A concerning pattern in ALL Socialist childhoods
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июн 2024
- There is a concerning pattern in all Socialist childhoods, as evidenced in the childhoods of Lenin, Trotsky, Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. A belief in altruism and poor parental relationships led to a self-hatred and a fear of independence which manifested as a hatred of the reality (what they called the "capitalist system").
NOTE: I said in the video that Lenin was a Lutheran and I should explain this. His mother was Lutheran, but he was baptised in the Russian Orthodox Church. So Lutheranism was an influence, since he loved his "saint"-like mother.
Timestamps:
00:00:21 Vladimir Lenin and concept outline
00:07:53 Leon Trotsky
00:16:40 Karl Marx
00:32:22 Friedrich Engels
00:36:47 Joseph Stalin
00:42:00 Benito Mussolini
00:45:53 Adolf Hitler
00:56:48 Mao Zedong
01:00:59 Pol Pot
01:03:57 Final Analysis
This video is discussing events or concepts that are academic, educational and historical in nature. This video is for informational purposes and was created so we may better understand the past and learn from the mistakes others have made.
Follow me on Instagram / tikhistory
The thumbnail for this video was created by / tessdailyttv
⏲️ Videos on Mondays at 5pm GMT (depending on season, check for British Summer Time).
- - - - -
📚 BIBLIOGRAPHY / SOURCES 📚
This video's bibliography docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
Full list of all my sources docs.google.com/spreadsheets/...
- - - - -
⭐ SUPPORT TIK ⭐
This video isn't sponsored. My income comes purely from my Patreons and SubscribeStars, and from RUclips ad revenue. So, if you'd like to support this channel and make these videos possible, please consider becoming a Patreon or SubscribeStar. All supporters who pledge $1 or more will have their names listed in the videos. There are higher tiers too with additional perks, so check out the links below for more details.
/ tikhistory
www.subscribestar.com/tikhistory
Thank you to my current supporters! You're AWESOME!
- - - - -
ABOUT TIK 📝
History isn’t as boring as some people think, and my goal is to get people talking about it. I also want to dispel the myths and distortions that ruin our perception of the past by asking a simple question - “But is this really the case?”. I have a 2:1 Degree in History and a passion for early 20th Century conflicts (mainly WW2). I’m therefore approaching this like I would an academic essay. Lots of sources, quotes, references and so on. Only the truth will do.
“Socialism has a record of failure so blatant
... that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”
―
Thomas Sowell, Economist
What do you mean by socialism? Socialism is basically just resistance to the global Anglo empire… now Moscow has a better living standard than London
@@701delbronx8 Yeah, Moscow is a poster of Russia. Look what other Russian cities are like.
@@701delbronx8 socialism does not mean anti anglo or anti anglo imperialism have you even read a book before?!
@@701delbronx8No... just no.
@@701delbronx8 Moscow or Russia aren't even socialist anymore and are doing good because they abandoned it lmao
Most of the evils in this world stem from poor parenting.
Hurt people hurts people
No. Sociologists do nonsense like:
Hey! Group with X has 4% criminals compared to 2% criminals in the general population. Clearly crime comes from X.
Well clearly well above 90% of all human beings never become criminals, wether X happens to them or not.
Some people are different. It cannot and will not tell you wether it is deliberate choice or genetics or whatever, but it is not circumstance. Even responding to certain circumstances (like a violent upbringing) makes you different from most people. We like to pretend criminals are just like us, and maybe that would make thing easier in some regards, but they are not. "Evil" is just a strategy some people use to persue their goals, and it's mostly not learned.
I can add 5000 lines of nuance to that and explain why people might honestly thing otherwise but it won't change the end result. Some people are just different. Which is a handy justification for genocide and capital punishment, thus we shy away from it. But how it has been used in the past does not make it less true.
One of my favorite House MD episodes "all parents screw up all children". Some do in such small ways the kids are able to get through life well enough, others are really destructive, a long and complicated scale.
Then the worst times are ahead of us.
The more I look around, the more I just see a lot of broken people breaking other people. I glad to see by yours and Huang's comment I'm not the only one. Our desire to bend over backwards to "rehabilitate" criminals and give them repeated chances comes at the cost of enabling them to create exponentially more victims, many of which go on to become likewise perpetrators.
As much as I love hearing people bash Marx, it was heartbreaking hearing how his family suffered because of him. The dude was truly a worthless POS, and it astounds me that THIS was the guy whose ideas affected half the world.
He was a parasite to society like all of them. They couldn't care less about the workers or the paysanery.
"worthless POS" is the most apt description of Marx yet. TY
Yes I'm sitting here wondering exactly how an essay from someone so worthless and with no credentials, experience, or anything to show from his life at all became so popular and held in such high academic regard
@@ashleycnossen3157it appeals to people who have a high opinion of their own intellect but don’t feel they can “compete” or produce or don’t feel they should HAVE to compete or produce due to their intellect.
@debblouin So it appeals to people just like him, huh evil begets evil then doesn't it.
I am from a broken family and it is true, we need a good family system. A broken family leads to broken children and destroys societies in the long run.
Or we could award custody by default to fathers with very rare exceptions.
@Neuromancerism which would only result in more abused and or abandoned children.
@@suebotchie4167 How? We have the evidence. Single mothers are terrible for children while single fathers are as good, in some aspects possibly even slightly better than couples. Thats what the data shows.
@@suebotchie4167 Meanwhile, virtually all single mothers are deadbeats demanding others pay for their choice to be single mothers.
@@suebotchie4167 NO it would NOT!!! ALL 6 of my siblings were raised by my father...after our mother LEFT!! HE was the better parent....women lie...God said so in His Word from the very beginning!! And ALL 6 of us have had successful lives with successful families and children and grandchildren....BECAUSE of our great upbringing by our father!! NOT much from our self-absorbed mother.
It took me 64 years to realize how bad parenting is way, way, way more prevalent than good parenting. You would think that providing your children with love, warmth and support are things you naturally provide them with but it’s tragically not the case. I’m really naive….
Not sure that's correct. You may just be noticing the bad examples more because they can become very destructive, and negative things grab our attention fiercely.
@@RafaelDolfe-qm6ll you do have a point that bad examples tend to stick out more. Many of my close friends did have, as far as I can make out, happy childhoods with good parents but…the majority of bad parenting victims were people I got to know intimately through having relationships with. In most cases this is when very dark places get to be shown.
i know when i was a young fellow back in the late '80's early '90's there were lots of girls that wanted a welfare baby. It was a career choice
Most people in general are naive when it comes to bad parenting. In fact most people will just write off as “oh they are doing their best”. Or oh “it’s for your own good”. No, absolutely not, bad parents deserve to be called out and told they are bad parents. Other wise we are all condoning the abuse of children.
@@cristianluna5568 Haven't you heard, it's not abuse, it's "character building experiences", and when those fail I guess the child was just born rotten, the parents did nothing wrong and were loving in their own way!
It's all a big Cluster B circus of drama and people keep getting sucked into it even if they aren't disordered themselves.
You're describing a metastatic form of Christian virtue ethics. They go to far and forget that in order to love your neighbor you must also love yourself. Meaning if you don't respect yourself you can't really respect others.
very true
The line is 'love thy neighbour as thyself'.
The other matter is that there's an element of putting God first too. Altruism has a flaw in that there's a selfishness in seeing the result. Putting God first yields no earthly result that we can prove. Altruism won't lead to humility the way true Christianity does.
@@damian_cross
This is an issue among alot of Protestants, Alot of them ignore ancient Christian meanings of basic christian virtues.
If you read about the old Church fathers, the apostles, or even texts from monastics, you will be shocked how mutch more spirtual and indepth they go. In the teachings of Chirst, and even go to deep details through the whole bible, and Traditions.
But when you read about protestant founders, and their views. Its eather missing the point, undiciplined radicaliam, or lack of spirituality to bigin with, or ignoring ancient Traditions. And worst of all, even removing Books from the bible.
