans would be left wing back then. The most radically changing part of politics is social issues like progressivism, much different now than it was in the 1960's. Economic, Interventionists have changed little or none at all
Jack R ‽‽ Most of the secularists I know consider themselves right wing, ie in favor of limited government, minimum taxation, maximum individual liberty. I guess Mr. Beat is correct, the labels aren’t very useful.
@@iammrbeat The worst part is that there isn't 'another side.' People have opinions and maybe they clash. But people generally aren't interested in other people, thus they haven't spent anytime creating ideas deliberately oppose your ideas. You thinking that people are your opponents is just you being arrogant and not realizing nobody cares about what you say
@@oogabooga7886 Capitalism is the dominant form of competitive politics, socialism the dominant form of collaborative. Alternatives exist for each, syndicalism for socialism for instance.
There are others problems that I don't see in the video 1.Volatility of the meaning:if you ask Europeans where is liberalism on the chart they will say on the right but if you ask Americans they will say on the left 2.You ca be a left winger in Saudi Arabia and a die hard right winger in USA at the same tine
@@kalanaherath3076 Something that's pogressive in Saudi Arabia like women rights to vote it's not pogressive at all in US whereas something pogressive in US can be hard to understand for a ''pogressive'' Saudi mindset.That's why someone can identifies as pogressive in Saudi Arabia can also identify as conservative in US.
@@gheorghitaalsunculitei9146 Ah, so you mean in Saudi Arabia, the oberton window is so much to the Right, that a leftie there would qualify as a Right winger in the US
The Left-Right dichotomy is suboptimal, but somehow we can't seem to get rid of it.... Any alternatives are just too confusing as pointed out. Excellent explanations and I had no idea it stems back to the French Revolution. Great to see Barris here!
Both sides have a list of issues that the electorate can't embrace. The voter gets abused either way. We always have to choose between bad or worse. They both do the bidding of their own special interest groups, that may not represent us. I'm fed up with both parties.
Good video, Sir. I call myself an Independent and I'm registered as an Independent to vote. I was raised as a conservative and was a registered Republican for most of my life. I'm 61, now. I read a lot and learned that I was trapped in a political bubble and decided to register as an Independent about 5 years ago. I've forced myself to look at things from the other guys point of view and started seeing my views on things change. I'm educating myself on a broader political and social spectrum. Watching your video and another RU-vidr's political educational video from K.B. has helped (IS helping) me grow. I shock myself nowadays because I see myself becoming more Socialist. Yeah, Socialist! With my upbringing, I never thought that this would happen, NEVER! I still have some conservative views, though. I don't like the term "Centrist" because, as you sort of said here, most of us are all over the the place on the spectrum. As I continue to learn about other topics contained in this subject, my views changes, some. Some of my views have changed widely. My long-time conservative friends say that I'm a radical Liberal now. I just laugh and reply that I'm an 'independent thinker' and I refuse to allow myself to be trapped in any political bubble. Thank you, Mr. Beat, for posting this good video on the subject. Side note: I really like what you're done on the solar front. All the best to you and Mrs. Beat!
Well, if you see yourself becoming socialist, I recommend you check out Contrapoints or PhilisophyTube. 2 very smart left-wing anti-capitalist channels that really seem friendly!
Rocco Anders uhhh they are most definetly not "very smart" maybe not the worst breadtube has to offer, but to me they often come across as slightly more verbose twitter-tier "culture critics" TLP does their whole anti-capitalist thing much better than them imo
There is no such a thing as "the left" and "the right". Germany has 3 left and 2 (or 3) right-leaning parties. There are many ideas on both sides. And sometimes lables don't mean anything. Ludwig Erhard was a German Christian Democrat but I'm sure his "Social Market Economy" would be called Socialist by many in the U.S..
That's because Americans generally don't understand that most democracies have three major ideologies. American liberalism has mostly been split in two, with the economic aspects of liberalism having been (mostly) adopted by the Republicans and the social aspects (mostly) adopted by the Democrats. Without a two dimensional chart you really can't describe someone's positions, since everyone is a little liberal, a little socialist and a little conservative. It really is just about how much you stand with each. With one dimension you could say "ideal government size" and suddenly socialists and conservatives are on the same side opposite liberals. If the axis is about tax rates the results change, etc.
@@Svartasvanen18 I think there are more. I think in Europe there are 6 big ideologies. Democratic socialism, social democracy, liberalism, christian democracy and nationalism/patriotism. In Germany a party of every one of these ideologies is in parliament. In the EU parliament all of them (exept the nationalists) have a united faction.
