Not wanting to work is not lazy. Water is dry, bees hate honey and boys are girls. Fuck, I really starting to favour the idea of physically removing socialists from normal, healthy societies.
Flatturds have the nerve to tell real human beings to be open minded to their flat earth delusions. Climate deniers tell real humans to be open minded to their denial of objectivedly testably proven quantifiable AGW. Christurds tell real humans to be open minded to their childish god jesus bible koran beliefs. Then capitalists/anarchists need to be OPEN MINDED to Marxism and Socialism and Communism and other alternative beliefs about what is or was in history.
I had to check what I'd clicked absolute shite and a opportunity to put an ideology in the ground. How can capitalism work when a fireman is paid less than a road sweeper. No disrespect but if the idea is better jobs better money work hard good life bollocks everyone deserves a chance
Josh Conway if you think socialism is any better than your wrong. look at venezuela or the soviet union. socialism doesnt work. the problem is everyone is paid the same for the same amount of work, so guess what happens? people get lazy, why work harder when your paid the same as everyone else? so people stop inventing, farmers dont produce as much crop because they are paid the same no matter how much they make, and the quality of products goes down. socialism doesnt work. atleast in capitalism people invent, make businesses, and can climb the ladder and become wealthy
The productive capability of capitalism enables for mechanization of the majority of production. In other words, automation would be more than enough to produce what people need. The concept is 'post-scarcity'.
OKey, the begining of the vid was pretty bad then it goes better and the end is terrible 1. The introduction is stupid and look like a strawman version of what conservative think socialist support 2. Socialism in marxism is when the workers own the mean of production. The definition that you give is closer to communism in marxism. And you should have indicate that in marxism private prioperty only concerne the means of production and that they're different from personal property 3. The definition of expoitation and alienation are OK and certainly the best part of the vid even if the way that you explain class struggle isn't the best and i think that you insist a bit to much on alienation and not on Marx economical theories. 4. The part on how capitalism is an ideology who try to survive and get into the head of the workers to do it is good to even if I think that needed an explaination of Imperialism in capitalism. 5. The part where you explain how a socialist society would look like on the other side is terrible. In a ocialist society, and in historical ones, taxes are pretty low simply because marxism isn't social democracy and isn't based on REdistribution but on distribution. If a worker receave the full value of his/her work, no need to taxe him/her to try to compensate exploitation. You didn't indicate that most of the enterprise will be own by the workers either through the proletarian state for the key industry or through coop for most of the economy. Yo just basically discribed a european social democracy in the 60' and that is not socialism 6. You didn't indicate that most of "socialistic" policies in the west that we got is because of class struggle and was gain through class struggle mainly in the 30' to 60' . And you made no reference to neo liberal policies breaking this advancment
I get that my sense of humor isn't for everyone so I understand you and many might not be a fan of my exaggerations of stereotypes. And to respond, Socialism is a huge huge topic and I did my best explaining it in a way that most people can understand while adding light heartedness and a sense of humor. This topic is way too nuanced for a TH-cam video and I don't proclaim to be an expert on any topic I make videos about - but instead hope that my videos peak people's interest and may inspire a flash of insight.
Obviously, but the video title is about marxism so it's a much narrow sense od socialism that you want to define. I haven't watch any of your other vid so I don't know much about your humor so sorry if I misinterpret some jokes. But don't wory, your vid stay much better that most if the vid on the subject by non communist
Honestly, you are just wrong. You are perpetuating false stereotypes due to a lack of education and research about the topic. GO and actually read up on these subjects. Try not to read American literature on the subject (or any literature originating from an English speaking country, really), because chances are that it's anti-socialist propaganda. Socialism is the second strongest political force in the EU. Socialism is what gave us the weekend. Socialism has been responsible for practically every positive political and economic development in the past half century. That is the reality of the situation. I honestly can't believe the level of misinformation presented as fact here. You take anti-socialist propaganda stereotypes and pretend they have to do with the real thing.
Joevial dude you call not being able to pay for the simplest things like toilet paper progress? Take a look at Venezuela. However today we do use a little bit of socialism, but it's dominantly capitalism.
I would like a Libertarianism in 7 or so Minutes video too! It is the other side of the Socialism v Capitalism debate. Austrian School of Economics in 7 or so Minute may need to be its own video as well as a Capitalism in 7 or so Minutes!
Flatturds have the nerve to tell real human beings to be open minded to their flat earth delusions. Climate deniers tell real humans to be open minded to their denial of objectivedly testably proven quantifiable AGW. Christurds tell real humans to be open minded to their childish god jesus bible koran beliefs. Then capitalists/anarchists need to be OPEN MINDED to Marxism and Socialism and Communism and other alternative beliefs about what is or was in history.
don't worry, i'm not one of those "capitalism is evil" people, i just hate it when people point out the flaws in socialism and basically pretend capitalism has no flaws, Churchill often criticised how terrible democracy was, but saying its the best that we have, capitalism and socialism both have serious flaws and issues and if either side claim that "their" system is perfect and undoubtedly the right answer, their spouting bullshit. that's kinda the message i wanted to send.
Johnny Darcalli THATS NOT SOCIALISM SOCIALISM IS THE ABOLISHMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WORKERS CONTROL OF THE MOP MORE SPECIFICALLY FOR MARXIST WE BELIEVE THAT SOCIALISM IS THE ABOLISHMENT OF COMMODITY PRODUCTION
Criticism: The idea that class struggle exist unnaturally and is the result of capitalism is false. Resources are struggled over based on hierarchical structures since the beginning human life and permeate thru every type of governance in every society. The idea that people who dont work are lazy is not a 'virus of capitalist propaganda'. Unproductive peoples have always been seen as a negative or drain to society. The word “lazy” first appeared in English around 1540; even back then, it was used in a judgmental way to refer to someone who supposedly didn’t like work or effort. Many etymologists believe it came from either the Middle Low German lasich, which meant “feeble” or “weak,” or from the Old English lesu, which meant “false” or “evil.” In Genesis 3:19 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread’ Hard work is a crucial element of the punishment meted out by God for humankind’s disobedience. Sloth is considered a vice per the Seven Deadly Sins, Hinduism teachs Ālasya or laziness is the worst enemy of man, Kausidya in Buddhism and other teachings is one of the twenty subsidiary unwholesome mental factors within the Mahayana Abhidharma, one of the five faults or obstacles to shamatha meditation within the Mahayana, closely related to the Pali term thina, that is identified as one of the fourteen unwholesome mental factors within the Theravada Abhidharma teachings. Since 400 AD, persons with disabilities, particularly those considered unproductive dependents, were "shipped off" to other lands. Some communities paid sailors to take such individuals away so they would no longer pose a burden. This practice led to the "Ships of Fools ," the boats that would sail from port to port, charging admission to view their strange human cargo. Eventually, the ships would abandon their "passengers" at another port, forcing them to fend for themselves. Spartans ridiculed those who were deemed unproductive sloths or even just being overweight. The social pressure and government propaganda of being 'productive' as a moral good is arguably more relevant in socialist and communist societies, where they teach in schools that true patriots work and sacrifice for the greater good. Theres murals of workers portrayed as heros splatter on walls across the public space. The soviets literally punished people to forced labour gulags or even to death for being unproductive.
No talking about wage theft, not talking about taking the means of production, being lazy = good and sex parties??? How did you research this? Did you interview a liberal? Btw marx wanted people to work, and to work hard. But he also wanted them to chose how much they want to work based on their needs and to GET THE MONEY THEY GENERATED BY WORKING. That's the most important part of this whole thing. But no, let's talk about sex parties.
This video is not very helpful to anybody, it's very, misrepresentative, to the issues presented,.. all you did was start arguments in the comments with it, I mean, this comment section is filled with stupidity, because, you didn't explain shit, for the most part, you just gave your opinion, but in 7min. ,.. It is a well made video an all, very nice, but failed to deliver the intended plot,.. Title could've leaned more towards, "socialist ruin everything",.. Lol,.. But really, "socialism explained, my opinion, in 7min",.. It would've been closer to proper,.. Good luck,..
This is a mildly good video on explaining marx but you completely missed the definition. See the Marxist-Leninist definition was that socialism was a buffer state to communism which is widely accepted by Marxists as the true definition now.
Yeah but technically it isn't the true definition of socialism just cause people agree with it. In that way racism now means 'discrimination/prejudice+power' because lefties change it for their propaganda
"work together" - sounds nice, only problem is that in socialism people who have success gets punished while peasants who doesn't work hard enough wins and doesn't have to pay much tax
Socialism is like the highschool group project. Some students contribute the most while some students just do the bare minimum. At the end, everyone got the same mark no matter how.
In Sweden it's kind of both but balanced. You pay more skatt if you earn more but you still can earn a lot of money and own much. Certain businesses are obligatory to the government such as trains, hospitals, elderly, education and security. Nothing important is owned privately cause that would lead to problems with rivalry in companies and half assed jobs that isn't checked and do their own thing so there wouldn't be any quality check. We pay a lot of skatt as it's called but that goes to the welfare of the country to free education and medical check and hospital for children and young as well as MUCH lower costs for an operation or a new tooth as well as supply and personnel for schools. I like this system better than having to be rich to pay medical check ups. At least we know what our money goes to and it's not more missiles
1.No Sweden has one of the highest taxes in the world so no you can't realy earn much (thats why all wealthy Swedes move). 2. Yes everyone can get healthcare for a affordable price but Sweden has among the longest waiting queues and people who pay 1000 times more than others do not benefit from helping more 3."Free education, I like the idea and I like that many people who maybe wouldn't be able to get an aducation is able in Sweden but nothing is free, others are paying for it. 4. our money goes to and it's not more missiles" well look at the middleeast, how Russia took Krim and how Kina flexes its muscles and show theycould take over almost all of asia (except russia) if they wanted to. the truth is that since US became the largest superpowerthe world have had its most stable period of all time and its because they pay the bill for it. *Also the internet comes from the US military so bonuspoints for that* Sure in Sweden most people are able to live a decently comfy life but you arn't realy able to excel in the system and amongs the highest household debts.
