Видео

I'm curious how so?

@@TIB3R She points out that the terms and relationships that we associate with feudalism never existed in the medieval context and really only start appearing in 15th/16th century Italian legal documents. She effectively examines four regions in this regard: England, Germany, France, and Italy; finding no evidence that this structure we had been using was even a consideration for these people. Certainly not systematically or structurally. Her argument is widely accepted among medievalists, but "feudalism" as a concept is so ingrained societally people have a very hard time abandoning the structure. It's a dense and difficult read, but probably one of the most important works in medieval historiography in decades.

@@jimhysell2508 I appreciate the answer! Quick question does her argument say that they never used the term "feudalism"? Which seems a given its like the Byzantine never called themselves the Byzantine Empire its just our modern name to understand them. But they were definitely still what we recognize as an Empire. Or is she saying that even the system that we understand of obligations to your lord wasn't used.

@ mostly that the concept of fief and vassal were not present or understood in the way that would be needed for feudalism to function.

My next video is about the Buddhist Theocracy, but after that I do Objectivism

@@DennisForPresident846 nice thanks doesn't disturb you that most of your comments are suggestions ? also do you think the political compass is useful to represent an ideology or a philososophy ?

That's in theory. Historically market liberals have basically always been closely in bed with corporate interests, resulting in anti-union policies and even support for union busting when they were in power. Though it might be more of a chicken-vs-egg situation, wherein corporate interests used libertarian messaging to get votes while not being commited to the ideas themselves. (I'm talking specifically about the politicians, the thinkers might be another leaf.)

I'd also mention regulation that protects certain industries' unions removing their need to be appealing or competitive.

They do not have many differences, but the biggest contrast is that National Liberalism focuses more on national identity and sovereignty, while Conservative Libertarianism integrates traditional moral and social values with libertarian principles.

@@DennisForPresident846 Thanks!

libertarian socialists are arguably on the forefront of modern revolutionary socialist movements. the rojava revolution and zapatista uprising are ongoing yknow...

How's the Soviet Union doing right now?

@ China exists btw, what Trotskyist/Libertarian socialist/Left-communist movements can you point to which aren’t tiny and inconsequential?

​@@peoplerepellent299China is an authoritarian shithole

@@Columner Naxalites and NPA. They're are way more active Marxist insurgencies than "libertarians socialist" whatever that means. Like Rojava and Zapatistas are even comparable. Ask Rojava how aligning with the amerikkkans worked out for them.

And no council communist is denying that.

@@Pufferfish2586 the workers councils (soviet democracy) implemented in the soviet union was distinct from any form of council communism because it fundamentally was not a democracy and the councils themselves held no power. the bolsheviks held a monopoly on all political power under a totalitarian, centralised single-party dictatorship. it had been a vanguardist, authoritarian state since the kronstadt rebellion

@@Columner Yes, I meant it in a literal sence, a soviet is a worker councils.

From what I understand, council democracy ("soviets"), can still have parties in the council (and usually send delegates to a higher legislature or "Congress"). Council communism on the other hand is more "anarchistic" (in that it argues for communism rather than socialism - the difference being that communism is a _"classless, moneyless and a _*_stateless_*_ society"_ - therefore, it is inherently anarchist), decentralised (so there is no higher Congress), and has no parties but rather people participate in direct democratic/consensus-based organisation of the local community of the council (hence, no parties = no parties).

No...?

it's unrealistic but at least it isn't evil. It's better for socialism to not happen at all than for it to be actively evil.

Say that to Zapatistas or Rojava

@@foreverdirt1615 Proclaiming that something is evil is very different from taking it on. This is very much assuming that "Evil" is something that can be clearly codified. Slavery never would have ended in the United States if people refused to vote for the best abolitionist and/or emancipationists they could get **despite** bitter antebellum supporters often violently retaliating because they saw it as actively being evil. It's not called "Progressivism" because it's inevitable that history will proceed in that way, but because people are actively trying to push the cart. What lessons are there to be learned from refusing to learn **how** evil corrupts such movements by sitting it all out? It really sounds like the easiest group of political dissidents to deal with ever. They put THEMSELVES in the corner!

yeah

"Armchair commies" who carried out the revolution in Russia.

mfers like would call Marx and Engels armchairs

So you say directly taking the means of production is "armchair", but becoming a state burocrat is what?

@Dinofaustivoro Well, if you refuse to form a political party, refuse to align with trade unions and refuse to take a significant action, your revolution will never succeed (-;

Yeah? Then where are you now that we need you.

@@soo_spicy7659 we need to find whuka btw

It isn't AI... just normal TTS

its tts moron

lol same feeling

It’s not schizo, you’re just not white or white with non white friends and it’s your survival instinct to discredit white nationalism which doesn’t include you or your non white friends which threatens your autonomy. We get it, it’s okay. It’s expected. We still don’t care and will push for our white only society because that’s our survival instinct. And the cycle of war continues in human kind. Fun!

It’s not schizo, you’re just not white or white with non white friends and it’s your survival instinct to discredit white nationalism which doesn’t include you or your non white friends which threatens your autonomy. We get it, it’s okay. It’s expected. We still don’t care and will push for our white only society because that’s our survival instinct. And the cycle of war continues in human kind. Fun!