His point still stands. Nobody is going to help us unless we give them a material reason to trust us. Baby leftists need baby food.

This is something about his content that irks me a bit, too. When he speaks plainly on a topic I'm totally with him, but when he starts to discuss theory he somehow always seems to divert into veins of exploration by route of the Frankfurt School, or Post-structuralism, or other such antirevolutionary navel gazing

Edit: having said that, he does it less than another similar channel, Plastic Pills, so I still find him more enjoyable. I dunno, when it comes to content on the left, I guess sometimes I just take what I can get.

I disagree, first he is not talking about the form of idealism discussed by Engels there.

This historical situation also dominated the founders of Socialism. To the crude conditions of capitalistic production and the crude class conditions correspond crude theories. The solution of the social problems, which as yet lay hidden in undeveloped economic conditions, the Utopians attempted to evolve out of the human brain. Society presented nothing but wrongs; to remove these was the task of reason. It was necessary, then, to discover a new and more perfect system of social order and to impose this upon society from without by propaganda, and, wherever it was possible, by the example of model experiments. These new social systems were foredoomed as Utopian; the more completely they were worked out in detail, the more they could not avoid drifting off into pure phantasies. ...

The Utopians’ mode of thought has for a long time governed the Socialist ideas of the 19th century, and still governs some of them. Until very recently, all French and English Socialists did homage to it. The earlier German Communism, including that of Weitling, was of the same school. To all these, Socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as an absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered. With all this, absolute truth, reason, and justice are different with the founder of each different school. And as each one’s special kind of absolute truth, reason, and justice is again conditioned by his subjective understanding, his conditions of existence, the measure of his knowledge and his intellectual training, there is no other ending possible in this conflict of absolute truths than that they shall be mutually exclusive of one another. Hence, from this nothing could come but a kind of eclectic, average Socialism, which, as a matter of fact, has up to the present time dominated the minds of most of the socialist workers in France and England.

Now I suggest you watch again from around 44:45.

The modern capitalist society is already very well adapted and proficient at countering socialist theory.

When the subject is educating and motivating people it is no longer enough to just say "your boss is stealing from you". Even the basic Marxist theory is rejected and extremely alien to people now living under so much propaganda, imo we are in much worse shape now than in 1880. The great USSR came and went and the west is not an inch closer towards socialism than in 1917, perhaps even worse than that because of that conflict with the west much of what people naturally desire is considered "bad" because the soviets may have done it before.

The fight to educate people isn't just about Marxist theory and education but the huge problem of psychology.

So the argument about utopianism in the video as I see it as follows. To be clear none of this is about replacing Marxist theory or dialectics.

First utopianism is not what Engels is describing here but a more broad definition that is basically the basic human desire to see a better world. That desire manifests into how people interact with society but also simple desires can be directly liked to social services and institutions e.g I wish my health was better can be directly translated into wishing for a world with better healthcare for all. Now you could say how this opens the door for so many other things but the important part here is this is compatible with dialectics as the underlying issue here is still the fundamental relationship between people, the economic system and society.

Second this desire isn't a final perfect view of society, perhaps based on logic and reason like Engels criticizes, but an imperfect and temporary view that is constantly changing. The constant change is embraced here as a positive thing that keeps people motivated and always critical of their current relationship with society and not just hoping to arrive at some perfect world.

And yet the point to accept this is a good thing, because the foundation of utopianism is that inherent need and/or desire for a better world, before being cynical and thinking that it is not worth fighting for something if you can't win you should embrace the reality that "winning" isn't the end goal but an eternal process of making the world better.

why did the revolution not spring forth from Germany despite the historical conditions being perfect, scientifically speaking?

sorry, but at a certain point you have to read theorists published after world war II