I think capitalism is better because it establishes room for growth. For me, it instills the idea that with enough work almost anyone can become wealthy. Work is something a lot of people love to do. If they didn't get rewarded for their work, they wouldn't want to work as much and everything would get to a standstill.
1. the ussr was the country with the second with the highest economic growth in th 20st century and the fastest industrializzation in history. 2. A system where those who produce the wealth don't get the wealth that they produce is literaly capitalism so this crtics is a non sense. Even historical socialist country was rewarding hard work and was pretty meritocrtic in the way salaries was organized www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-6/red-flag.pdf
I don't agree that capitalism is for the rich to leech from the workers. It doesn't matter which system is, the problem with any economic system is group think and allowing a small group to handle the trends. We humans are territorial and social beings, meaning that we are meant to live in small groups and that groups are moved by common values. As a group grows, it gets easier to have smaller groups inside the big one, and usually one group starts dictating the policy of the whole group. That is how government starts. It doesn't have to be capitalist, communist or socialist in order to have a small group dominating the whole political spectrum. The problem comes with the policy of that small group, when this group starts to manipulate it to gain an advantage over other groups turning itself in an aristocracy that dictates the trends of the whole group. Those who tend to use "unity" and "society" as a value, use those concepts as a lever to justify their proposals and avoid criticism in the same way that kings in the past justified their actions by divine rights. Great minds think alike...and so does the evil ones, and because of that we should always be wary.
+Corbin Ney It's a major misconception that Socialism is anti-reward. Socialism does not intend to stop people from accumulating possessions, it intends to stop people from accumuiating such possessions that they can then use those possessions to enact economic/political power of other individuals for their own benefit. Such possessions are often refered to as 'Capital'. Socialism does want to make sure everybodies needs are met first and foremost. You get a certain quality of life a standard, from that you are able to acquire more. Simply, it's about raising the bottom, not squashing the top.
How would socialism stop people from accumulating large quantities of possessions? Would they ask people nicely? And after asking what would happen if they don't comply? Would they force them using a third party (state)? What is the standard of life people should have? After you acquire the standard, what is the upper limit that you should not cross in order to not enact economic/political power over other individuals? Can i have a kickass mansion with 40 acres and 10 cars or should i conform by having a 130 square yard terrain, 2 room house with 1 bathroom and kitchen and a bicycle (because is healthy and I contribute to the salvation of the planet)?.
I dont get that feeling. Ive only watched 2 videos (the videos explaining socialists and libertarians) and its obvious he is socialist leaning. Lots of flawed logic and wrong information.
Thought Monkey Those who don't work are not "labeled" lazy. They really are lazy and socialism is the most evil, stupid and immoral economic system. Isn't it ironic that even though you far-left liberals claim to hate guns are in favor of a system which at the end of the day, takes your labor force at point of gun in order to be given to someone else?
No one wants to work as trash men or manual labor not everyone will be able to become what they want and the only reason there are beautiful pieces of art is because of its demand not because of bullshit enjoyment rarely do we see artist give away their work for free
Artists don't give away their work for free because they need to eat and art supplies aren't free. If, as in a proper socialist/communist society, all of their needs were taken care of, the idea of "giving away their work" would be possible. The reality is that, in a proper (pre-modern) socialist/communist society, they're not "giving" their work away; they're using it as their contribution to society.
"the only reason there are beautiful pieces of art is because of its demand" Yeah dude da vinci spent many hours going over sales figures before deciding to paint the mona lisa, right?
@@cobblebrick Actually, Da Vinci was a Renaissance-era DeviantArt member who did commissions (the Mona Lisa was a portrait of someone's daughter). The same w/the Sistine Chapel for Michelangelo.
The funny thing is the fact that socialism has always ended in poverty. Some examples are Brazil and Venezuela which flurished before its socialist economy.
They were and are not even socialist economies, just versions of it. Such as the Social Democrats, parties in Nordic Countries along with Canada. There were never any true Socialist or Communists.
@@sbaeneg4738 it is pro socialism... how am i being biased when your the one getting upset about me saying its nonbiased. it painted socialism to be a good thing. wasnt tryna get anybody ticked off just sayin truth
@@sbaeneg4738 i machine gunned replies? I thought of them afterwards and re-replied. All of which were true and all of which u couldnt rebuddle... i aint angry bud. This video is without a shadow of a doubt is biased
Difference is that the “ideology” of Capitalism has proven to be successful through innovation, freedom and equality of opportunity. The “ideology” of Socialism has a body count of over 200 million people and a laundry list of totalitarian rulers.
You make capitalism sound great! You point the problem out perfectly. Your vulnerability is your responsibility to control, in YOUR Mind, provided you're presented with the concept. Leaving yourself open without defense IS NOT HOW TO LIVE . WTF. You're perpetuating your own failure, pain and defeat. What, you're gonna drag society down, demand others submit to your feelings that you provide ZERO Defense for???? And then try to punish and break down someone confident in themselves and what they believe. Bully tactics is what you're using. I'd rather have you Standing on your own than bowing to everyone!! That's a hand up and you're afraid of it. And to hell with all this government controls everything bullshit. That's too much power and it has too much power as it is. If I want big property, that I NEED To contain the products of MY SKILLS, ABILITY AND MY DRSIRES, I WON'T BE DENIED THAT FREEDOM. In a society like that, The first confident person WILL HAVE YOUR SUBMISSION because you just hand it out uncontrollably. I'd Rather Die On My Feet Than, Live On My Knees.
I cant help but feel you got a little biased in this video friend. That's not good information especially when little kids can see this stuff man. I disagree with your view on capitalism THAT WE ARE TAUGHT TO INHERENTLY BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WORK ARE LAZY. I live in an area where there are plenty of people who do not work and take huge advantage of safety net programs/welfare. They are lazy. They have a myriad of kids they cannot support and take my HARD earned tax dollars and put them to waste. How can you say that?! Are you mad? The only people who should not be working are those that are disabled. No excuses. Socialism is the idea that we should all own everything as a society. It is nothing more than a ploy for ignorant minded people and will lead to dictatorship and despotism.
Power corrupts, but you shouldn't only focus on capitalist, Stalin, Lenin, the huge government with a lot of power which is needed to install socialism in a society is going to corrupt, so the leader of the government are the new oppressors and most of the population ends up poor. Just look at EVERY SOCIALIST COUNTRY, a good current example is Venezuela, is so rich in raw material, but the population has suffered under socialism. Capitalism may seem bad because it's competitive, but it's by far the best system we have. Socialism is for daydreamers. Who do you think will work if you can live without working? Who is going to pay the taxes? Childish video.
Well, next is workplace democracy. Also, Karl Marx was actually trying to design a system for how society would function when everything was mechanised. The ultimate end would be a society where no one does any work, we have robots to do that for us and every day is a holiday.
The socialism system you describe sounds a lot like Germany in 1933-1939. If capitalism didn't destroy it. This video could be about how bad socialism is... oh wait it wouldn't because if the Nationalist German socialist party won, free speech wouldn't exist. Socialism would make everyone lazy unless the government forced people to work or had a "lower human race" which did all the work and is treated like animals not humans. Why would a farmer work 100 hours a week when it would get the same out as a farmer doing 20 or 40 hours a week? What would be the point of a doctor doing 14 hour shifts 4 times a week when he could just do one 8 hour day still get paid the same right. In fact what would be the point of working at all if everyone gets the same and nothing is owned. Doctors, police, nurses, firefighters... what's the point of them doing all the hard work when everyone gets the same ?
Nononononononononononono! Be careful about socialism. We have been suffering severe indoctrination for the past 4-5 decades with increasing magnitude. Socialism is not the nice utopia you think it is. It is nothing less than Stalinism. If you don't know what I mean, imagine your picture of Hitler. What a bad guy, right? Now multiply that by 2. That is socialism, which is basically Marxism. *Let me make only one point: Why is Marxism worse than literally Hitler?* Fascism: This is the rule of strength. Everyone who can prevail in the society, who works hard and respects the values and history of their culture (religion and nationalism) will prevail. Those who fail to do so and are in some sense amoral, non-productive or "weak," will perish (as of not reproducing or not surviving or emigrating). But that process was constant, and for it to occur, there was no special force needed. Result: A society with strong individuals which nourishes itself through rough processes. One could say it's just capitalism with some nationalism... but much more savage towards those considered weak (poor) or abnormal (gay, retarded). Besides that, imperialistic notions were part of it. National *Socialism* (which indicates that some ideas of socialism have been taken over, which *may* very well be the reason it was as destructive and vile as it was) was directed FOR the people which were considered to belong to the society (basically the natives). But it was against all those it considered harmful or "weak," just as fascism does - but they closed one eye if it was about Germans (they just propagated some Darwinist context to claim Germans were inherently superior among some other ethnics). They considered Jews to be a harm to society (despite being successful and therefore "strong"), and transformed their image to become "weak" due to being "unfair" and whatnot. That part however was the socialist part! Pure fascists do not care for ethnicity, just for the net contributions of your being. Marxism has an entirely different mindset: They think that every oppression comes from the top - be it the government, the rich or them working together (as of corruption). They propagated a view, in which the poor were the suppressed and the rich were the suppressors, and that everyone is basically the same from their birth (the idea of tabula rasa) and a "victim" of his surroundings. So every deficit they have and every mistake they did was a result of the society being bad and evil. Also they believed society is just a made up construct to keep the rich rich and the poor poor, and that logic and reasons are just a tool to maintain power (by superior intellect? ...which was totally only due to education they could easily afford?). So based on that they think that redistributing the wealth will fix all problems. Well, fine until that (not really, it was economically-socially catastrophic already), but then the darker part comes: Those who do not align with the ideology, are supporters of the once rich or rich themselves. Many millions of people (20 millions?) were put into the Gulags, in which they were treated worse than criminals. Why? Because criminals are just victims of society who were lead to commit crimes - and the political prisoners were actually evil people who were once suppressors. And why is all that allowed? Because that was a proletarian dictatorship, basically a violent "taking back" of what is actually everyone's. After decades of purges, the system started to work out on a social level (still with tons of indoctrination in education, propaganda in media and hidden police to control potential rebels), but increasingly failed on the economic level (they fucked up all the people who were the most capable individuals to run businesses and to employ workers!). But the biggest point is: Their enemy were the very natives they consisted of! Not some foreigners, not minorities. That has some parallels with cancer. OK, just to spice it up, we currently have neo-Marxism at its rise. What changed? It's not class based any more (proletariat vs bourgeois), but identity politics related. Who is the new oppressor? The right wing voters, the bigots, the ignorant, the backwards, the "Nazis," the racists, the xenophobes or even the patriarchy (the white males not obeying that ideology) (another word for "the system"). Who is the oppressed (who then people try to help): The leftists, the minorities, the students, the muslims, the blacks, the females (feminists), the gender benders, the disadvantaged. If a revolution happens and the neo-Marxists win (who are today called liberals, which they are certainly *not!*), I'd be one of the first to die, and I am dead serious. My life would be in danger, and I am too stubborn to just yield to a sickened ideology and to give in and abandon everything I believe in.