RealTalkChannel - RTC I kind of wished Nobody would run under labels, obviously everybody would fit into a specific category but I do want people to vote based on the policies. Some people just go left or right which honestly I agree with if you are against left-wing policies why would you ever vote for them and if you are against the right wing policy is why ever vote for them? But some people may benefit from it, not saying that this is the conservative or the leftist. All I can say is abortion is evil.
I do not see much difference between a solviet socialist that killed millions and a national socialist that killed millions. How are they opposites when they were both socialist dictators? Maybe we should consider those who want freedom from gov't control ( rightwing) and those who want the gov't to control every part off the country (leftwing).
Ben shapiro talking about "slickly produced left wing propaganda" in a sickly produced right wing propaganda video (which there is infinitely more of than left wing) is hilarious
Yes, get rid of the labels. I think they just create divisiveness, especially when, as you point out, people are in actuality more in the middle somewhere and fluid in their positions.
@@izparry2646 I disagree, I think we need the government to do certain things for society to function. The real question is what should governments do, and how do you structure that. I personally think the government should do a lot of things they don’t now, I would also like the government to stop doing certain things it does currently. There’s a complex series of factors that determines what will work out and what won’t and it always changes, we need our government to be more responsive to the material conditions here at home. I would like our country be ran by the people in their best interests, if we can give regular people more power in the system, things would improve.
I figured out the problem with this country. Well, okay, so Thomas Sowell's explanation of the lack of common decency is a part of it, but... There's another facet. We have a woefully inadequate education system that leaves a void in people's minds. That void is filled by social media and MSM, who are controlled by trillions of dollars of "special interests". That is where all this divide and conquer comes from. It starts in childhood. Inadequate schooling = brainwashed population. We need to rebuild education from scratch; make it more comprehensive and emphasize individuality and critical thinking. We're not going to beat the CCP in the hivemind department. They have 1.4 billion people. We have 340 million.
I like the 8 axes test mostly because it is still reasonably small (I've seen one with almost 100) and from it, you can guess someone's position pretty accurately on most topics. I think those are the two defining features of a good theory, succinct and predictive.
@@KarlSnarks There's a better one: Left/Right Social/Economic/Political. Left: Collectivist, Central Planning, Statist Right: Individualist, Free Market, Anarchist/Minarchist Notice how the 3 pillars of each side build upon each other and are historically accurate. For example: Mussolini, Stalin, Mao and Hitler were all socialists and the model reflects that, as they were all squarely on the Left. (the whole "nazis/fascists are far right" is a fabrication of leftist media halfway trough the 30s to wash their hands of the whole affair in europe and paraphrase Mussolini by saying "that wasn't real socialism"). Leftists today are the exact same as they were a century ago.
@@ismaelsantos5378 Completely incorrect, fascism was mostly supported by the middle and upper-class, as they where the first to get rid of socialists and communists and cracked down on unions. Its economics can at times be more centralized or market based but always depends on what benefits power. Hitler privatized large parts of nationalized sectors, and Pinochet was a huge supporter of the same type of capitalism as Reagan. Fascists did and do often use vaguely leftist rethoric but without class analysis, because it sells well, especially back in 1930's Europe. Anarchism has always been a far-left ideology as it fights against all hierarchy including both the state and capitalism. They either support non-capitalist markets (markets without private property and owner-worker relationships) or a form of decentralized direct-democratic communism and accept pluralism in those ideas as well. Look at Makhnovchina, Revolutionary Catalonia and Aragon, or the ideas of Kropotkin, Proudhon, or Mallatesta. Anarchism developed in worker movement ffs. And there are also other forms of libertarian socialism, like Neo-Zapatismo practiced by the Zapatistas, or Democratic Confederalism in Rojava. Since the mid-20th century there are people who call themselves "anarcho-capitalists", but the only thing they have in common with anarchist is being against the state (in theory), and their ideas don't come from anarchist philosophy but classic liberalism and right-libertarianism.