@@thatwhitewolf5222
True. I found more interest reading abojt Orthodoxy and Catholicism thinking than Protestant Thought.
Heck. I even learned why "Pray for us" became ingrained in Catholicism and Orthodoxy. It actually comes from Early Christian Persecution when they hid in Catacombs. It was how they saw that those who died or Martyred are still part of the Church. And that was asking them to pray of them on Earth.
Once I learned this I realized that no. Iconoclasm that the Protestants did was throwing the Baby out with the Bathwater.
How the hell did anyone take Marx seriously?!
People believe frauds. They do crazy things when you promise them some free cookies.
@signorasforza354
I know. Still, his claims are so outrageous, and he is such an obviously ignorant and borderline batshit crazy source that it strains credulity that soo many supposedly intelligent people fall for it....
@@marksharp3990 Those intelligent people are frauds themselves, morally corrupted people or people with psychological problems because of bad upbringing. Every time I was having a discussion with an “intelligent” communist, in the end they were praising, justifying, denying or minimizing all horrendous stuff commies did and were slandering their opponents and victims with ridiculous lies. Cummunism is a religion for thugs.
Zionists control all literature publishing. Stung by 19th C criticism that Gods chosen people produce NOTHING Zionist Literature produced 3 towering pseudo intellectuals to flood the world. Marx, Freud and Einstein. They shape much of modern thinking. And so much of it is FRAUD. Freud based all of his scientific "psychology" on his own personal bowel habits and the toilet habits & hangups of the jewish community in Vienna. Which comes from the Talmud a fake holy book. Search jewish Scatology. Their obsession with faeces not openly admitted but celebrated.
@@marksharp3990What of his claims were "outrageous"?
These men are the perfect depiction of narcissism.
Their upbringing is a perfect recipe for creating narcissists or codependents, depending on the personality type.
Exactly narcissists
Trump is a narcissist and is not a socialist
Dont forget Chen Duxiu, founder of the CCP and first to publish Mao in his New Youth magazine. Also had a domineering father and abusive confucian teacher, became a social darwinist, and then a Leninist. He pioneered the philosophy of the "four olds", and a vanguardist "period of tutelige for the Chinese people" meant to break them of their peasent conditioning. After being expelled from his own party, he reverted to confucianism and lamented his involvement in a movement that annihilated traditional Chinese culture.
They are hating peasants so much aren’t they? No warlord was so cruel to peasants. The most hardworking, most beneficial people for society. The ones who were feeding them.
And that's the lesson: never let a zealot gain power. Never ever.
@@signorasforza354No, they didn't. That's why they kicked him out of the party.
@@tempejkl didn’t ask a cummie
Confucius is perennially apt. The role of the family, and of language, in keeping a people on the 'straight and narrow' - and what happens when either are no longer sound and rooted in reality - is as relevant to what we see around us as ever.
A great WWII vet and teacher I had in school once told us in the 8th grade, that 20th century marxist revolutionaries came from journalism or education backgrounds. He elaborated by saying they observe and teach but revolutionaries never participate in real "labor" until power can be gained from it such as political or military power. He had some good takes on this subject and it fascinated me as a kid. He was a WW2 vet who lost his right foot in the war but when he was discharged he went back to school to teach history. He was a hard but very fair man. He called all of the "revolutionaries" mama's boys and he had a deep distain for Mao and all socialist ideas!
This reminds me of that scene from Starship Troopers where Michael Ironsides explains the state.
Your teacher was based AF
@@BLOODYMESSI4H Oh he was a great guy! He told us the German's and Italians were socialists when all other history teachers said they were not. But he actually fought them so he had a first hand knowledge. He made us learn the American revolution, the 2 world wars and the entire Cold War over the 8th grade year in history and it was so much fun. He passed away in 2001 right before 9-11! HE would hate the state of the world right now.
And the guy was factually incorrect just like this insane video
@@tidakada7357 Always amusing to see socialists out themselves.
I myself was a Socialist at one point. My parents supported me when I went into further education. I did work and contribute towards my own food. But back in my mind I really wanted to become Independent and work full time and move away from my parents. At the time I was really Altruistic I had low self esteem and poor social skills. I was co-dependent on the needs of others.
Growing up I saw my Mum as a Saint and my Dad a disciplinary. I had a good childhood but parents were dysfunctional they still kinda are.
I worked in a Public sector job and a Corporate job. It just showed me how people pray on altruistic people. I'm a good hard working person but do attract more narcissistic type of people because of my Altruism. I watched your Public vs Private video and listened to Thomas Sowell which made me try working elsewhere working in IT but now working in Security.
I do believe I became Socialist because of my state education and environment brought up in the North East of Britain which is more a left-wing socialist part of the country. And also has a lot of deprivation and lack of opportunities.
Over time I've became more Independent and more understanding of psychology, finance, entrepreneurship, relationships. I watch videos like yours which helped me try different things and have a growth mindset instead of a fixed mindset I had. I now work for myself. I own my house and car now. I try to work away as much as possible I've experienced better environments and more opportunities. And also better people!
That's a good redemption story, thank you for sharing. It's great to hear you're working for yourself and having your life in order! And it's true that the people who remain socialist have that fixed mindset and never truly become successful in life. Yet, they can't see it.
Amazing self assessment, thank you for sharing! (I was also raised & state educated in the North of England but I now reside in the USA 🇺🇸 where I lead a bougie life. I doubt I would have the same lifestyle ⛳️ 🏊 🌴 if I had stayed in Yorkshire 😂😂😂)
Lutherans are taught that justification comes from faith/scripture alone. The Catholic Church that they were rebelling against taught that justification came from faith/tradition (works). I have noticed that this is a big deal with protestant people I met.
it is a pretty important doctrinal difference. Though the altruism described as part of Lenin's upbringing is neither lutheran, catholic, or christian altogether.
And Orthodox see Catholics as the first protestants, becuse they rebeled against the old system, with thr papacy and Filioque. When we see that both these things where not the first 1000 years a thing.
Iam a protestant... but the problem becomes when u demand others see things u see them. Even though i KNOW iam right i dont force it on others or see their points as invalid. Its not the way of life people choose, but how much they make it other peoples problems.
There's an interesting nuance in that Hitler and Stalin, although avoiding employment in the mainstream economy, were not completely opposed to effort. Hitler served dutifully in the army, and worked tirelessly as a political campaign leader until obtaining power. Stalin was a very hard worker as party general secretary and dictator.
I had visions of them getting on famously, watching westerns together and plotting the demise of the russian people...
Say what you will about Stalin and Hitler,
But you can’t accuse them of being lazy.
Unfortunately lol xD
Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were, by any definition, extremely active workaholics to the point of damaging their own health. They had virtually no private lives and lived for their work. It just happened to be politics or academic study. This video's thesis is pretty stupid.
stalin was a bank robber.
The vast majority of social problems could be solved by having good fathers at home.
Problem is there are not that many good dads out there
Starting to see why the commies pushed feminism as one of their first vectors of attack?
Such as life.
Starting to see where feminism fits into all this?
@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 One of the worst ideologies to plague mankind.
If everyone was radically altruistic there wouldn't be a functioning society - if everyone was radically selfish there wouldn't be a moral society. (most character traits require balance)
Yet their altruism seems selfish to me
Neither extreme would be a functional society. Pure altruism is suicidal and gets nothing done in the long term. Pure selfishness would be a chaotic hyper violent society due to no cooperation and constant conflict of every sort.
"A pattern in *ALL* socialist childhoods". I think that there are quite a lot of exceptions.
Ho Chi Minh comes immediately to mind. Ernesto "Che" Guevara lacks most of these events or characteristics. So do the previous and present leader of the DPRK. Fidel and Raul Castro both miss a few of these events and characteristics, as does Gorbachev.
In addition, your "Altruism to World Hate" philosophical path appears flawed, in my view, as many socialists and non-socialists alike have not taken such path when presented with and/or experiencing altruism.