Saying 'Not everyone has to work' is literally encouraging the problem with Socialism. Let's compare two people. One works two jobs trying to provide for his family, and the other does absolutely nothing all day and gets by on welfare. Eventually, the guy who works his butt off will meet the guy on welfare, and after learning he makes more money on welfare than his two jobs combined, he's going to realize that his efforts are being wasted, and he'll quit both jobs to get welfare. This will start spreading until literally NO ONE works at all. Now, with Capitalism, the guy who WAS getting by on welfare will run out of money, see how much the other guy's two jobs are paying off, and then get a job himself. It's literally that simple.
calling capitalism an ideology is a terrible mistake. it's not, an ideology is something someone thought out and others follow. capitalism is a DESCRIPTION of something that happens when people follow a certain principle. Respect for Property rights = basically capitalism no one thought out the "idea" of capitalism and then people started to follow it, it just happened that people more and more accepted property rights as moral and then capitalism grew out of that respect for property rights. Just like civilizations are only possible because the member of said civilization accepted that murdering one another fantically is immoral. Capitalism is something that happened because people finally recognized and accepted something inately human: the idea of property and then applied it to the real world.
The unemployed wouldn't be so bad of a term if it wasn't at the expense of the employed. Who pays for the welfare for the non-working class? The working class. Why should I have to pay someone else's rent? car? food? insurance? etc. I should be responsible for myself. Saying that we live in a society where it is possible to live "freely" without working can also be applied in another way. Slavery. Reaping the benefits from someone else's work is basically slavery, and I know that people don't like slavery.
No private properties? Nope, I'm noping out. At first it sounded good until you got to that part, I want to choose what I do to my property, no matter what, with no third party judgement, as long as it is legal and constitutional. I believe taking that away would just mess up what we have now. I also disagree with the no inherited wealth, that doesn't make sense. If I'm a millionaire and I worked hard for it, now I can't give it to my child once I die? That sounds so obnoxious, it's my money, not the governments (Well technically it is, but you know what I mean!).
There are many things wrong with this video. First of all, public spending is not socialism. It is inherently capitalistic. Towns that invest in education pay companies to build the schools. Teachers aren’t there out of their own free will, so they must be paid. Anything in America you might consider socialist cannot survive without individuals pursuing their own self interest. And your bit with the constitution and preamble is absolutely ridiculous. Our Founding Fathers were vehemently opposed to socialism. Where socialism, as well as communism, fascism, and nationalism, all share the underlying philosophy of collectivism, the early proponents of liberty believed in individualism. That is so basic to understand and to recognize. The American idea about rights-“natural rights”-is contrary to anything socialists propose.
You describe socialism as a way to have "free time" to which my question is "how?" What you describe as socialism would fail in an instant, if i'm getting free money for no reason why should I work at all? Why should put any thought into work? I'm getting free money... Meanwhile, if I work for my money, I would try to find a talent and put meaning into that talent. A persons ambition towards a goal is what drives a healthy society.
So you’re saying that getting a welfare check is more natural than working and providing for yourself? You know that money won’t fall from heaven but is taken by those socialists from hard working people. Of course it’s easier to live on someone else’s work. Socialists are no better than those old timey ruthless capitalists. They only take money from hard working people and support laziness and this sense of their superiority and live from other’s work. I come from a former socialist country and it only brought us poverty. Everyone was equally poor. No one could do something big and work hard to have a great life. Everyone has to be the same. It took out the individuality, success, it brought envy, corruption, and scientific stagnation. These ideas look good on a paper but never work in real life. No matter how many times they try and how many times they think they could get it right. Socialism never works and never will.
Do you like TV? Do you like having a Cell Phone? Do you like having heat and air conditioning and refrigerates? What about the future? what type of Innovation do you think will come in the future? The answer is that it will not come if institutions such as the government choke out private enterprise, competition, private property. In other words, all of the technology that we have as a society have been made affordable to the large majority because of capitalism. Why would Einstein write a book on relativity? Is it for the betterment of the whole society or is it out of his own self will to survive, make money, and become famous? Science, Technology, mathematics, and many more advances have been made possible by capitalism. The only reason you come up with something or invent something, or revolutionize something else is not for the betterment of the whole society, but primarily for your own survival, well being, and fame. Capitalism is private ownership in a society which leads to innovation by natural selection. Charities, soup kitchens, organizations, and foundations helping the poor are all products of capitalism. As a matter of fact, anything that is privately owned that is helping the poor and not connected to the government is just as capitalistic as any corporation, or small business, if not even more capitalistic than those by definition. Capitalism needs to be restricted to some degree to ensure justice, but not stifled by any government. This would be the ultimate fate of the human species.
Wait......so rather than STEAL my business that *I myself* built and took the risk to develop (and that seems to be the plan), why not just start your own company as a collective? If you don't like the job, get a new one or start your own?
Okay socialism wasn't a product of the enlightenment, capitalism was. Socialism is a response to capitalism and has its roots in the early 19th century in France called Utopian Socialism (According to Marx who thought it was idealistic to say the least). Socialism is contrary to the rationalism and individualism of the Enlightenment because it pursues economic collectivism and critiques the amoral nature of capital's influence which has more roots in the Romanticism of the time.
Socialism breeds selfishness, ingratitude, laziness, and entitlement. The greatest flaws of socialism that has doomed it every single time is that it never accounts for the inevitable corruption of concentrated power and the human greed for power. And eventually, the people that fell for it always realize that their drive to succeed has been stolen from them . Humans weren't built to live in a collective. Our independent spirit always wins out in the end. Socialism is a 19th century idea that failed over and over and over and over again in the 20th century. Giving it fresh paint and new tires every few years will never make it NOT suck.
Ben Shapiro - an eloquent attacker of socialism is in his own life an argument against himself. He said it doesn't matter about a situation that a child is born into. If only government got out of the way, and that child grows up with enough drive and determination then that person should succeed. I don't deny that people who are poor can succeed. However he's an advertisement against himself because he works hard to live in a good community and to send his kids to good schools. Why? Because he knows these things position his children into a better state to succeed. They can of course lack drive and fail, but Shapiro doesn't send his kids to sh*tty schools and say "If you don't succeed it's all upon your own head!"
This sounds all well and good but who decides who works and who doesn't? Isn't it unfair that people making furniture, cars, computers, or processing food and farming have to work day in and day out to provide for those that sit around all day? Sounds a whole lot like the current state of America according to socialists, except even the people at the top are working, and they're working a lot. The other issue is that socialism and communism both go against the fabric of America. People will happily give to their own but we are a nation of tribes. I can't expect a close knit Chinese family to have any desire to share their wealth with me, nor do I want to share my stuff with people who have radically different views or ideals as myself. So then to achieve this state where the wealth and everything is owned by everyone... We have to enforce it, we have to take from people and give to others. That does not sound very fair and liberating to me. Pretty much every animal on this planet works for what they have, humans included. That's why Capitalism works.
Every single time Socialism has been implemented on a grand scale, millions of people die from famine, from the inevitable wars, or from the authoritarian government that kills anyone who speaks out against the ideology of the state, who by necessity must control and dispense ... as Marx said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This video is just flat out wrong on nearly every so-called fact and explanation of capitalism and socialism. I don't know where this channel researched anything, or if there was any research done, but this is laughable at best and extremely dangerous at worst.
This is the most biased simplification of Capitalism I ever heard of. Then again, you are explaining karl Marx's definition. Capitalism is the based upon giving and taking. Providing value in the world and receiving value in return. We do not live in pure Capitalism however, simply because of governments preventing small businesses to compete against larger ones.
Mind blowing... promises of free ice cream and sex parties; and there's people who believe this to be either possible or desirable... oye! The freedom you seek comes at as the result of having provided VALUE to the world and are able to save capital to the extent that you no longer need to - if you so choose. OR ( like Elon Musk ) you can continue to create and be of a benefit to mankind. Not a welfare tick on the ass of society.
