This is definitely a situation where I have absolutely no clear idea of what's going on, and have no ability to parse the conflict given the language differences and lack of any reliable sources.

So I'm going to make the brave choice of saying "I have no opinion on this".

now I almost want to pick a side

Don't be so hasty - watch the 38 sec clip. He says "some sort of privatization of the state", but what he means is the current President making the state his personal fiefdom (which is just grand language for keeping power through electoral fraud), rather than the private sector taking over.

I can't give the Kyrgyz perspective, unfortunately, but the Russian perspective on the recurring Kyrgyz revolutions is that it's just one corrupt politician replacing another, there's nothing major at stake. Northern and Southern clans in Kyrgyzstan clash and have something to win from it, and people are angry about general things and are thus willing to support revolts, but in the end nothing changes. Again, take that with a grain of salt, but that's what I get trying to read about it. (My Kyrgyz family friends' only comment on a previous revolution was that the guys they were close to had been close to the President, so the overthrow was a little scary personally, but only in the client-patron sort of way.)

This Tweet is by Edil Baisalov, the Kyrgyz Ambassador to the UK, who was supportive of both the 2005 revolution (backed in part by the US, per NYT) and the 2010 revolution (seemingly welcomed by both the US and Russia). Baisalov, ex-President Atambayev, and current President Jeenbekov all belong to the Social-Democratic Party of Kyrgyzstan (the party has since collapsed, so it looks like just another party of state power with a tinge of lefty flavor).

Atambayev was the 1st Kyrgyz President to get elected and then step down peacefully at the end of his term. He was elected thanks to the 2010 revolution, but later attacked the leaders of that revolution. Jeenbekov was his protege, but when he became President, he jailed Atambayev (ostensibly for trying to become a power behind the throne) after days of back-and-forth fighting between the federal troops and Atambayev's personal security.

This current revolt freed Atambayev and it looked like Jeenbekov was going to be overthrown, but now he's come back in force and recaptured Atambayev.

So Baisalov, appointed by Jeenbekov, is supporting the revolt against Jeenbekov...

I'm tempted to side with Atambayev for being unique in leaving power peacefully. But the opposition in the revolt doesn't seem very sympathetic either - even if they were cheated at the ballotbox, they were still split into so many factions that they didn't have a chance of winning.

TL;DR Everything I read supports the view that this is personal rivalries between corrupt politicians, without anything fundamental changing either way. Kyrgyzstan doesn't look like it'll be the site of the next workers' revolution.

Dumb asf Chapos think that people are good because they dont like privatization leads you to thinking that feudalism or fascist (sometimes they use populist retoric) are good because they are against privatizacion