True, my take is that it is a politically motivated message with cherry picked examples and definitions.
My goodness, Karl Marx is a monster
Correct, he was an average socialist.
"Capitalists of the world will remember my carbuncles!".
He was an exceptional Socialist.@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231
a monster created by plutocrats, grandson of rabbis, never stepped foot in a factory or smelled the sweat of the proletariat married with the millionaire Jenny, in 1843, or rather, the daughter of the aristocrats of the Westphalen house. As we can see, Moses Mordechai's greatest love, , was indeed Capital and money.
@@LoganLS0 that's like being an exceptionally tall midget.
Psychologically, it's always the same: Envy, victimization, a sense of entitlement, under-responsibility, ultimately vulnerable narcissism.
It is often a defensive reaction caused by narcissistic injury when a reality shock causes the artificial victim identity to shake.
Psychologically, it is a fear of "becoming" behind socialism, due to learned helplessness in childhood.
Strong conditioning, moral standardization through shaming and validation-dependent behavior. It is simply extremely mentally unhealthy to have such mental models and not to question them. The mental place of origin is the antidote: focus only on the things you can change in your life instead of sacrificing around and placing responsibility on external sources. The state, God and society are substitutes for the parents who messed things up.
This is the biggest socio-psychological catastrophe of our time.
I don't think there is an antidote. How many people can admit that they wasted their life?
@@neilreynolds3858 Theyll be forced to either way. Reality always delivers the mail. So either do it now, or let it build up more and suffer greater later on.
Sounds like the “children of Woke” 😅
The fact you were able to post this on this type on video is great. My comment would be scrubbed immediately
Capitalism is the same in essence but manifests differently: "I'm not good enough as I am, so I have to earn Daddy's approval by making lots of money and crushing my enemies in the market." Capitalism would collapse if people loved themselves unconditionally, because they would no longer feel the need to strive for wealth - only to have "just enough" - which would likely lead to a distributist economy.
*Let me guess, roast me if I'm wrong:*
Born into enormous wealth, never worked a day in their lives, got by by being hall-of-fame level mooches/leeches.
You forgot sponges.
Mostly born into some middle class wealth, maybe upper, or watched Dad climb out of lower class and perhaps some helped with Dad's family business or farm.
TIK sees Altruism. I'm not 100% familiar with Ayn Rand's definition of altruism, but she means a dark version of that, and towards extremes or elusive perfection.
(Another disagreement that I have is that almost everyone in those days grew up in a religious household. I think even the peasants, but that was probably different for the literate middle class. Yet not everyone became a hate-filled frustrated altruistic socialist. I also think hard fathers were the norm in those days. Life was much harder for everyone.)
Perfectionism, a neurotic obsession, coupled with the inability of Self to achieve final perfection (because that doesn't exist), coupled with resentment of others who fail to meet one's demands for perfection, is fertile soil for self hatred and hatred of everybody else. "I am brilliant and everyone else is stupid and evil. Or is it the opposite, I am stupid and evil but everybody else can function okay. Well f__k them all. F__k me too."
(I just thought of Kurt Cobain hating himself for the alleged reason that the rock music he invented wasn't _absolutely_ original and non-derivative.)
I see resentment about "injustice", projected onto others, a ridiculous sense of entitlement, unearned, and an egotistic desire to be king of the world.
Another Objectivist channel, focusing more lately on Israel, describes Palestinians and Hamas as altruistic. How?
A LITTLE BACKGROUND:
This Is despite the fact that the entire philosophy of Hamas, rooted in the words of Muhammad about killing Jews and stealing from the Jewish religion, to declare himself the final and most superior prophet, with a direct connection to God, and a life of stealing from caravans and extorting other kings and leaders, Hamas is all about destruction of Israel yet NOT one word in their 1988 Manifesto about creating a state called Palestine. (The Palestinian movement, its "father" Al-Husseini, a top Intelligence officer appointed directly by Hitler, REJECTED that option of establishing an independent Arab state, since at least 1936.)
So what does that have to do with altruism? The objectivists say that their willingness or eagerness to DIE, to have their children and grandchildren DIE, to reclaim the honor of Arabs (the group or Umma), and to fulfill Allah's commands via Muhammad, is seen by objectivists as the ultimate in Self-Sacrifice.
But it's really extreme selfishness, from a different angle.
I see Self sacrifice as more like giving a beggar $1 or a few, giving an annoying friend without a car a ride to a meeting or to run errands, working overtime for money during a work crisis, arguing in favor of Zionism with no pay, after having spent years arguing against it in favor of social justice. Blecch! 🤮
Not as a lifelong crusade to kill or try to cause injury to enemies who disrespected Allah, and to continue to do so despite the factor of high risk of death.
Two outta three brother. Good call for the most part.
Never met a communist with callouses on there hands, yet they expect a guy like me to blindly obey them.
Stalin - Born into a peasant family in Georgia
- Worked in a Siberian work camp after robbing a bank under the Tsar, in order to give funds for the revolution. Not a mooch or leech, worked in the background of the communist party as secretary, and was voted in because everyone appreciated his role.
If we look at Trotsky, we'll notice something different.
- Born into a fairly wealthy family, could probably call it middle class.
- Did not work in labour as far as I know, but did revolutionary agitation, even in 1905
- Not really a mooch/leech, but actually organised when Lenin wasn't there. Not respected as much due to his argumentative nature. Lost the Soviet Leadership and kept trying to destabilise the nation, sent to Kazakhstan, still kept doing it, so sent to other places, where he kept doing it, so he got kicked out again and again, until ending up in Mexico and was assasinated by an ex-Trotskyist (rumoured to be in the NKVD, however there was no evidence so far.)
On the Stalin part, some of the Russian biographers have stated that Stalin was the Georgian version of a Mafia family Boss, hence the nickname Koba (Georgia's Robin Hood) his exploits were well documented as a gangster, but instead of him being a gangster the marxist historians have turned him into some revolutionary figure instead of what he was the Lucky Luciano of Russia, the Boss of all bosses. This is why Stalin NEVER let the NKVD/KGB crack down on the night businesses of the Vory/Bratva (Russian Mafia) during his reign. If he had to crack down on one of them it is well documented that after Stalin took power, a central element of his brutal rule was the network of Gulag labor camps. Stalin turned to the professional brotherhood of criminals, called vory, to be the foremen and guards who kept them in line. Stalin lived in lavish apartments and lived like a Mafia boss but his rise to power came from a fear of his circle of friends and allies not just in the Kremlin but on the streets. Stalin controlled the, party, the communist political world and the underworld at the same time. For a 5 foot 2 inch tall man with 1 good arm and a slight limp he was feared like no other (no one should have feared Stalin in a fight he was a TINY disabled man) yet the entire class of intellectuals in the Bolshevik party feared him enough to never really cross him! The Mafia (Vory) were so intertwined with Russian politics and the system that after the fall of the USSR it was the VORY that became the oligarchs of Russia and took over Russia in the 1990s. Stalin's fingerprints are still ALL over Russia to this day!
Not only Vory(aka robbers) but Vory and KGB. Criminals and kgb are two foundations of ruzzia. That’s why they love cummunists. Because cummunists love thugs.
Comintern was functioning just like mafia.
Mafia and communist are two wings on the same bird
Laziness and poor parenting. There's the pattern
There is a reason honor thy father and mother is so important.
Laziness stems from poor parenting there not equal issues
Look at the propaganda coming out of Hollywood. All designed to damage family life.
Look at how men(fathers) are demonised. Look at posh kids at campuses zero in on the evils of their own country's past but ignore the present day evils of other countries.
And 100 wars worldwide at this moment, but which one do they protest?
Uh, H*tler was literally the opposite of lazy
Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler were, by any definition, extreme workaholics, to the point of damaging their own health. They had virtually no private lives and lived for their work. This video's thesis is pretty stupid, and just.. pandering.
Even Georges Sorel is the son of a businessman.