@@KarlSnarks Several points to make here. 1- Pinochet was not a fascist. He was authoritarian, but he was no socialist. 2- Mussolini and his supporters were hardlines socialists who did not want to be asociated with other socialists because they saw them as "not real socialists". 3- The "middle and upper class" supporting fascism/socialism is nothing strange, as it is narcisistic half-baked "intellectuals" the ones most likely to support socialist ideals. Look at the Left today or Mao's red guards, who were mostly students of middle and upper class. 4- Socialists cracking down on unions or other socialists is also a feature, as the cult is sustained trough pure orthodoxy and thus any dissent, no matter how small, is to be purged. 5- Fascists, like all socialists, do inject class struggle in their rethoric, but they put more emphasis on nationalism. They are, after all, nationalistic socialists rather than internationalists like the communists are. This is not to be confused with the more ethnic-centric National Socialism, of which Mussolini was not very fond of but tolerated it because it was convenient to keep the alliance with Hitler. 6- Anarchism is not something the Left supports. They only use the label, as with everything else, to cover up their true nature. A modern example is Antifa, which paints itself as "anarchists" but they are actually hardline fascists just like the Blackshirts and the Brownshirts were (in fact Antifa was the communist equivalent to those militant groups). The Left only identifies as "anarchist" when they do not have full control of the state, once they have a majority you start seeing the overbearing teachings of Gentile, Mussolini and the likes become very obvious. The Twitter fiasco that has been revealed is a good example: Leftists using corporate and state power to supress dissent and deceive the population. 7- You cannot have a Market without Private property, as Trade is the exchange of private property between mutually consenting parties. Perhaps you should learn what words mean before talking out of your ass. 8- In marxian doctrine "Democracy" is impossible outside of Communism, so whenever Leftists say "democratic socialism" what they really mean is "Communism". I spent years going trough the unbearable slog of reading the works of the Spawn of Hegel and word games do not fool me, nor will I allow lies to be kept up. 9- "Libertarian Socialism" is an oxymoron, much like "Market without private property". Libertarianism is about individual freedom while Socialism is collectivist slavery. Polar opposites. 10- Anarchism has always been a feature of the Right. But in practice Rightwingers go for Minarchism, a less idealized and more pragmatic manifestation of the anarchist ideal. Anarchy means No State. Socialism cannot be anarchist as it is Statist by design, going all the way back to Hegel when he posed that The State is the manifestation of the Divine. Communism is merely Hegel trough the lens of Marx, while Fascism is Hegel trough the lens of Mussolini&Gentile. Perhaps you should stop repeating doctrine and using lingüistic sleights of hand and have an honest conversation for a change. I know it's hard (or impossible, for the most ardent defenders of that blight called Socialism) but it's time to lift the veil of deception and see reality for what it is. Speaking of seeing reality for what it is. A little test: Define the word "Woman" without using any variation of "a woman is someone who identifies as a woman" or "a woman is someone who isn't a man". (that is, provide a definition that isn't based on social constructivist nonsense nor is a circular definition). Leftist Cultists are unable to give a proper definition and go trough mental gymnastics and more lingüistic games and sleights of hand when asked. Let's see what are you.
You can't have more government and liberty together. It doesn't mix. The political spectrum should be defined by Total Government Control: Left (socialism, fascism, communism, etc) to No Government Control (Anarchism). Its not left vs right, its Government vs You.
Mr Beat! I've been a big fan and subscriber for about 3 years now. Production quality is booming. I'm so glad to see you're putting so much effort into the channel! Just a side note, my favorite videos have been comparatives, especially the Rwanda Burundi one. I'd love to see more country comparisons. Thanks for all the videos!
Political discourse these days has devolved from differences of opinion to pure vitriolic hatred of the opposition, to the point that politicians spend little time caring about and working for the people they were elected to supposedly serve. I saw this saying a few years ago and it sums everything up quite succinctly for me. ‘The Left is not right and Right is not wrong.’ Whatever happened to centrist politics?
So basically both sides are two opposite cults fighting one another. Yeah iv been saying that. All the while our country decays and the real issues ignored.
@@realspartan5206 its decided whether you're based or cringe by asking one question: every pokemon vs. 1 billion lions. If you pick lions, you're radical cringe.
The idea that the "right" wants less gov spending is extremely outdated. That may have been more true in the 1970's or earlier, but at least since Reagan the facts don't match the rhetoric:
I always thought cultural values, economic values and opinions on state control were the most important because those are the issues most political debates use as general talking points.
There is a clear pattern of answers that reinforce each other. That's what the political spectrum was about in the first place. Anarcho-communism is, unequivocally, the most pro-freedom ideology possible. (And yes, it is possible. It has been done before and is happening right now in parts of the world.) On the other hand, Stalinism fails to have major freedoms despite being called left-wing. Right-libertarians claim to be pro-freedom on account of being "libertarian" yet they are in favor of corporations holding more power over people, making people less free. The idea that "left" and "right" are muddied can only be maintained when you don't mention the existence of left-libertarians like anarcho-communists, something that is almost always done when discussing this topic and was done by Mr. Beat in this video.
@@jkcrawl Revolutionary Catalonia was probably the largest one. If you want a more recent example, while they don't use the exact term, the Zapatistas organize along the same principles as anarcho-communism.
Excellent food for thought! Thanks for this video Mr. Beat! I think most Americans have more in common than not. It seems only a handful of ideas separate us.