Thought Monkey: If you took a class on economics you could game a command socialist economy vs a capitalist one, and then you would find out that shortages are inherently a property of the command socialist economy. In a socialist society the good of the mass is greater than the good of the individual. When the shortages begin, the government must find a way to keep order. Since individual rights matter less then the integrity of the society as a whole, order is kept by force. The government answers to 'the people', but does not answer to its people, and importantly its individuals. This is why the end result is usually unrest or extensive government crackdowns and brutality. The sort of utopia that you suggest does not exist. You have an idea of where "C" is, but you are illogical about steps A and B to get there. IN the end, human beings don't like being told what to do. In a socialist society, the governing bodies must force individuals to their will. That never ends in your proposed utopia.
What he describes as the goal of socialism (government taxing the people at the top and owning transportation) is more like social democracy than true socialism.
Everything is owned by everyone, so people are collective ants with no personal properties or individuality of ther own then? I don't know about you to socialism Thought Monkey, but I'm fine with privite ownership, free market capitalism and individualism. honestly if you think capitalism is an ideology then lets say for now say it is, try live a life without or little money for 3 mouths and tell me how happy and grand you be in a none capitalist free market.
I want to clarify that most of what your calling socialist here is actually state capitalism. Having taxes on rich people and free health care and education doesn't make it socialist. Direct worker democratization of industry and provision of the basic necessities of life via some for of governing apparatus is socialism but just having a government do stuff instead of private capitalists doesn't make it socialism. That is a idea that Stalin promoted to manipulate the russian masses, and Lenin himself said that the Soviet Union was state capitalist.
no no no no no no. Why should the money I WORKED FOR, go to someone else cause they are just not doing anything. plus you still need people WORKING to get money that you can steal from them to give the lazy.
To understand socialism properly, you need to understand how capitalism functions: Imagine a large number of people labour for months to cultivate some produce. Let's say it is turnips. These laborers do not get a share of the turnips that they produced because the dirt just happens to belong to somebody else. They do most of the work, but the dirt owner keeps the lot. He owns all of the turnips because he owns the dirt. This is how capitalism produces a commodity. A turnip is a commodity and has a labor cost that the dirt owning capitalist hopes will be less than the exchange value at market, which is affected by demand for turnips. If so, the dirt owner has accumulated what is known as capital. Instead of a share of the turnips the laborers are given a small amount of an invention we call money. The laborers use this money to purchase enough turnips to sustain them, so that they can continue producing turnips for the dirt owner. However, the laborers must not be given enough money that they can realistically aspire to become viable dirt owners themselves, no matter how hard they work growing turnips for the dirt owner. The laborer is happy because he has the liberty to freely choose which dirt owner he will labor for and feels satisfied when a dirt owner engages his laboring services, instead of those of a rival laborer. A capital surplus gained from turnips allows the dirt owner to buy more dirt from less successful dirt owners, but he must be careful not to produce more turnips than the market can bear. If that happens he can simply reduce his output by telling some of his laborers to go away. This is how laborers become lazy. It is also called a period of recession, which is a time where it is common for laborers to become lazy. We can expand on this. The dirt owner gets his laborers to grow lots of turnips, but he needs to get them to market. The dirt owner next door gets his laborers to dig a hole in the dirt and extract some coal. The next dirt owner does similar but his laborers dig for iron ore. The next dirt owner gets his laborers to use the coal and iron to make a vehicle to get the turnips and other commodities to a market that is also the property of a dirt owner. In summary, the multitude of laborers helped a few dirt owners get a bunch of turnips to market that the laborers can then buy so they don't starve and can do it all over again next year. In the meantime some dirt owners got to buy some more dirt. What a wonderful system. It's 'the end of history'. In this example people only eat turnips, but if you prefer bananas or potatoes that works too.
The most important thing for socialists are the class struggle and how to advance the struggle in the favor of the working class as a whole. For the socialists that means that politics start with the world as a whole not individual nation states or national sectors or industrial sectors of the working class. Because of the uneven and combined development of the world in some places the struggle reaches intense proportions breaking out in war and revolution while in others it can remain mostly but not fully hidden. The middle class (working in cubicles) is not revolutionary. Depending on the particular period it will choose either to side with the ruling wealthy class or the working class (wage laborers) who are always the revolutionary class.
If this video is saying it's a good thing for people to work while others get to leach off of them through welfare that's just so wrong. Everyone should work if able and strive to be the best they can be. If you make poor life choices and choose to not try than you have the right to do so. Just don't think it's morally Legitament to then take advantage of the hard working people who actually contribute to the economy.
Capitalism creates more equality. You are the same in the starting line, not the finish. In other words, you have to work. Just because you are breathing, doesn't mean you get free things.
But socialism is working, at least one form of it. Just look at north Europe, always tops the lists of happiest countries, best education, best health care, top equality, etc.
Capitalism is not just that, is the right to trade! I make something good you make something good, i give you something good you trade with something good! And no, capitalism is not about been stress if you dont own your own company and if you are a worker, its about having the same rights as any other person to own things, land money wealth, but there is a problem when corporations grow stupid big and then they eat other smaller corporations, but its always like that!
So being a parasite is okay? Seriously? Welfare is paid for by those who DO work. You're saying that those with drive should be slaves to those who have no drive.
Almost all communist countries are in poverty. China is half capitalist if you study her. There is a reason why: " You can not multiply wealth dividing it".
my question is by its definition and the example given why is socialism stigmatized granted Russia would be one example of it gone bad but if implimented as pure socialism or socialism/capitalism (emphasis a bit more on socialism in my opinion) then I don't see a problem
… why does this video only talk about socialism for a forth of the video, and capitalism as the rest? We came here to learn about socialism not capitalism.
Marx was actually very critical about socialism. At least read the communist manifesto if you want to post a video about socialism. Other than that pretty decent vid^^
I agree with many other commenters in that the beginning is bad enough to almost ruin the video. While this is, for the most part, a nuanced analysis, it unfortunately clings to the idea that the ultimate goal of leftism is a society where most or all people don't have to work and can devote all their time to decadent indulgence. Socialism is about ending the class struggle so that all people can work together toward common goals, not hedonism.
We are stepping from socialism to capitalism. Socialism/Comunism is peace of sh*t. I'm from post soviet Europe so trust me, i know what i'm talking about.
Take from the rich and give to the poor what happens when the rich have nothing left to take? Why don't we look at Venezuela a socialist country who right now doesn't seem to be doing so good...
u lost me at about 1:05 when u slighted brown vs board of education. democratic socialism equals sanders and corbyn. separate but equal isn't real. we r all one there is no other, problem is has vs has not fyi
If you want socialism in a basic sentence and not in a misinformed misunderstood seven minute video that clearly is incorrect in the account of socialism, here it is: "Those who work in the mills should own them."
If I got a dollar everytime socialism worked I would have zero dollars ironically if socialism did work I would also have zero dollars. Meme is still hot
You know here's a problem with the entirety of socialism it can work on the short term but in the long term can not work because eventually you run out of money to take from people
businesses want everyone working because of the work force is flooded then they can take there pick and keep it cheap without paying the premium for things like high skilled or high educated member of staff, i hate it as a worky, but id do it as an owner, im not to proud that id play the game, because im not mental
4:30 "being unemployed is good cause it's freedom"...my copy of das capital must be missing a few chapters
thanks, but I like my selfish ownership of my things
Yeah me too.
I don't like Socialism!..
I'll see myself to the Gulag
Not wanting to work is not lazy.
Water is dry, bees hate honey and boys are girls.
Fuck, I really starting to favour the idea of physically removing socialists from normal, healthy societies.
work was a right in the ussr
+VitaSineLibertatenih Physical removal of people from society? That's a bit.. I don't know... ANTIFA-ish, isn't it?
If i had a dollar for every mistake in this video, i could fund my own communist militia.
Flatturds have the nerve to tell real human beings to be open minded to their flat earth delusions.
Climate deniers tell real humans to be open minded to their denial of objectivedly testably proven quantifiable AGW.
Christurds tell real humans to be open minded to their childish god jesus bible koran beliefs.
Then capitalists/anarchists need to be OPEN MINDED to Marxism and Socialism and Communism and other alternative beliefs about what is or was in history.
This is the best commercial for capitalism I've ever seen
I had to check what I'd clicked absolute shite and a opportunity to put an ideology in the ground. How can capitalism work when a fireman is paid less than a road sweeper. No disrespect but if the idea is better jobs better money work hard good life bollocks everyone deserves a chance
Josh Conway if you think socialism is any better than your wrong. look at venezuela or the soviet union. socialism doesnt work. the problem is everyone is paid the same for the same amount of work, so guess what happens? people get lazy, why work harder when your paid the same as everyone else? so people stop inventing, farmers dont produce as much crop because they are paid the same no matter how much they make, and the quality of products goes down. socialism doesnt work. atleast in capitalism people invent, make businesses, and can climb the ladder and become wealthy
*HOW DO NONE OF YOU REALIZE THAT THE SOVIET UNION WASN'T SOCIALIST?*
*besides Josh and tater tots
MrRandomRobot that’s capitalism with high taxes and government subsidization into industries that are profitable
Where does everything come from though? Do you just have a bunch of slaves giving other people money for free?
The productive capability of capitalism enables for mechanization of the majority of production. In other words, automation would be more than enough to produce what people need. The concept is 'post-scarcity'.
The best system is one that leaves open potential to not be a slave but there will always be slaves.
OKey, the begining of the vid was pretty bad then it goes better and the end is terrible
1. The introduction is stupid and look like a strawman version of what conservative think socialist support
2. Socialism in marxism is when the workers own the mean of production. The definition that you give is closer to communism in marxism. And you should have indicate that in marxism private prioperty only concerne the means of production and that they're different from personal property
3. The definition of expoitation and alienation are OK and certainly the best part of the vid even if the way that you explain class struggle isn't the best and i think that you insist a bit to much on alienation and not on Marx economical theories.