In the fact, the only one with some claim of being a pleb and a socialist is Emiliano Zapata, and it so happens that the Mexican revolution seems to be the only major revolution without an aristocratic stint (yes, I do consider the October revolution a rebellion of the aristocratic "professional workers")
Don't talk shit, bro. Emiliano Zapata wasn't a pleb; he actually had property. We could put him between middle class and high middle class by contemporary standards. He WASN'T a socialist at all; he was very skeptical and aggressive towards the idea of land redistribution as the marxists proposed
He was CATHOLIC reactionary in his roots, his movement was motivated by the management and organization of land that the Crown of Spain had established in the indigenous communities, torn down with the masonic and traitor government of liberals in the XIX century leaded by the traitor Benito Juarez.
His image has been used by the stupid socialists who, as always, take idols and heroes who have nothing to do with socialism. The lack of their own true heroes motivates this narrative and propaganda.
Pancho Villa in the other hand has humble origins and a more though childhood, son of plebs, no studies, no education, no property at all, And again he as well was very antisocialist, in fact Pancho Villa has more in common with fascist and nationalist views. He was anti yankee, anti chinese, and he also had antisemitic views.
Not really. A slew of communist militants as well as party / state leaders hailed from humble circumstances, to say the least. Foremost amongst them N. S Khrushchev. Along with Walter Ulbricht, Ernst Thalmaan, Earl Browder, Maurice Thorez, Harry Pollitt, Francisco Largo Cabellero, Doleres Ibarurri, Janos Kadar, Josip Broz Tito, Nicolae Caecesku(sic), Wladislaw Gomulka,..the list is nigh on interminable…
What about Stalin?
@@tempejkl Wasn't his early life quite cleric, being raised by a local church father?
@@tyvamakes5226 He was originally going to be a priest (idk about his father). He wrote poems under a pseudonym and became a local sensation for his poems. Then, when he became a socialist, he put his life on the line for the revolution, robbing banks to raise funds, and then being sent to forced labour camps for this.
I met some workaholic capitalists who had in the young years issues with their fathers. Not sure if this is very conclusive but still interesting.
Altruism and feminisation of men - that's very interesting. It's practically a slam dunk as to the social problems in the West these days, there is an epidemic of fatherless children, which is very sad, and an all-round misunderstanding of the importance of fathers (they seem to be viewed as financial support and nothing else).
You know this basically explains a large chunk of the modern leftists
Yes! Most radical leftists from the 60s came from comfortable upper class or upper middle class backgrounds and never had to work their way through college. It's definitely a pattern.
The reason studying REAL history is crucial....
Never met an actual working class leftist before, most of them are more conservative or libertarian while most leftists are middle to upper class.
And it likely describes the many Billionaire socialists.
@@coke8077You've just outed yourself as someone who doesn't talk to working class people. Funny.
I discussed this night after night with a friend of mine (who was a devoted Freudian and psychoanalist) for years and years. This is just scratching the surface, you'll find there's a lot more to this "Psychologically predictable Socialists" hypothesis than you might think at first. Such as the suppression of sexual desires, the looking/need for fatherly confirmation, and other "offbeat" hehaviour being a core-part of the "socialist psyche".
And no, it's not a coincidence that hordes of socialists are against the "white cisgender male", in fact this is a core idea in their worldview... No idea if they are aware of it themselves though!
Man this is gonna catch a lot of Flak...
As an ex-socialist myself, I can say they're probably not aware of any of what I said in the video.
Also, just to point out, Freud and Carl Jung were both Hermeticists. After learning this fact, I no longer view their opinions so highly.
@@TheImperatorKnightthe enemy of gnostics is both orthodoxy or catholicism(protestantism doesn't count,it emulates some of their points,especially the rapture crowd).
I've known 2 committed socialists that I've talked to a lot over decades and gotten to know well. And, no, they have no idea that there's a psychological and developmental aspect to their beliefs. They think they're rational and anybody who doesn't agree with them must be stupid.
The first was an only child whose mother spoiled the hell out of him and his father told him to be a Man. He thought that having a penis was good enough. He found a menial job where he only had to work a couple of hours a day and his boss let him spent the rest of the day reading. He complained bitterly about the job and his boss. He wanted to be an intellectual but he hated writing. It cut into his drug taking. He thinks that most people are stupid.
The other one had a good father but she hated her mother. She has Mother Derangement Syndrome: Anything her mother is for she has to be against. She had to raise her kids by herself so she had to have a series of minimum wage jobs where she felt like she was being exploited by capitalism. All the evils of the world were the fault of capitalists. She loves Marx and she had the Vision while living on the streets of San Francisco during the Summer of Love. Dugs were involved. She's deeply unhappy and thinks most people are stupid. She most wants to be recognized as a great artist.
In both cases it was obvious that they became socialists because of family dynamics but neither could see it. They're both trying to get revenge on what they feel is a cruel world.
Well, capitalism is really the same coin. Yes, millions died under communism. However millions died under the white supremacist capitalism.
@TIK - and yet you've utterly fallen into Freud's trap. "Family problems "of some conceivable kind, strict parenting with physical abuse, as well as profound religiousness, missing or absent parent(s), were all not only very common, but might under a wider sense be said to have been the norm. Depending on how wide you make the goalposts, anybody could have some kind of problem. These people were not lazy by any measure... I am just personally very disappointed in this showing, TIK. Hope you get out of this rabbit hole before you end up thinking it's all about penises or their height or some such nonsense :).
How abuse and neglect in childhood can lead to cluster B personality disorder for those so inclined.
I once had someone ask me in disbelief "how can you understand economics if you haven't read Karl Marx". It was a few years back, so I had no answer at the time other than he didn't seem to be relevant to any economics that I had ever met. Now I know why.
😂
To me the more I learned of and read Karl Marx, the less I understand how people think he was correct.
He managed to develop an interesting veneer of authority
Quick look at Hitlers artwork it looks technically no worse than painters I saw at art college.
His artwork was brilliant. Iv got a copy of his painting of the Virgin Mary and child. It's brilliant. Iv saw seen many of his paintings. They are brilliant.
He was better than most I've seen.
@@Occident. If you have to say "brilliant" that many times, it indicates that you don't really believe what you're saying.
@@theywouldnthavetocensormei9231 Isn't art brilliant! It is like pictures you can hang on your wall and then look at them ! Brilliant!
He was completely self taught. If he would have had formal training he could have gone far
In my teens and throughout my 20s most of my friends were girls. In my early 30s I started learning more about politics and slowly discovered that I disagreed with socialism and Marxists. Because of this I lost almost all of those female friends. It helped me see the reality of feminism which was the straw that broke the camels back
How is feminism different then how you viewed it in the past?
Or if I'm misunderstanding can you please expand
@@tylermorrison420 I was total normie, I honestly thought it was about female empowerment. This was also a very artsy clique, the witchy tattoo girls
Feminism = pear shaped socialism in comfortable shoes
Have you seen the Fiamento Files here on RUclips? I also thought that feminism was about equality and that if I didn't agree with it, I'd be considered to be against women. Vile stuff that ideology is
@@PinkTorpedo909 I was in my 20s in the 90s, and I remember all the trendy white girls became "wiccans" to be hip and "rebel against patriarchy". My, how far things have gone.
I will start by saying I appreciate TIK’s work and find great value in what he does.
I had a gut feeling TIK was going to bring up Ayn Rand as the antithesis to “altruism”. I must say, I disagree with TIK’s analysis.
None of the Socialist leaders were altruistic. Altruism is voluntarily being in the service of others. It does not mean hating the material world and it does not involve force.
I would argue that they had a god complex, and wanted to force a bastardized version of altruism on everyone else. They were self-serving to the core.
I would also argue that the Socialists had an external locus of control. They would not take responsibility for their actions and always had to blame others. This runs counter to the internal locus of control, daily reflections, and admittance of wrong-doing that are taught in most religions.
You cannot be a socialist without being altruistic. Socialism requires altruism, since the "equality" principle is based upon it.