I personally like the dichotomy of 'selectorate theory' where a position of power or decision-making is based on how much support is needed to enact that power; broad or narrow support, which is respectively about aligning interest with more people or less people. The more people you need, the more your policy needs to satisfy more universal needs; the less people you need, then you need only satisfy those few people and the more you can ignore the rest.
@@isaackraus9779 Kyle is my number 1 commentator right now with Crystal Ball right behind him. It used to be Cenk but he leaned a little too hard into Russiagate
@@timothybrown6565 bruh, he caused the death of hundreds of thousands of people by ignoring aids, made unjust gun control, was hyper authoritarian, and created the fallacy of trickle down economics. He's shitty.
@Itzahk Pearlman No sorry, people don't become stupider when they take responsibility, they become smarter. That's why studies constantly show that the most educated people are the most liberal
@Itzahk Pearlman Whoever said it is? Liberalism doesn't make you smarter, just being smarter increases your likelihood of being Liberal. That's why most educated people are liberal.
This was really cool. A good presentation with just the right amount of silly-to-smart "factor". Unbiased and covering things both modern and historically. Thank you for your video.
Gain deeper Political Understanding (we need as many as possible to read-up on this Stuff) by watching "Ranked Choice Voting Explained" and 'Why America has a Stunted Political Spectrum' and 'How Left is the Left in America, really?' by "Second Thought". And 'Some More News' has Video-Essays on EVERYTHING.
What was cool about it? Mr. Beast puts up a bunch of charts, with no explaination for interpretation. What exactly did you learn? What does Left wing-Right wing mean? The charts simply make it more clear that we all are blended INDIVIDUALLY, For instance; Most humans are anti-abortion. Some of those anti-abortion folks don't feel they have a RIGHT to force their OPINION on others. Some folks don't feel life is sacred. Some folks don't believe IN sacred. There are other folks that are out right Atheists or agnostics. Some of those folks DO believe life is sacred, but recognize that GOD created a vicious earth, where everything feeds on everything else. On the other hand, some of those Anti-abortion folks feel they DO have the Right to force their beliefs on others. Some of these folks believe they should force destitute women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term...BUT, once the child is DELIVERED it gets to live a life of poverty, with NO help from the society that forced the pregnancy to term . Never forget, that same society CHOOSES who will be rich and who will be poor. This statement is simplistic in print, but deeply complicated in practice. Understand one simple concept...It is about class! Right is what we moderns call the Military Industrial Complex. It's a new term historically, but existed in practice in the Roman Empire, China, Egypt. Right Wing is the Rulers and support groups; police, military, banks, corporations, media and government. Left Wing is the people, the slaves. In the US, there is virtually no Left Wing media. Even Public radio, which is extremely Center based, is not a Left media. b
When I took the compass I got left-libertarian but I still considered myself as centric and somewhat a bit conservative. Man this is def lots of questioning
Most sources are left leaning (quite biased) so therea no surprise. But that's the reason why we have a spectrum. Best if you find it yourself instead of using a quiz. These sources are left wing breeding grounds, but if you're right wing that's still respectable -Personal leftist.
@insertnamehere6067 You are either a useful idiot or a malevolent wretch. There's no "anarcho communism". Communism is totalitarian by design and no amount of mental gymnastics will change that. It goes all the way back to Hegel.
This watcher is a proud Finnish-born American, but living in lsrael. l rarely term myself "right" or "left," as in lsrael, "left" has always denoted those who believe in handing over lsraeli land to the Muslims, which l oppose; while today at least, the lsraeli "right" has deteriorated into a gang that hates humanity, and resents the very idea of lsrael being a truly free country. l use the terms "conservative" and "liberal," which generally confuse lsraelis. l call myself a "conservative"; but clueless Orthodox lsraelis often say that a person like me, who believes in absolute marital freedom and detests the, among the Orthodox at least, prevalent opposition to "miscegenation," understanding that in a free country, the State, and least of all the religious sects, have no right to dictate to people whom they may marry, cannot be "conservative"; never mind that the whole world, certainly all Americans, would term me "conservative."
Thus I tend to favor the left wing.... I have a few conservative tendencies as I am almost 50. I love order (I'm an accountant and order keeps me sane)... But I believe in progress freedom, equality, rights, reform, and thinking outside the box... Even as a middle aged lady, I am a work in progress. I believe in learning. Conservatives are too old fashioned and stubborn to learn and grow. Thus I tend to get into debates with them including my 60 year old sister....