4. The part on how capitalism is an ideology who try to survive and get into the head of the workers to do it is good to even if I think that needed an explaination of Imperialism in capitalism.
5. The part where you explain how a socialist society would look like on the other side is terrible. In a ocialist society, and in historical ones, taxes are pretty low simply because marxism isn't social democracy and isn't based on REdistribution but on distribution. If a worker receave the full value of his/her work, no need to taxe him/her to try to compensate exploitation.
You didn't indicate that most of the enterprise will be own by the workers either through the proletarian state for the key industry or through coop for most of the economy. Yo just basically discribed a european social democracy in the 60' and that is not socialism
6. You didn't indicate that most of "socialistic" policies in the west that we got is because of class struggle and was gain through class struggle mainly in the 30' to 60' . And you made no reference to neo liberal policies breaking this advancment
I get that my sense of humor isn't for everyone so I understand you and many might not be a fan of my exaggerations of stereotypes.
And to respond, Socialism is a huge huge topic and I did my best explaining it in a way that most people can understand while adding light heartedness and a sense of humor. This topic is way too nuanced for a TH-cam video and I don't proclaim to be an expert on any topic I make videos about - but instead hope that my videos peak people's interest and may inspire a flash of insight.
Obviously, but the video title is about marxism so it's a much narrow sense od socialism that you want to define.
I haven't watch any of your other vid so I don't know much about your humor so sorry if I misinterpret some jokes.
But don't wory, your vid stay much better that most if the vid on the subject by non communist
Honestly, you are just wrong. You are perpetuating false stereotypes due to a lack of education and research about the topic. GO and actually read up on these subjects. Try not to read American literature on the subject (or any literature originating from an English speaking country, really), because chances are that it's anti-socialist propaganda.
Socialism is the second strongest political force in the EU. Socialism is what gave us the weekend. Socialism has been responsible for practically every positive political and economic development in the past half century. That is the reality of the situation.
I honestly can't believe the level of misinformation presented as fact here. You take anti-socialist propaganda stereotypes and pretend they have to do with the real thing.
Joevial dude facts cant be propaganda lol. There is evidence in the progress of socialism has on humanity
Joevial dude you call not being able to pay for the simplest things like toilet paper progress? Take a look at Venezuela. However today we do use a little bit of socialism, but it's dominantly capitalism.
I would like a Libertarianism in 7 or so Minutes video too! It is the other side of the Socialism v Capitalism debate. Austrian School of Economics in 7 or so Minute may need to be its own video as well as a Capitalism in 7 or so Minutes!
Plenty of ideas here. I'll see what I can do :).
Flatturds have the nerve to tell real human beings to be open minded to their flat earth delusions.
Climate deniers tell real humans to be open minded to their denial of objectivedly testably proven quantifiable AGW.
Christurds tell real humans to be open minded to their childish god jesus bible koran beliefs.
Then capitalists/anarchists need to be OPEN MINDED to Marxism and Socialism and Communism and other alternative beliefs about what is or was in history.
Imagine running in a race where the faster you run, the more you are held back, but the slower runners get taxi rides.
That's Socialism.
This comment is brilliant
imagine running in a race with no rules, people trip and push those getting ahead of them, some people start ahead for no reason.
That's Capitalism.
don't worry, i'm not one of those "capitalism is evil" people, i just hate it when people point out the flaws in socialism and basically pretend capitalism has no flaws, Churchill often criticised how terrible democracy was, but saying its the best that we have, capitalism and socialism both have serious flaws and issues and if either side claim that "their" system is perfect and undoubtedly the right answer, their spouting bullshit.
that's kinda the message i wanted to send.
Ethan Dormain, that's anarchism/corporatism. Only the "people starting ahead" part is capitalism.
(Real) Liberalism is a race like it is now.
Johnny Darcalli THATS NOT SOCIALISM
SOCIALISM IS THE ABOLISHMENT OF PRIVATE PROPERTY AND WORKERS CONTROL OF THE MOP
MORE SPECIFICALLY FOR MARXIST WE BELIEVE THAT SOCIALISM IS THE ABOLISHMENT OF COMMODITY PRODUCTION
I came for an unbiased explanation of Socialism. Instead, we got some reverse racism horseshit. And I somewhat support Socialism. Disliked.
This is so wrong in so many levels
can you tell me what's wrong with this. i have read countless books on the topic and i would have to nitpick to find floors
communism is an end goal of global socialism. communist states are always socialist, they just have the end goal of communism.
And inevitably you get totalitarian dictatorships and death...
*there's a difference between communism and socialism*
But they invariably lead to the same shitty outcome for the "people".
Criticism:
The idea that class struggle exist unnaturally and is the result of capitalism is false. Resources are struggled over based on hierarchical structures since the beginning human life and permeate thru every type of governance in every society.
The idea that people who dont work are lazy is not a 'virus of capitalist propaganda'. Unproductive peoples have always been seen as a negative or drain to society. The word “lazy” first appeared in English around 1540; even back then, it was used in a judgmental way to refer to someone who supposedly didn’t like work or effort. Many etymologists believe it came from either the Middle Low German lasich, which meant “feeble” or “weak,” or from the Old English lesu, which meant “false” or “evil.”
In Genesis 3:19 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread’ Hard work is a crucial element of the punishment meted out by God for humankind’s disobedience. Sloth is considered a vice per the Seven Deadly Sins, Hinduism teachs Ālasya or laziness is the worst enemy of man, Kausidya in Buddhism and other teachings is one of the twenty subsidiary unwholesome mental factors within the Mahayana Abhidharma, one of the five faults or obstacles to shamatha meditation within the Mahayana, closely related to the Pali term thina, that is identified as one of the fourteen unwholesome mental factors within the Theravada Abhidharma teachings.
Since 400 AD, persons with disabilities, particularly those considered unproductive dependents, were "shipped off" to other lands. Some communities paid sailors to take such individuals away so they would no longer pose a burden. This practice led to the "Ships of Fools ," the boats that would sail from port to port, charging admission to view their strange human cargo. Eventually, the ships would abandon their "passengers" at another port, forcing them to fend for themselves.
Spartans ridiculed those who were deemed unproductive sloths or even just being overweight.
The social pressure and government propaganda of being 'productive' as a moral good is arguably more relevant in socialist and communist societies, where they teach in schools that true patriots work and sacrifice for the greater good. Theres murals of workers portrayed as heros splatter on walls across the public space. The soviets literally punished people to forced labour gulags or even to death for being unproductive.
You completely misrepresented Marx's arguements, none of the things Marx advocated is what you represented here
No talking about wage theft, not talking about taking the means of production, being lazy = good and sex parties???
How did you research this? Did you interview a liberal?
Btw marx wanted people to work, and to work hard. But he also wanted them to chose how much they want to work based on their needs and to GET THE MONEY THEY GENERATED BY WORKING. That's the most important part of this whole thing. But no, let's talk about sex parties.
This video is not very helpful to anybody, it's very, misrepresentative, to the issues presented,.. all you did was start arguments in the comments with it, I mean, this comment section is filled with stupidity, because, you didn't explain shit, for the most part, you just gave your opinion, but in 7min. ,.. It is a well made video an all, very nice, but failed to deliver the intended plot,.. Title could've leaned more towards, "socialist ruin everything",.. Lol,.. But really, "socialism explained, my opinion, in 7min",.. It would've been closer to proper,.. Good luck,..
Socialism/communism doesnt stop monopolies either. This video has so many flaws of logic
Why didn’t he talk about the negatives of the topic like he did with libertarianism
I don’t think people understand this isn’t advocating for socialism but just explaining it.
I think you may be right.
This is a mildly good video on explaining marx but you completely missed the definition. See the Marxist-Leninist definition was that socialism was a buffer state to communism which is widely accepted by Marxists as the true definition now.
Yeah but technically it isn't the true definition of socialism just cause people agree with it. In that way racism now means 'discrimination/prejudice+power' because lefties change it for their propaganda
Yes living by freeloading off other is freedom lol
"work together" - sounds nice, only problem is that in socialism people who have success gets punished while peasants who doesn't work hard enough wins and doesn't have to pay much tax
Socialism is like the highschool group project. Some students contribute the most while some students just do the bare minimum. At the end, everyone got the same mark no matter how.
In Sweden it's kind of both but balanced. You pay more skatt if you earn more but you still can earn a lot of money and own much. Certain businesses are obligatory to the government such as trains, hospitals, elderly, education and security. Nothing important is owned privately cause that would lead to problems with rivalry in companies and half assed jobs that isn't checked and do their own thing so there wouldn't be any quality check. We pay a lot of skatt as it's called but that goes to the welfare of the country to free education and medical check and hospital for children and young as well as MUCH lower costs for an operation or a new tooth as well as supply and personnel for schools. I like this system better than having to be rich to pay medical check ups. At least we know what our money goes to and it's not more missiles
1.No Sweden has one of the highest taxes in the world so no you can't realy earn much (thats why all wealthy Swedes move).
2. Yes everyone can get healthcare for a affordable price but Sweden has among the longest waiting queues and people who pay 1000 times more than others do not benefit from helping more
3."Free education, I like the idea and I like that many people who maybe wouldn't be able to get an aducation is able in Sweden but nothing is free, others are paying for it.
4. our money goes to and it's not more missiles" well look at the middleeast, how Russia took Krim and how Kina flexes its muscles and show theycould take over almost all of asia (except russia) if they wanted to. the truth is that since US became the largest superpowerthe world have had its most stable period of all time and its because they pay the bill for it. *Also the internet comes from the US military so bonuspoints for that*
Sure in Sweden most people are able to live a decently comfy life but you arn't realy able to excel in the system and amongs the highest household debts.