Altruism is all about helping others. The question is: why are others in need of help? Because the system (capitalism) is bad. Material reality does not provide equality, and this, material reality is bad, and we must overcome it by coming together and helping our fellow men via the collective (the state).
This, altruism is against material reality ("nature") and the free market. This is the reason they blame others, like you said. They think that men who are left to their own devices will devour each other like a swarm of rats. Therefore, other men are the problem in their eyes. That's why they call for a socialist "New Man".
@@TheImperatorKnight You didn't actually respond to what the other commenter said - you just reiterated your own view.
Wonderful video, but as a Christian, I think a reasonable amount of altruism is a positive thing, as long each altruistic act is the individual's choice. Government mandated altruism (i.e. socialism) is pure evil masquerading as good. For example, if a surgeon chooses to perform a life-saving surgery for free on a person who can't afford it, I would argue that's a good thing, but if you made a law forcing all sugeons not to charge more than $20 for any operation, that would be a disaster. Soon there would be no surgeons, and therefore no surgeries for anyone. Most of society's ills can be solved with more freedom, not less.
I contribute nothing to society yet I feel that it is unfair that I do not reap the same rewards as those who do contribute are getting. At the same time, my existence is entirely dependent upon the charity of my family and friends or the obligations of the government to provide for all of its citizens a basic standard of living.
My conclusion, I am faultless in my plight of poverty and powerlessness and the system is to blame for my inability to succeed. My lack of effort is just a symptom of a society that does not reward its best and brightest, as I certainly consider myself to be amongst that class.
The honest inner monologue of every socialist.
My follow-up to that is: A considerable number of the people that adhere to the ideology of socialism have deluded themselves into believing that merely existing is grounds for being provided for. They lack the critical thinking ability to recognize that if everyone acted as they did, society would collapse because nobody would produce anything. At the same time, if the rewards for contributing are no better than rewards for not contributing, that disincentivizes people from working. Why should I be working when I'm no better off than those who don't? The crucial step in transitioning from a capitalist to a socialist society is equalizing the standard of living for the welfare class and the working class. This demoralizes the working class to such a degree that they see any change at all as an improvement of the status quo.
@@Subzeropole I think they know that people would stop producing if they didn't have to provide for themselves, but it goes back to what you said about them thinking of themselves as intellectually superior. They think they're the only ones clever enough to figure out they can just sit on their ass all day and get a free handout, because the rest of us dummies would be out working to provide for them.
👍👍
I mean, they were all clearly talented. Nobody will make a videos about you in 100 years and you will be lucky if any of your descendants mention you.
They really were characters out of "Demons" by Fyodor Dostoevsky
I have not red demons but the Social democrats or the Marxists used it as inspiration, at least Stalin but I assume the other prominent ones did as well.
Dostoyevsky himself was a property of government after amnesty. Russian empire was a collectivist country without any property rights. Everything was belonging to tzar. Even thoughts. No laws, no court, private property, no rights. Only obedience and serfdom.
@@signorasforza354 So thats why communism took over so easily, it was basicly the same thing
@@user-qo1us9oc7g Exactly. Even now russians don’t have any ideological or psychological dissonance in praising empire and ussr at the same time.
@@user-qo1us9oc7g You are right. Even now russians don’t feel any contradiction when they praising empire and ussr in the same time.
Best documented info on all these horrid creatures. Thank you for all the work you put into this. Sharing is caring, so I have shared it!!
Important backstory information in this video, thanks for sharing!!
"I think I've said enough about this idiot."
No you haven't.
Seven hour TIK lectures about the rotten compulsions of socialism should replace Seven hour lectures about diversity equity and inclusion in university campuses.
Can't wait until you crack open another video in this style on Democracy and maybe one on "Third-Positionism" even if the latter may be redundant in some areas.
Mankind has been forced to bite deeply from the fruits of these botched post-enlightenment "ideas" for too long.
TIK probably read this and thought "damnit he's right, I'm not done"🤣
Re-return?🙊
And yet, you would watch those 7 hours on a device made in a socialist (communist) country 🤣😁
@@aleksazunjic9672 And you watch this video on RUclips which is a capitalist corporation 😂😂
@aleksazunjic967 nah my phone is made in south Korea and that is not socialist
Jenny Marx after she dumped her fiance to get with Karl: "This has been the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever."
Nah. He made her tingle downstairs. All that counts.
It's interesting to see that there was one socialist leader who didn't avoid work and had a family life which was actually pretty decent from all accounts: *Tito*
Maybe it's a coincidence, but he's also considered by most to be the least evil of all the old communist leaders.
I believe that the pattern is still there though. He was raised Catholic, was separated from his parents, lost the faith etc. I'd need to look at him in more depth though to be sure.
Stalin certainly didn't avoid work. He was in a forced labour camp in Siberia, after risking his life for the revolution, by robbing a Tsarist bank to raise funds.
TIK seems to have gone down an Ayn Randian rabbithole here. Quit the pop psychology and stick to war and economics. A wise quote: 'We all like gossip-except, perhaps, for people with psychiatric disorders. It is easier and more enjoyable to talk about the character of those who decide policies than about the policies themselves. What should economic policy be? Can one think of a more boring subject? But the personality or character of those who make it, always for the most discreditable of reasons, is endlessly interesting, an inexhaustible source of undisciplined speculation.'
Are you denying the identified pattern? Did all of these socialists not have religious upbringings, an altruistic morality system, parental issues, and a fear of independence that resulted in indolence?
@@TheImperatorKnight Yes I do. Your talk is an exercise in procrustian reductivism. Just about everybody had a religious upbringing in those days. Rand has also led you astray on altruism. You should read Adam Smith on this subject. Nor were many of them indolent (a word you stress wrongly); they worked hard on their revolutionary activity. Independence? They went their own way with a vengeance. Also, we only have Hitler's word on his father.
7:32 i unfortunately went through this chart minus the religious upbringing part. I undid the hatred of reality and capitalism, but still working on the laziness and fear of independence. Wish me luck.
Good luck m8
TIL I have all the hallmarks of a socialist dictator
Good thing I hopped on the capitalism train as soon as I could.
Good luck. Rooting for you.
I feel you brother
You can do it
As someone who grew up in an athiest household I could never understand the edgy athiest anti christian thing.
I could never put a finger on it. Over time I began to understand that they weren't athiests at all, they were just upset with their parents to much older ages than is reasonable. The same as almost all of these boys.
My dad was an atheist. He didn't like being told that doing whatever he wanted to do was wrong. It was amusing to be taken to church on Sunday and then listening to my dad tell me why it was all BS afterwards.
Maybe you wouldn't call me an "edgy athiest[sic] anti christian", but I can assure you that I am very definitely a conclusional atheist, and absolutely opposed to the filth that is christianity. I paid close attention to the sermons I heard twice every Sunday throughout my formative years, and I have read a lot since then, both by christians and by atheists, in addition to even more material on RUclips, including people who are showing where christians got their ideas from. Hint: it should far more be called Greco-Roman than "Judeo-christian". Maybe the real problem is that your parents were too lazy to look into / teach you about christianity?
@@stephannaro2113 yeah being anti-theist isn't "edgy atheism" when you actually know how destructive religion can be (and frequently is), and it most certainly is not entirely a bunch of bitter believers coping about there being no god, although there are a lot of those too.
@@hckr_-gh7se People who are bitter that YHWH doesn't exist... sheesh!
Many self-proclaimed athiests get into what is called a secular religion i.e a cult..
The work that must have gone into this 1 hour of video... I salute you sir. Fantastic..
Great video, keep up the great work!
Judiasm's attitude to altruism isn't the same as Christianity. While charity is encouraged "Self Immolation" for the sake of others is forbidden.
Indeed. And Jesus's criticisms of it were primarily aimed at the very same corrupt intentions of chasing an outward appearance of generosity and overall "righteousness" that we see among "altruists." "Virtue-signaling", in modern parlance. He never advocated for creating hierarchical systems to take up the burden of charity, and the Parable of Talents is explicitly capitalist in principle and describes the very Pareto distribution that socialists have been waging ideological war against.