The right-left spectrum *is* relative to the country, period of time and even person - that is why its so good. There is no other term that describes each half of any country's political spectrum. Liberal-conservative misses out that liberalism is considered conservative in many countries, and conservatism can often be considered centrist. Socialist-capitalist misses out that some countries are various degrees of socialist to begin with, and also lacks any of the other values place on the left-right spectrum. Yes, not everyone fits perfectly on the right or left - but that is why its a "spectrum".
Liberalism is not Conservativism anywhere. They're unrelated right wing ideologies. Saying that the opposite of Conservativism is Liberalism is like saying that the opposite of black is dark blue.
jack I don’t see how they are contradictory. Sure, socialism can be seen as collectivist in terms of economics, but you can still have a socialist society that protects individual rights such as free speech, religion, gun ownership, sexual orientation, gender identity, etc.
Dark Ninja Noam Chomsky is a social libertarian also it’s the same as a left libertarian which is what I am but in America libertarians are strictly knows as right wing even tho it’s not true so I just go by a free democratic socialist instead
@@samstuff8554Libertarians are known as right wing in the US because the left here is so authoritarian. I can’t think of a single politician on the left who supports free speech or the 2nd amendment.
Thank you for the video. I agree that using these right or left terms are too broad in scope, that’s why when people ask me where I stand I usually say that I’m conservative because I think it’s more specific.
I think an important thing that didn't get mentioned is, there is a big difference between where peoples' particular beliefs place them on the spectrum, and that most people have some liberal and some conservative views, AND where a particular form of govt or particular economic system lays on the same spectrum.
Check out What IS Politics? on RU-vid -- it's the most interesting and informative thing I've ever watched on this site about politics. There's even a segment on left and right politics, which is also very funny. The whole channel can be humorous, but is incredibly well researched. Can't recommend it enough!
Authoritarianism isn't ONLY defined by the size or regulatory ability of a central government. That's only one factor of 4 of which all 4 must be true if something is defined as authoritarian. 1. Limited political pluralism, realized with constraints on the legislature, political parties and interest groups. 2. Political legitimacy based upon appeals to emotion and identification of the regime as a necessary evil to combat "easily recognizable societal problems, such as underdevelopment or insurgency." 3. Minimal political mobilization, and suppression of anti-regime activities. 4. Ill-defined executive powers, often vague and shifting, which extends the power of the executive. "The left" believes in defending/expanding the principles of democracy - in government and industry (ie unionization & stakeholder theory)
He actually didn't contradict himself. If anything, you noticed the very thing he was setting out to explain: That the "left vs right" dichotomy is extremely flawed and otherwise useless.
This isn’t really a contradiction, government intervention doesn’t have anything to do with authoritarianism. The major difference is in the way government is structured. The right is more authoritarian, and by definition that means that they require strong centralized government, and right wing governments have strict hierarchy. They are run by a tiny minority of people whether that be one dictator or a small group of individuals or single party. Government intervention in this case may be the use of government to criminalize people in the LGBTQ community as seen in many right wing countries today. The left is more libertarian and more opposed to strict hierarchy. A left government is one that should ideally represent the majority of people through democracy. The government is therefore an extension of the will of the people in which case government intervention is the people’s intervention. Government intervention in this case is the use of government to regulate business for environmental protection as seen in many liberal countries today. There’s also a subset that kind of mashes these together. Where economically the government is left or aesthetically appeals to left economics, but is hierarchical and reactionary. These governments are generally considered on the right, but that may not always be the case, so I don’t want to make it seem like it’s without debate, but that’s just the general pattern. Both right and left use government intervention, but it may be used in different ways and for different reasons.
Thank you for saying what I was thinking. I was little confused at first with that mix up of liberty and authority. I say this because of what I am seeing today with the 'left' putting forth more laws governing daily actions and the 'right' trying to remove restrictions. Although I guess one could think of it as both sides, in history and present, simply trying to apply freedom and restrictions in the areas they prefer them to be. One side may want freedom in one area and restrictions in another while the opposing side prefers in the other way around. So one may say both sides like both freedom and restrictions; they simply want to control what area(s) and free vs restricted. I do, of course, speak as a less than a novice of any of these topics so hopefully I can find more information before entering into any political areas.
Businesses/corporations are their own fiefdoms. The right hates authority being exerted by the federal government (unless it's something they like) but love economic dictatorships that form as wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.
It’s very much possible for two people to inhabit the exact same point in the very center of the “political spectrum” yet still disagree with each other 100% of the time. Adding more axes doesn’t really fix this problem, because ideology isn’t a math problem.
The best thing to do is vote one way in the lower house and the other way in the upper house, then the government won't get anything done, which is the best outcome. That's why we have two houses, right?