I think capitalism is better because it establishes room for growth. For me, it instills the idea that with enough work almost anyone can become wealthy. Work is something a lot of people love to do. If they didn't get rewarded for their work, they wouldn't want to work as much and everything would get to a standstill.
1. the ussr was the country with the second with the highest economic growth in th 20st century and the fastest industrializzation in history.
2. A system where those who produce the wealth don't get the wealth that they produce is literaly capitalism so this crtics is a non sense.
Even historical socialist country was rewarding hard work and was pretty meritocrtic in the way salaries was organized
www.marxists.org/history/erol/ncm-6/red-flag.pdf
I don't agree that capitalism is for the rich to leech from the workers. It doesn't matter which system is, the problem with any economic system is group think and allowing a small group to handle the trends. We humans are territorial and social beings, meaning that we are meant to live in small groups and that groups are moved by common values. As a group grows, it gets easier to have smaller groups inside the big one, and usually one group starts dictating the policy of the whole group. That is how government starts. It doesn't have to be capitalist, communist or socialist in order to have a small group dominating the whole political spectrum. The problem comes with the policy of that small group, when this group starts to manipulate it to gain an advantage over other groups turning itself in an aristocracy that dictates the trends of the whole group. Those who tend to use "unity" and "society" as a value, use those concepts as a lever to justify their proposals and avoid criticism in the same way that kings in the past justified their actions by divine rights. Great minds think alike...and so does the evil ones, and because of that we should always be wary.
1. www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/origin_family.pdf
2. The system that you describe at the end is pretty much capitalism
+Corbin Ney It's a major misconception that Socialism is anti-reward. Socialism does not intend to stop people from accumulating possessions, it intends to stop people from accumuiating such possessions that they can then use those possessions to enact economic/political power of other individuals for their own benefit. Such possessions are often refered to as 'Capital'. Socialism does want to make sure everybodies needs are met first and foremost. You get a certain quality of life a standard, from that you are able to acquire more. Simply, it's about raising the bottom, not squashing the top.
How would socialism stop people from accumulating large quantities of possessions?
Would they ask people nicely? And after asking what would happen if they don't comply?
Would they force them using a third party (state)? What is the standard of life people should have? After you acquire the standard, what is the upper limit that you should not cross in order to not enact economic/political power over other individuals? Can i have a kickass mansion with 40 acres and 10 cars or should i conform by having a 130 square yard terrain, 2 room house with 1 bathroom and kitchen and a bicycle (because is healthy and I contribute to the salvation of the planet)?.
I love this channel because he doesnt have a political agenda he actually wants to figure it out
I dont get that feeling. Ive only watched 2 videos (the videos explaining socialists and libertarians) and its obvious he is socialist leaning. Lots of flawed logic and wrong information.
I was hoping you would go more in depth about the flaws of Socialism like you did with Capitalism.
We have a mixed economy.
A video on Socialism by someone educated on Socialism.
A rarity to say the least, nice vid.
Thank you :)
Marx used Communist and Socialist interchangeably, other than that your comment doesn't really make much sense.
donniehitler Well if you read Marx you might realise
donniehitler he didn't bring anything to Russia, he was dead.
Thought Monkey Those who don't work are not "labeled" lazy. They really are lazy and socialism is the most evil, stupid and immoral economic system. Isn't it ironic that even though you far-left liberals claim to hate guns are in favor of a system which at the end of the day, takes your labor force at point of gun in order to be given to someone else?
Does Socialism work? look at Stalin Russia and Mao China and North Korea.
Socialism has never been attempted in the form that it Marx envisioned. But that doesn't mean it will work.
Thought Monkey that's because it can't be it just leads to an authoritarian dictatorship and millions of deaths.
No one wants to work as trash men or manual labor not everyone will be able to become what they want and the only reason there are beautiful pieces of art is because of its demand not because of bullshit enjoyment rarely do we see artist give away their work for free
Artists don't give away their work for free because they need to eat and art supplies aren't free. If, as in a proper socialist/communist society, all of their needs were taken care of, the idea of "giving away their work" would be possible. The reality is that, in a proper (pre-modern) socialist/communist society, they're not "giving" their work away; they're using it as their contribution to society.
"the only reason there are beautiful pieces of art is because of its demand"
Yeah dude da vinci spent many hours going over sales figures before deciding to paint the mona lisa, right?
@@cobblebrick Actually, Da Vinci was a Renaissance-era DeviantArt member who did commissions (the Mona Lisa was a portrait of someone's daughter). The same w/the Sistine Chapel for Michelangelo.
since other people will work, i dont have to work. Sign me up.
VENEZUELA VENEZUELA. VENEZUELA!!!
You're confusing socialism with communism...
The funny thing is the fact that socialism has always ended in poverty. Some examples are Brazil and Venezuela which flurished before its socialist economy.
They were and are not even socialist economies, just versions of it.
Such as the Social Democrats, parties in Nordic Countries along with Canada.
There were never any true Socialist or Communists.
@@lucasdillon59 Then what is "True socialism/communism"?
Socialism is swearing to american capitalism on youtube and eating BigMac...
Hahaha, what?
this is one of the best videos on socialism from an unbiased perspective I've ever seen
un biased? its just biased in ur view. its obviously pro socialism
@@sbaeneg4738 it is pro socialism... how am i being biased when your the one getting upset about me saying its nonbiased. it painted socialism to be a good thing. wasnt tryna get anybody ticked off just sayin truth
@@sbaeneg4738 "if i had a dollar for everytime socialism worked id have 0$... ironically if it did work id also have 0$"
@@sbaeneg4738 4:37 aka "its positive not negative"
@@sbaeneg4738 i machine gunned replies? I thought of them afterwards and re-replied. All of which were true and all of which u couldnt rebuddle... i aint angry bud. This video is without a shadow of a doubt is biased
Ignorance of the 20th centuries history... what about capitalism raising the life quality of literally all of the middle and working class
Difference is that the “ideology” of Capitalism has proven to be successful through innovation, freedom and equality of opportunity. The “ideology” of Socialism has a body count of over 200 million people and a laundry list of totalitarian rulers.
You make capitalism sound great!
You point the problem out perfectly.
Your vulnerability is your responsibility to control, in YOUR Mind, provided you're presented with the concept. Leaving yourself open without defense IS NOT HOW TO LIVE . WTF. You're perpetuating your own failure, pain and defeat.
What, you're gonna drag society down, demand others submit to your feelings that you provide ZERO Defense for???? And then try to punish and break down someone confident in themselves and what they believe. Bully tactics is what you're using.
I'd rather have you Standing on your own than bowing to everyone!! That's a hand up and you're afraid of it.
And to hell with all this government controls everything bullshit. That's too much power and it has too much power as it is.
If I want big property, that I NEED To contain the products of MY SKILLS, ABILITY AND MY DRSIRES, I WON'T BE DENIED THAT FREEDOM.
In a society like that, The first confident person WILL HAVE YOUR SUBMISSION because you just hand it out uncontrollably.
I'd Rather Die On My Feet Than, Live On My Knees.
I cant help but feel you got a little biased in this video friend. That's not good information especially when little kids can see this stuff man. I disagree with your view on capitalism THAT WE ARE TAUGHT TO INHERENTLY BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE WHO DO NOT WORK ARE LAZY. I live in an area where there are plenty of people who do not work and take huge advantage of safety net programs/welfare. They are lazy. They have a myriad of kids they cannot support and take my HARD earned tax dollars and put them to waste. How can you say that?! Are you mad? The only people who should not be working are those that are disabled. No excuses. Socialism is the idea that we should all own everything as a society. It is nothing more than a ploy for ignorant minded people and will lead to dictatorship and despotism.
Power corrupts, but you shouldn't only focus on capitalist, Stalin, Lenin, the huge government with a lot of power which is needed to install socialism in a society is going to corrupt, so the leader of the government are the new oppressors and most of the population ends up poor. Just look at EVERY SOCIALIST COUNTRY, a good current example is Venezuela, is so rich in raw material, but the population has suffered under socialism. Capitalism may seem bad because it's competitive, but it's by far the best system we have. Socialism is for daydreamers. Who do you think will work if you can live without working? Who is going to pay the taxes? Childish video.
Well, next is workplace democracy.
Also, Karl Marx was actually trying to design a system for how society would function when everything was mechanised. The ultimate end would be a society where no one does any work, we have robots to do that for us and every day is a holiday.
The socialism system you describe sounds a lot like Germany in 1933-1939. If capitalism didn't destroy it. This video could be about how bad socialism is... oh wait it wouldn't because if the Nationalist German socialist party won, free speech wouldn't exist.
Socialism would make everyone lazy unless the government forced people to work or had a "lower human race" which did all the work and is treated like animals not humans.
Why would a farmer work 100 hours a week when it would get the same out as a farmer doing 20 or 40 hours a week?
What would be the point of a doctor doing 14 hour shifts 4 times a week when he could just do one 8 hour day still get paid the same right.
In fact what would be the point of working at all if everyone gets the same and nothing is owned.
Doctors, police, nurses, firefighters... what's the point of them doing all the hard work when everyone gets the same ?
Nononononononononononono!
Be careful about socialism. We have been suffering severe indoctrination for the past 4-5 decades with increasing magnitude. Socialism is not the nice utopia you think it is. It is nothing less than Stalinism. If you don't know what I mean, imagine your picture of Hitler. What a bad guy, right? Now multiply that by 2. That is socialism, which is basically Marxism.