Judaism is a form of Satanism. There is no denying of that . Veil from the temple was torn from top to bottom.
It's also forbidden in actual Christianity. Unfortunately, TIK, as good as he is, hasn't studied the subject enough. The whole "he had a religious upbringing, therefore he became a socialist" thing is a bit silly, since EVERYONE had the identical religious upbringing back then, and 99.9999% of those with "religious upbringings" didn't become revolutionary socialists.
@@historyandhorseplaying7374 And most of those who are Lutheran were in German-speaking areas. Which... yeah there's like a 50% chance they would have been Lutheran at the time in that case.
@@professorhaystacks6606 Yep and if they'd grown up in Bavaria they'd likely have had Catholic religious upbringings, like everyone else too.
1 hour video? COUNT ME IN!
First! Congrats!
Up next: 1 hour of TANKS 🤟
@@TheImperatorKnight I'll take tanks or philosophy or economics - anything but TIK's psychoanalyses. He's a smart guy with a wide base of knowledge, but this one is finally well outside his scope. I think there's confirmation bias. People who are intellectually misled into being socialists can and do come from all backgrounds, and are often passionate workaholics (indeed like both Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler). TIK's not only going against his own individualist position (apparently unknowingly?) - by diminishing personal agency, but if he goes down this Freudian rabbit hole he'll end up thinking it's all about height or penis size or whatever.... :D
@@TheImperatorKnight great replacement video when??
Inre altruism, the problem with Objecivism as an antidote is that it is as extreme in the opposite direction. Objectivism holds that ANY self-sacrifice on one's part is bad, even of the mildest kind. Philosophical extremes are the problem with so much of what ails the world.
Thank you, sir! Eagerly await more.
Kinda sad that a father who had no education wanted his kids to be educated were exposed to radical ideas. 12:31 man.... I assume this many parents fears right now.
Goverments are teaching gay sex for kids nowadays
@anthroimperzia3927 Voting? Hows democracy any different from communism, with the means of production of even law, defense and justice publicly owned, some of the most important things and as such the most important to remain fully within the free/black market only.
@anthroimperzia3927can you define “good parent”
I reject the Dictatorship of Guilt. I am, therefore I think.
As you should.
Who is John Galt?
That is such a deceptive statement. Do you know what it really means?
I agree with this statement so much. "I think, therefore I am." has brought so much destruction to the modern world.
The truth is always "I am, therefore I think."
@@WolfeTone17-98 are you tarded?
Another brilliant, well thought out video. Thank you Tik.
Killing it lately TIK. Keep it up. Thanks
These "connections" are so tenuous as to be virtually meaningless. Almost every human being on earth was brought up with a religious upbringing prior to the mid 20th century. The vast majority of humanity brought up in a stable home has disciplinarian father and a loving nurturing mother. The only thing in common seams to be laziness.
Most of them also have a hatred of the patriarchal line, even if a few cases not directly the father, though most cases it does end up being a hatred for the father, which makes sense since Communist thinking is inherently a product of weak feminine thought. (Strong feminine thought would call the man to work for payment)
Show me a socialist leader (relevant, st least country level) with a good relation with his paternal line
Laziness, true, but a TIK explained, there is more to it that then that...
@@felipeignacioavilapizarro3698 at least country level? I don’t see how it makes sense to judge an entire ideology (and supposed “cause” of it) by looking at a very small portion of them, but I’ll list a few very significant socialist leaders as examples. Rosa Luxemburg, one of the founders and leaders of the communist movement in Germany, had a very close relationship with her family. Angela Davis, prominent member of the black panthers. Huey p Newton, founder of the black panthers. The list goes on and on. Family issues are very common, you could make the argument that they cause any ideology if your logic is that many people of a certain ideology share that experience so that must be what caused their beliefs.
And none of them could be called lazy, so except the so called analysis.
Funny enough there was a video on Teddy Rosevelt’s upbringing recently and all I was thinking was “huh it feels like the opposite of TIK’s videos where a leader actually did hard work, had loving parents and understood being independent
... Damn
And Teddy cracked down on corporations and fought against capitalist businessmen. Your point is?
Neutrally calling it "parental issues" instead of mere "father issues" is a step in the right direction.
In detail the elements that stand out are 1) neglect / absence 2) an enabling, at worst oedipal parent (usually the mother), equal to "anti-authoritarian" parenting styles - the overt tyrant (usually the father) seems to be optional and seems to lead to the same outcome as the absent father. I would understand why someone would surmise "but then it's mommy-issues!", however, the other parent is supposed to compensate for such errors. Also the rule of thumb "Narcissists beget narcissists" needs to be considered. The term is better understood as "emotional immaturity" imho.
Great work as always!
This is honestly the BEST breakdown of collectivist figureheads I’ve ever seen. Thank you Sir 👍🏼🥂
Seeing how many people with the same traits tend to come from better places than the people they claim to defend, represent and to share bad experiences (aside from losing relatives and such) my take is that it is something that appears in those people to a certain extent too
This was a wonderful video, excellent educational and enlightening. Some of this I learned in college but nothing like this. No sugar coating. Thank you for sharing.
Proper tea 😂 that cracked me up! Very interesting video as always, TIK! Thank you!
💀Hatred creates the worst monsters...💀
Like Netanyahu.
@@Occident. And bush and obama and biden and clinton and bush sen. and reagan and etc.....
@@veryunusual126 sure cummies.
So does lust as much as pride.
@@signorasforza354funny- considering much of what you have, wear, eat, use, or affiliate with is probably made at least in part by China..
A few people have already noted the flaws in the way altruism is portrayed in this video. Having a desire to help other people does not stem from some form of self-hatred nor does it lead to it. That is possibly the most bizarre description I have ever heard and I gotta throw the BS flag. I don't think TIK is particularly religious but Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all require people to care for the less fortunate. That doesn't mean people of faith are by default self-loathing. The only religion I know that frowns on it are the Eastern faiths that believe in karma, that people are basically getting what they deserve for some past sin from a past life, and who are we to interfere with that?
Socialism is one of the least altruistic systems devised by man. People are left off the hook since it falls on the state to provide for the poor. That is the appeal and it's why modern-day cultural Marxists place such a high premium on victimhood. It's not that they have some intrinsic desire to help the less fortunate, it's all about will to power where the so-called marginalized groups have replaced the proletariat as the new grievance-centric base for popular support. If the hardcore lefties ever got the power they desire in the U.S. and other western nations they wouldn't give two damns about those marginalized groups. Hell, they would probably put them at the head of the list for the trains heading to the new camps.
I don't buy that argument at all that altruism is to blame for creating monsters. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Castro and on down the line, the one thing they all have in common is a rejection of God and a desire for a secular world where man is not held to any transcendent morality. A world where they set the rules, norms, and customs based on their own twisted desires, where justice and equity are arbitrary concepts based on what Rousseau called the general will, what they would call, what I want them to be. That is the essence of the end of history, the day when nothing that came before matters. The only thing that matters is today and what matters is left up to them, not some cultural belief system rooted in thousands of years of tradition. It's just what I say goes. It really is that simple, a pure desire for the acquisition and application of power, nothing more, nothing less. That's what drove very single one of those bastards.
The problem is that you seem to think 'altruism' = self sacrifice.
Let's think carefully about selfishness if it is condemned...why would anything be done? And why would no one condemn someone who just receives the help? They would be clearly selfish by asking for it since they need it while others might need more than then...
Main issue is that TIK, like you, have the 'positivist' view of 'altruism', which is only August Comte's take on 'altruism' (which is shit like Positivism as a whole, yet its ideas influenced all).
Here is what August's take was. "An action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable to everyone except the agent."
Yeah, piece of stupid shit.
I guess your post would be best described as the faithless having a bone to pick with the faithful. The theme of Socialists having a religion-sized hole in themselves that they try and fail to fill. The notion of course being that man must and can only pick one master to serve, with most cases being: God or the State.
Altruism is evolutionarily beneficial and an instinct that exists in several mammals to help them survive not just humans so saying that it's toxic is just as delulu as saying greed is bad because you should never want material things. what TIK did was redefine the word. when he complains about altruism he's really complaining about the leftist hatred of fulfilled people and hatred of productive self-interest.
@@EnclaveApex The problem is that everyone here takes a secular description and tries to shoehorn it in Christianity. 'Altruism' as a word did not even exist before August Comte made it up to make his 'ethics' of sacrifice in which an action is only good if the agent is never benefitted from it.
There is a toxic altruism and not everyone who is religious adopts it, but it manifests when the positive virtue of charity is perverted into the self-effacing form that TIK is describing, which is the complete inverse of a work ethic. I think that's what TIK meant and if so I think he could have been clearer.
Brilliant analysis again. Thank you
Fantastic this is an insightful and unexpected proposition.
I think Mussolini was probably one of the few authoritharian leaders who had a good relationship with his father to the point of taking his socialist ideas from him.
Then there is Enver Hoxha who cared more for his uncle Hysen (or Baba Çeni) than his own father Hysen who was a timid imam to the point that he got accustomed to call him "uncle" and never father.
So Tik has been reading Ayn Rand I guess
Something I recommend for all.
He mentioned re ently finding out about their writing fairly recently..
Yup. Sometimes I almost regret reading The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged in high school. Makes things a lot harder sometimes. Who the fuck is John Galt?x
@@frankmueller2781 I can't say I'm a total fan but I've read her stuff and yes I think she has her points and should be read.
Who is John Galt?
Well, Tik, this is one of your best! 10 thumbs up! 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
Very interesting observations as usual. Much appreciated.
A "true" altruist works to be able to provide, to be able to give.
These egoists were only concerned with their image and delusions. They didn't give of themselves, they only took and gave of others.
Plus they always see themselves as the victims, as the poor. I've never seen a socialist give to charities, never.
In the book you often cite "Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism by Joshua Muravchik " when he got on to how Marx was looked after by Engels and his Children did the same. In fact when Uncle Engels went to the shadow realm they lost their means of survival. And even went voluntary went to the shadow realm.
Fascinating and thought-provoking, Tik - thank you.
☝️😎
Fantastic report. Great channel, mate. Love from Aus-jail-ya x
Interestingly, the New Testament was key to the affirmation of the individual as a distinct entity. However, the individual has agency and responsibility. When you define 'Altruism', it is the sort of construction popularized by Ayn Rand. It fits into a Hegelian dialectic, which creates a convenient strawman.
This is actually a trend I observed with not so much Socialists but Dictators generally. All had terrible relationships with parent(s). Which is why we must strengthen families
Someone did a study of the paternal relationships of the 100 or so most cited feminists, and couldnt find many that had a good relationship with their father.
@@elLootogonna see a lot of feminists and dictators in the next 50 years 😂
@@elLootowhere can I find more info on that?
Really interested.
Wow! A channel that discusses what I, as a retired psychotherapist, have been thinking for a very long time. Subscribed. Envy (externalised as justified hatred) plays a huge part in politics as well.
What a jolly good perspective… 🤔 certainly got me thinking! 🍻👊🏻
Communists call fascists right-wingers and capitalists fascists, when they are both just different varieties of the same thing.
I dislike the semantics game so to speak in a basic form
The problem with modern capitalism is that corporations have paid off daddy government so there is next to zero antitrust legislation ENFORCEMENT
This is why we have a small handful of corporations and “stakeholders” that now collude to own everything
I truly wish that people would include this fact when they attack “capitalism” because it’s the reason why it’s failing
When Blackrock has:
$10,000,000,000,000 in wealth = OF COURSE capitalism is going to fail
If you have intact families that own small businesses = a much healthier system
We are now back in the 20’s with robber barons all over again
I agree with a lot of this, but I disagree that "altruism" is a sufficient enough explanation for the excesses of socialism. The vast majority of the world believes in one altruist philosophy or another... but uniquely socialism is so brutal.
Altruism in religion doesn't seem to be making the world better either. How many people have the Christians, Muslims, and Hindus killed?
Maybe though this is my thinking. Altruism taken to the utmost insane conclusion
This was a very enjoyable video!
A great study on the topic, TIK. You asked in he video if someone else has ever spotted this pattern before. I can tell that the late Antonio Escohotado has mentioned several times something very similar: most communists lived on their mother's money. Also, many of them had an awakening to socialism when their parents told them "do you think we are rich? because we aren't (any more)". I think you forgot Fidel Castro, who checked most boxes but, maybe, the religious one. I've heard several times that most communists were brought up by women, that praissed the intelligence of the "child god" in excess.
While I am unable to speak to 'altruism' of the many religions my own person experience has be always been to be charitable with your (spare) time but never ever just give away your labors, that was considered to be an unhealthy and self-defeating act.
TIK used Ayn Rand’s definition which is why Altruism is being cast in such a negative light. Who was one of the most anti-altruistic people ever to live. In short a dictionary should have been used to define Altruism, not a political thinker who completely opposes the idea.
I'm not sure what the mission is here, proving that selflessness and low self esteem makes you into a Socialist leader and a potentional mass murderer? I get that you don't like the ideology and that you have some justified beef, but I feel this is just character assasinations bringing in family matters. Since we know much more about historical figures we also knows about their dark sides, I believe you could take just about any historical figure even the still living ones and dig up some dirt. Isms are dead, both socialism and capitalism and liberalism, they where all developed back over a hundred years ago to try and govern a society that simply no longer exist, and neither would work in its purest form today, regardless of what types of people we put in charge.
Extremely well said, Sir! Hats off to you
One of your better New Insight videos. Thanks for enlightening me. It gave me a different view at socialisme. One question remains: How is it possible that such erratic persons with their obvious flawed philosophies and at their time not very influencial persons have had such a an impact on our history? Worthwhile a video?
The one saving quality of Mondays! It’s TIK day! 😁😁
Great video. My only potential contention with the whole ‘dislike of responsibility or laziness’ aspect, is the fact that individuals like Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini etc. became leaders, individuals like Stalin for example had been a terrorist gangster kingpin and lived quite dangerously as such both with the law and rivals, which is naturally stressful. And he not only became a leader, but probably the epitome of absolutism, I’d wager that even the most authoritarian of absolute monarchs could only dream of the power that Stalin had centralised around himself.
But apart of that absolutism is the fact he was constantly working, for example in I believe one of your Stalingrad related videos, it’s noted that Stalin at one point worked 22 hours in a single day. So, and I could be wrong but, it doesn’t seem apparent to me that Stalin was lazy considering that leadership is naturally the most responsible and taxing of jobs, or perhaps Stalin’s desire for power overrided his initial laziness, allowing him to ‘grow up’ in a perverted sense.
Again with Mussolini, instead of becoming a recipient of a regime he became its conductor, naturally a stressful, taxing position, once again with Lenin and then the moustache man himself, inheriting positions that were not only constant but lifelong. Perhaps the same idea I have with Stalin applies for them too. To an unproductive recipient, a socialist regime is an ‘ideal’, but why would that unproductive recipient become a leader which is the job that naturally takes on the most ‘productive’ and responsible aspect.
True, TIK's definition is kind of self-defeating. He argues that all socialists have been bums, but those socialist dictators took huge responsibilities and had a heavy workload. Lenin's political work was so taxing that he suffered a stroke, Hitler spoke about how his duty to the country had destroyed his health.
What "work" did they do exactly? I reckon they mostly likely delegated most of their responsibilities, and were more of an overseer than anything else. Just as it is now with modern politicians that have others writing their speeches, policies, legislation etc. Ambitious, but they do lack work ethic, and being in government gives them the opportunity to make massive gains while doing the least.