*Let me make only one point: Why is Marxism worse than literally Hitler?*
Fascism: This is the rule of strength. Everyone who can prevail in the society, who works hard and respects the values and history of their culture (religion and nationalism) will prevail. Those who fail to do so and are in some sense amoral, non-productive or "weak," will perish (as of not reproducing or not surviving or emigrating). But that process was constant, and for it to occur, there was no special force needed. Result: A society with strong individuals which nourishes itself through rough processes. One could say it's just capitalism with some nationalism... but much more savage towards those considered weak (poor) or abnormal (gay, retarded). Besides that, imperialistic notions were part of it.
National *Socialism* (which indicates that some ideas of socialism have been taken over, which *may* very well be the reason it was as destructive and vile as it was) was directed FOR the people which were considered to belong to the society (basically the natives). But it was against all those it considered harmful or "weak," just as fascism does - but they closed one eye if it was about Germans (they just propagated some Darwinist context to claim Germans were inherently superior among some other ethnics). They considered Jews to be a harm to society (despite being successful and therefore "strong"), and transformed their image to become "weak" due to being "unfair" and whatnot. That part however was the socialist part! Pure fascists do not care for ethnicity, just for the net contributions of your being.
Marxism has an entirely different mindset: They think that every oppression comes from the top - be it the government, the rich or them working together (as of corruption). They propagated a view, in which the poor were the suppressed and the rich were the suppressors, and that everyone is basically the same from their birth (the idea of tabula rasa) and a "victim" of his surroundings. So every deficit they have and every mistake they did was a result of the society being bad and evil. Also they believed society is just a made up construct to keep the rich rich and the poor poor, and that logic and reasons are just a tool to maintain power (by superior intellect? ...which was totally only due to education they could easily afford?). So based on that they think that redistributing the wealth will fix all problems. Well, fine until that (not really, it was economically-socially catastrophic already), but then the darker part comes: Those who do not align with the ideology, are supporters of the once rich or rich themselves. Many millions of people (20 millions?) were put into the Gulags, in which they were treated worse than criminals. Why? Because criminals are just victims of society who were lead to commit crimes - and the political prisoners were actually evil people who were once suppressors. And why is all that allowed? Because that was a proletarian dictatorship, basically a violent "taking back" of what is actually everyone's. After decades of purges, the system started to work out on a social level (still with tons of indoctrination in education, propaganda in media and hidden police to control potential rebels), but increasingly failed on the economic level (they fucked up all the people who were the most capable individuals to run businesses and to employ workers!). But the biggest point is: Their enemy were the very natives they consisted of! Not some foreigners, not minorities. That has some parallels with cancer.
OK, just to spice it up, we currently have neo-Marxism at its rise. What changed? It's not class based any more (proletariat vs bourgeois), but identity politics related. Who is the new oppressor? The right wing voters, the bigots, the ignorant, the backwards, the "Nazis," the racists, the xenophobes or even the patriarchy (the white males not obeying that ideology) (another word for "the system"). Who is the oppressed (who then people try to help): The leftists, the minorities, the students, the muslims, the blacks, the females (feminists), the gender benders, the disadvantaged.
If a revolution happens and the neo-Marxists win (who are today called liberals, which they are certainly *not!*), I'd be one of the first to die, and I am dead serious. My life would be in danger, and I am too stubborn to just yield to a sickened ideology and to give in and abandon everything I believe in.
Saying 'Not everyone has to work' is literally encouraging the problem with Socialism. Let's compare two people. One works two jobs trying to provide for his family, and the other does absolutely nothing all day and gets by on welfare. Eventually, the guy who works his butt off will meet the guy on welfare, and after learning he makes more money on welfare than his two jobs combined, he's going to realize that his efforts are being wasted, and he'll quit both jobs to get welfare. This will start spreading until literally NO ONE works at all.
Now, with Capitalism, the guy who WAS getting by on welfare will run out of money, see how much the other guy's two jobs are paying off, and then get a job himself.
It's literally that simple.
calling capitalism an ideology is a terrible mistake.
it's not, an ideology is something someone thought out and others follow.
capitalism is a DESCRIPTION of something that happens when people follow a certain principle.
Respect for Property rights = basically capitalism
no one thought out the "idea" of capitalism and then people started to follow it, it just happened that people more and more accepted property rights as moral and then capitalism grew out of that respect for property rights.
Just like civilizations are only possible because the member of said civilization accepted that murdering one another fantically is immoral.
Capitalism is something that happened because people finally recognized and accepted something inately human: the idea of property and then applied it to the real world.
The unemployed wouldn't be so bad of a term if it wasn't at the expense of the employed. Who pays for the welfare for the non-working class? The working class.
Why should I have to pay someone else's rent? car? food? insurance? etc. I should be responsible for myself. Saying that we live in a society where it is possible to live "freely" without working can also be applied in another way. Slavery. Reaping the benefits from someone else's work is basically slavery, and I know that people don't like slavery.
No private properties? Nope, I'm noping out. At first it sounded good until you got to that part, I want to choose what I do to my property, no matter what, with no third party judgement, as long as it is legal and constitutional. I believe taking that away would just mess up what we have now. I also disagree with the no inherited wealth, that doesn't make sense. If I'm a millionaire and I worked hard for it, now I can't give it to my child once I die? That sounds so obnoxious, it's my money, not the governments (Well technically it is, but you know what I mean!).
There are many things wrong with this video. First of all, public spending is not socialism. It is inherently capitalistic. Towns that invest in education pay companies to build the schools. Teachers aren’t there out of their own free will, so they must be paid. Anything in America you might consider socialist cannot survive without individuals pursuing their own self interest. And your bit with the constitution and preamble is absolutely ridiculous. Our Founding Fathers were vehemently opposed to socialism. Where socialism, as well as communism, fascism, and nationalism, all share the underlying philosophy of collectivism, the early proponents of liberty believed in individualism. That is so basic to understand and to recognize. The American idea about rights-“natural rights”-is contrary to anything socialists propose.
You describe socialism as a way to have "free time" to which my question is "how?" What you describe as socialism would fail in an instant, if i'm getting free money for no reason why should I work at all? Why should put any thought into work? I'm getting free money... Meanwhile, if I work for my money, I would try to find a talent and put meaning into that talent. A persons ambition towards a goal is what drives a healthy society.
So you’re saying that getting a welfare check is more natural than working and providing for yourself? You know that money won’t fall from heaven but is taken by those socialists from hard working people. Of course it’s easier to live on someone else’s work. Socialists are no better than those old timey ruthless capitalists. They only take money from hard working people and support laziness and this sense of their superiority and live from other’s work. I come from a former socialist country and it only brought us poverty. Everyone was equally poor. No one could do something big and work hard to have a great life. Everyone has to be the same. It took out the individuality, success, it brought envy, corruption, and scientific stagnation. These ideas look good on a paper but never work in real life. No matter how many times they try and how many times they think they could get it right. Socialism never works and never will.
Do you like TV? Do you like having a Cell Phone? Do you like having heat and air conditioning and refrigerates? What about the future? what type of Innovation do you think will come in the future? The answer is that it will not come if institutions such as the government choke out private enterprise, competition, private property. In other words, all of the technology that we have as a society have been made affordable to the large majority because of capitalism. Why would Einstein write a book on relativity? Is it for the betterment of the whole society or is it out of his own self will to survive, make money, and become famous? Science, Technology, mathematics, and many more advances have been made possible by capitalism. The only reason you come up with something or invent something, or revolutionize something else is not for the betterment of the whole society, but primarily for your own survival, well being, and fame. Capitalism is private ownership in a society which leads to innovation by natural selection. Charities, soup kitchens, organizations, and foundations helping the poor are all products of capitalism. As a matter of fact, anything that is privately owned that is helping the poor and not connected to the government is just as capitalistic as any corporation, or small business, if not even more capitalistic than those by definition. Capitalism needs to be restricted to some degree to ensure justice, but not stifled by any government. This would be the ultimate fate of the human species.
Wait......so rather than STEAL my business that *I myself* built and took the risk to develop (and that seems to be the plan), why not just start your own company as a collective? If you don't like the job, get a new one or start your own?
Okay socialism wasn't a product of the enlightenment, capitalism was. Socialism is a response to capitalism and has its roots in the early 19th century in France called Utopian Socialism (According to Marx who thought it was idealistic to say the least). Socialism is contrary to the rationalism and individualism of the Enlightenment because it pursues economic collectivism and critiques the amoral nature of capital's influence which has more roots in the Romanticism of the time.
Socialism breeds selfishness, ingratitude, laziness, and entitlement. The greatest flaws of socialism that has doomed it every single time is that it never accounts for the inevitable corruption of concentrated power and the human greed for power. And eventually, the people that fell for it always realize that their drive to succeed has been stolen from them . Humans weren't built to live in a collective. Our independent spirit always wins out in the end. Socialism is a 19th century idea that failed over and over and over and over again in the 20th century. Giving it fresh paint and new tires every few years will never make it NOT suck.
Ben Shapiro - an eloquent attacker of socialism is in his own life an argument against himself.
He said it doesn't matter about a situation that a child is born into. If only government got out of the way, and that child grows up with enough drive and determination then that person should succeed.
I don't deny that people who are poor can succeed.
However he's an advertisement against himself because he works hard to live in a good community and to send his kids to good schools. Why? Because he knows these things position his children into a better state to succeed.
They can of course lack drive and fail, but Shapiro doesn't send his kids to sh*tty schools and say "If you don't succeed it's all upon your own head!"
This sounds all well and good but who decides who works and who doesn't? Isn't it unfair that people making furniture, cars, computers, or processing food and farming have to work day in and day out to provide for those that sit around all day? Sounds a whole lot like the current state of America according to socialists, except even the people at the top are working, and they're working a lot. The other issue is that socialism and communism both go against the fabric of America. People will happily give to their own but we are a nation of tribes. I can't expect a close knit Chinese family to have any desire to share their wealth with me, nor do I want to share my stuff with people who have radically different views or ideals as myself. So then to achieve this state where the wealth and everything is owned by everyone... We have to enforce it, we have to take from people and give to others. That does not sound very fair and liberating to me. Pretty much every animal on this planet works for what they have, humans included. That's why Capitalism works.
Every single time Socialism has been implemented on a grand scale, millions of people die from famine, from the inevitable wars, or from the authoritarian government that kills anyone who speaks out against the ideology of the state, who by necessity must control and dispense ... as Marx said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This video is just flat out wrong on nearly every so-called fact and explanation of capitalism and socialism. I don't know where this channel researched anything, or if there was any research done, but this is laughable at best and extremely dangerous at worst.
This is the most biased simplification of Capitalism I ever heard of. Then again, you are explaining karl Marx's definition. Capitalism is the based upon giving and taking. Providing value in the world and receiving value in return. We do not live in pure Capitalism however, simply because of governments preventing small businesses to compete against larger ones.
Mind blowing... promises of free ice cream and sex parties; and there's people who believe this to be either possible or desirable... oye! The freedom you seek comes at as the result of having provided VALUE to the world and are able to save capital to the extent that you no longer need to - if you so choose. OR ( like Elon Musk ) you can continue to create and be of a benefit to mankind. Not a welfare tick on the ass of society.
Thought Monkey: If you took a class on economics you could game a command socialist economy vs a capitalist one, and then you would find out that shortages are inherently a property of the command socialist economy. In a socialist society the good of the mass is greater than the good of the individual. When the shortages begin, the government must find a way to keep order. Since individual rights matter less then the integrity of the society as a whole, order is kept by force. The government answers to 'the people', but does not answer to its people, and importantly its individuals. This is why the end result is usually unrest or extensive government crackdowns and brutality. The sort of utopia that you suggest does not exist. You have an idea of where "C" is, but you are illogical about steps A and B to get there. IN the end, human beings don't like being told what to do. In a socialist society, the governing bodies must force individuals to their will. That never ends in your proposed utopia.
What he describes as the goal of socialism (government taxing the people at the top and owning transportation) is more like social democracy than true socialism.
Everything is owned by everyone, so people are collective ants with no personal properties or individuality of ther own then? I don't know about you to socialism Thought Monkey, but I'm fine with privite ownership, free market capitalism and individualism.
honestly if you think capitalism is an ideology then lets say for now say it is, try live a life without or little money for 3 mouths and tell me how happy and grand you be in a none capitalist free market.
I want to clarify that most of what your calling socialist here is actually state capitalism. Having taxes on rich people and free health care and education doesn't make it socialist. Direct worker democratization of industry and provision of the basic necessities of life via some for of governing apparatus is socialism but just having a government do stuff instead of private capitalists doesn't make it socialism. That is a idea that Stalin promoted to manipulate the russian masses, and Lenin himself said that the Soviet Union was state capitalist.
no no no no no no.
Why should the money I WORKED FOR, go to someone else cause they are just not doing anything. plus you still need people WORKING to get money that you can steal from them to give the lazy.
To understand socialism properly, you need to understand how capitalism functions:
Imagine a large number of people labour for months to cultivate some produce. Let's say it is turnips. These laborers do not get a share of the turnips that they produced because the dirt just happens to belong to somebody else. They do most of the work, but the dirt owner keeps the lot. He owns all of the turnips because he owns the dirt.
This is how capitalism produces a commodity. A turnip is a commodity and has a labor cost that the dirt owning capitalist hopes will be less than the exchange value at market, which is affected by demand for turnips. If so, the dirt owner has accumulated what is known as capital.
Instead of a share of the turnips the laborers are given a small amount of an invention we call money. The laborers use this money to purchase enough turnips to sustain them, so that they can continue producing turnips for the dirt owner.
However, the laborers must not be given enough money that they can realistically aspire to become viable dirt owners themselves, no matter how hard they work growing turnips for the dirt owner.
The laborer is happy because he has the liberty to freely choose which dirt owner he will labor for and feels satisfied when a dirt owner engages his laboring services, instead of those of a rival laborer.
A capital surplus gained from turnips allows the dirt owner to buy more dirt from less successful dirt owners, but he must be careful not to produce more turnips than the market can bear. If that happens he can simply reduce his output by telling some of his laborers to go away. This is how laborers become lazy. It is also called a period of recession, which is a time where it is common for laborers to become lazy.
We can expand on this. The dirt owner gets his laborers to grow lots of turnips, but he needs to get them to market. The dirt owner next door gets his laborers to dig a hole in the dirt and extract some coal. The next dirt owner does similar but his laborers dig for iron ore. The next dirt owner gets his laborers to use the coal and iron to make a vehicle to get the turnips and other commodities to a market that is also the property of a dirt owner.
In summary, the multitude of laborers helped a few dirt owners get a bunch of turnips to market that the laborers can then buy so they don't starve and can do it all over again next year. In the meantime some dirt owners got to buy some more dirt. What a wonderful system. It's 'the end of history'.
In this example people only eat turnips, but if you prefer bananas or potatoes that works too.
The most important thing for socialists are the class struggle and how to advance the struggle in the favor of the working class as a whole. For the socialists that means that politics start with the world as a whole not individual nation states or national sectors or industrial sectors of the working class. Because of the uneven and combined development of the world in some places the struggle reaches intense proportions breaking out in war and revolution while in others it can remain mostly but not fully hidden. The middle class (working in cubicles) is not revolutionary. Depending on the particular period it will choose either to side with the ruling wealthy class or the working class (wage laborers) who are always the revolutionary class.
If this video is saying it's a good thing for people to work while others get to leach off of them through welfare that's just so wrong. Everyone should work if able and strive to be the best they can be. If you make poor life choices and choose to not try than you have the right to do so. Just don't think it's morally Legitament to then take advantage of the hard working people who actually contribute to the economy.
Capitalism creates more equality. You are the same in the starting line, not the finish. In other words, you have to work. Just because you are breathing, doesn't mean you get free things.
But socialism is working, at least one form of it. Just look at north Europe, always tops the lists of happiest countries, best education, best health care, top equality, etc.
teaching socialism BY BASHING CAPITALISM USING MARX AS A SOURCE...
Capitalism is not just that, is the right to trade! I make something good you make something good, i give you something good you trade with something good! And no, capitalism is not about been stress if you dont own your own company and if you are a worker, its about having the same rights as any other person to own things, land money wealth, but there is a problem when corporations grow stupid big and then they eat other smaller corporations, but its always like that!
So being a parasite is okay?
Seriously? Welfare is paid for by those who DO work.
You're saying that those with drive should be slaves to those who have no drive.
Almost all communist countries are in poverty. China is half capitalist if you study her. There is a reason why: " You can not multiply wealth dividing it".
You have higher chance of being millionaire in socialist Venezuela than any capitalist countries. Because money printer in Venezuela go brrrrrr
my question is by its definition and the example given why is socialism stigmatized granted Russia would be one example of it gone bad but if implimented as pure socialism or socialism/capitalism (emphasis a bit more on socialism in my opinion) then I don't see a problem
… why does this video only talk about socialism for a forth of the video, and capitalism as the rest? We came here to learn about socialism not capitalism.
Marx was actually very critical about socialism. At least read the communist manifesto if you want to post a video about socialism.
Other than that pretty decent vid^^
I agree with many other commenters in that the beginning is bad enough to almost ruin the video. While this is, for the most part, a nuanced analysis, it unfortunately clings to the idea that the ultimate goal of leftism is a society where most or all people don't have to work and can devote all their time to decadent indulgence. Socialism is about ending the class struggle so that all people can work together toward common goals, not hedonism.
We are stepping from socialism to capitalism. Socialism/Comunism is peace of sh*t. I'm from post soviet Europe so trust me, i know what i'm talking about.
Take from the rich and give to the poor what happens when the rich have nothing left to take? Why don't we look at Venezuela a socialist country who right now doesn't seem to be doing so good...
I don't understand how everyone is okay with the part that literally glorified not working and not being a productive member of society.
Sorry, did you just said that is great that not everybody has to work?? So, some should work for others to live for free? That doesn't seem fair...
u lost me at about 1:05 when u slighted brown vs board of education. democratic socialism equals sanders and corbyn. separate but equal isn't real. we r all one there is no other, problem is has vs has not fyi
If you want socialism in a basic sentence and not in a misinformed misunderstood seven minute video that clearly is incorrect in the account of socialism, here it is: "Those who work in the mills should own them."
If I got a dollar everytime socialism worked I would have zero dollars ironically if socialism did work I would also have zero dollars. Meme is still hot
But those who don't work don't provide anything and force everyone else to provide for them and it hurts everyone else.
progressive = wanting to progress or "evolve" from capitalism to socialism to communism
Capitalism gives you the ability to be your own boss and get out how much you put in. It’s about equal chance, not equality.
Marx couldnt forecast robot autmatization, this is where his model failed ultimately.
You know here's a problem with the entirety of socialism it can work on the short term but in the long term can not work because eventually you run out of money to take from people
Good question, what is next? Capitalism isn't going anywhere, though.
businesses want everyone working because of the work force is flooded then they can take there pick and keep it cheap without paying the premium for things like high skilled or high educated member of staff, i hate it as a worky, but id do it as an owner, im not to proud that id play the game, because im not mental
I took an economics class once in highschool therefore I KNOW what I'm talking about
You video is hard to understand. You didn't mention "Means of production" at all.
Talked about socialism, failed to mention adverse incentives.
Haha, "free ice cream everyday" this guy would be even worse than Hillary
Socialism hasn't really learned that lesson from 5:20 to 5:30 very well.
'A Liberal understanding of Socialism.'
welfare is other peoples money given to you by the state that's why they are referred to as lazy.