@@die1mayer they didn’t take responsibility, they were committing atrocious human experiments and were failing horribly but their actions were justified by their zealots. Even now they are justifying all disgrace and cringe with plain lies and manipulations.
Good point. I think the laziness and lack of responsibility is only when it's "real" work. They were very excited to work as hard as they could for their own purposes - writing theory, doing revolutionary activity, and the later controlling of the state for Lenin. But when it came to having a normal job whose purpose wasnt to control or gain control, then they were not keen on it.
Love a good crazy Tic video! Lay it on me pal 👍🏻
Hitler was NEVER a socialist. Mussolini ended up abandoning socialism and becoming a fascist.
Saloth Sar (Pol Pot) had a fairly good childhood, but later received a very strict traditional Buddhist education that promoted total selflessness (Altruism?) and anti-individualism. He later on mixed these principles with extreme Communism, and therefore one of the most brutal dictatorships was born.
Pol Pot was funded by the CIA and not a communist by any means.
Uffda. Please don’t blame Lutheran doctrine on “altruism” and Lenin’s socialist ideology nor vice versa.
Protestantism is the reason behind atheism and the religion of equality.
I don't blame Lutheran doctrine. Some of the people on this like (e.g. Mao and Pol Pot) weren't Lutherans. It's just that the first four were.
@@TheImperatorKnight I think they rebelled against Lutheranism in particular because our faith does indeed put an emphasis on forgiveness and not seeking revenge on our enemies, a gigantic stumbling block to those with top-down plans for “humanity”.
I enjoy your work on exposing the Nazi ideology and the Marxist ideology being from the same Hegelian religion. Love the channel! 😎👍
Luther told Christians to listen to themselves and act according to their opinions.
consciences. But the tragedy of the [Protestant] Reformation is that it began as a
German revolution, but it ended in a battle over dogma, and Luther finally
linked conscience to Jewish teachings of the Bible
I’m a lil dull but how does resentment for parents result in laziness? Is it because the parents want you to grow up and work but as a last sign of rebellion you don’t? Or is it something I’m missing?
Hey dude, big fan. I would like to say that i see a lot of these characteristics in myself when i was younger. I grew up with a strong mother figure, altruistic tendencies that were usually performative, not much self esteem, a fear of independence and feeling like i was too smart to do blue collar work. I was deeply communist for many years and lived in Los Angeles with the help of my parents money. After quitting that shit I’m now a truck driver and my views have really changed. I think that one of the major points that i hated capitalism so much was that i saw absolutely no path to a financially secure life because i was always pissed off about having to go to work. Since finding a career that i enjoy and making good money, i realized that my views were based on feelings of inadequacy. Thanks for such a cool video
I wonder what Tikhistory actually thinks of Market Socialism? It might be an actuall nightmare for him.
This is so interesting! I have noticed that several people that I know who support the "new right" exactly fits the descripton of troubled upbringing and a lack of intrest of working since they see them selfe as moraly right and above the rest of socity
You'll note that the "extreme right" also support socialist top-down values. The left-right political spectrum isn't a line but a circle, with the extremes having similar totalitarian top-down collectivist ideals. Even if their own chosen group of "oppressed" people, and therefore the "oppressors" to be punished differ, the end result is much the same. A tyrannical gov't run exclusively by them.
@@NefariousKoel true
@@NefariousKoel Sounds totally right! Many people are confused thinking that National Socialism is far right. It's probably the biggest lie promulgated in modern political discourse.
My goodness this is excellent. 👍
I think the analysis is much simpler. All these tyrants, especially Hitler and Stalin had comparatively poor backgrounds both in wealth and parenting. But while a rich "son-of-someone" still knows it is all about power and money for the sake of themselves, these outsider people got some feeling about idealism seeing power and money as means to really change the world. The lazy rich guy only wants to have power and money for being able to maintain his lazy rich lifestyle forever and thus is harmless in terms of revolutionary potential, essentially he wants the things to stay the same as he knows them. The idealistic poor guy wants power and money to take revenge on the world for his upbringing and all the violence he has encountered from the society during his childhood.
The irony here is that Rand ends up formulating a far more Biblical approach to morality than much of traditional Christianity while thinking that she's rebelling against it. She just does it with some abnormally-defined language, while many in the tradition are operating on a very fragmented view of the message.
When you actually look at what the Bible says it's very different than a lot of what passes for traditional Christianity. In fact the Bible warns about the spread of false teaching(Gnosticism). In Christianity yes, you are born with original sin, but you can be redeemed. In Communism/Socialism/ Woke Progressivism/Gnosticism if your a member of the out group there is no redemption.
Rand formulates ideology of selfishness, which is in its true form Satanism. Christ sacrificed himself to save the world, people like Rand would sacrifice everything for their own selfish goals. Irony of all of that is that they would die eventually, just like cancer killing its host and then itself.
@@chrishoff402 This is unfortunately the thing I worry most about TIK arguing that Christian altruism is the problem, ignoring clear cases where Christianity argues for both self-sacrifice and self-regard, one cannot love his family if one does not show love to himself, and that foremost requires a love for God. In Christianity morality, it believes nobody is worthy but that out of love for God is desires both of the self and those of others good means and ends, that neither is discounted, and thus righteous would be done. Many focus on one or the other, discounting the material and the self, others become extreme and disregard the spiritual and the other, but it is both the material and spiritual, both the self and the other that must be regarded. One cannot show love to another, to his church, or to himself unless he loves his family, that is why honor thy father and mother is so important and it is the first commandment of promise. (Ephesians 6:2)
Rand doesn't believe in objective morality and neither did any of these people in the video.
@@jsharp9735 Rand is a fierce proponent of objective morality.
Lenin was not brought up as an Lutheran, he was born into Orthodox family with his mother being lapsed Lutheran and not particularly religious. As for altruism, you will die anyway ... what will be remembered is how did you influence humanity.
That’s indeed true. Literally no credible biography of Ilyich ( as Stalin usually referred to him ) does anything with regard to his industrious, conservative father other than refer to him as conventionally Russian Orthodox. A provincial Tsarist official such as Lenin’s Dad could not possibly have risen to the fairly lofty heights that he did ( the nobility ) as a Protestant.
@@albertarthurparsnips5141 Well, there were Germans (and other nationalities) in Russian service. They were of course mostly non-Orthodox. But Ilya Ulyanov was without doubt Orthodox, was buried as such, and his son Vladimir was baptized as such .
Lenin preferred his mother to his father, calling her a "saint". He was baptised Orthodox, but was brought up mainly by his mother. She may have "lapsed", but nonetheless she was a big influence in his life. So at worst you could say it was half and half.
@@TheImperatorKnight Lenin may have preferred mother (strict father, lenient mother, as it was usual at the time) , but there is no reason to believe has was raised as something else than typical upper middle class Russian Orthodox child. His outlook on life changed when in short span his father died, and then his elder brother was executed . He was 16-17 year old at the time. Russian sources mention that Lenin when to usual church gatherings with his family, while his father was alive. After execution of his brother he completely lost faith in God, i.e. he did not become Lutheran, he became atheist.
@@aleksazunjic9672I thought Lenin was a Jew.
I found this video quite informative and enjoyable. I also appreciate the effort you putted into this video, I was doing a little history project, and I discovered it isn't easy at all to analyze historiography. I noticed that a lot of points you made were very similar to the ones Jordan Peterson makes, so, although not a historian, I wanted to suggest him as a man who maybe made a similar point that childhood can greatly influence ones political views. I didn't found he said it directly like you, but is always orbiting around those claims that marxists want to overthrow current system, which usually favors those who are hard working and in it lies the roots of todays talk "Who's the bigger victim?" And also talks about how overprotective mothers and tyrannical fathers influence their kids in these ways. Jordan Peterson often mentioned his research that he was conducting just before he was kicked from the university in which he looked for predictors of what he called "authoritative left". I am not aware that he somewhere elaborated in more detail what he concluded, but he probably did somewhere, as he often talks about communism and marxism.
Excellent video