I would like to see the ideas of sustainability integrated into a socialist framework and what that looks like. It would inclide degrowth in some areas.
@@IllustratetoEducate@IllustratetoEducate a sidebar, I have a lot of chords & friends who are feeling the pain of Joe Biden. My friends had confidence in America and switched his or her pay to USA dollars ... sadly, that was a very bad decision. With sleepy & corrupt Joe in office, how much ground has the dollar lost? I think this information, in your format, should be an eye-opener. Sadly, too many left-minded people are clueless when it comes to value, work, money, and ethics. When it comes to these left-minded people ... well, I don't have the patience to try & communicate with them...other than discovering these people's buttons and pressing them. Left-minded people, well, it doesn't take much for them to have an epic & hysterical meltdown. P.S. these meltdowns are awesome fodder material, but sadly, I have yet to make one of their heads implode (like in the movie Scanners)
@@IllustratetoEducateYou are spreading misinformation and ignorance. Socialism is nonprofit for the purpose of saving the less profitable routes from going out of business. The more successful products don't capitalize in socialism. And the better hamburger capitalizes in capitalism. Your video is talking about the people are equal. Vs the products are equal. Do you see the switch-a-roo in ignorance? The USPS has different pay rates to the government jobs. People getting better paychecks will live a better life. The two economics systems are taking about the more profitable routes capitalize or not capitalize. Please tell you narcissist boss they are stupid. #FBI #TH-cam #misinformation
This video focuses on the fantastical positives that no Socialist system has ever achieved. And then it gave very brief and very Negatives at the end of the video which no one ever makes it to.
but we need to have these pro socialist people spend quality time with Dr. Phil. Anyone that wants socialism is broken, weak, lazy, mentally defective but worse is how morally bankrupted he or she is
A part of me feels that socialism could work, but another part of me questions how that society would even be implemented in the first place, considering the betrayal of former socialist countries turning to totalitarian control over the population and workplaces after "giving up" on trying to implement it. Everything sucks!
What makes you "feel" it would work, when every time this stupid system was out into practice, it ended in horrific misery? That is a serious question. After 100+ years of something not working(and at an abysmal cost), how are you not embarrassed to say you "feel" it "might work"? Try thinking instead of feeling for once.
@@user-iu1ru1qz7uI gave it some more thought and realized that socialism can actually be pretty useful in the future once automation has taken up most jobs. Work would entirely be optional at that point.
@@_icey have you ever seen anybody get paid for becoming obsolete? Do you think people are spending their own money in r&d of automation, so that you can sit at home and live for free? I don't think you thought at all.
Throughout history the fact remains that no one has ever fled a country that has a free market based capitalist system, however, millions have fled a socialism. And this is because although it sounds good and just in theory, in practice it always leads to economic stagnation as the people become increasingly reliant on the government and the government realizes they do not have the resources to take care of the people and instead take care of themselves. This leads to a massive power shift and it gets to a point where people attempt to revolt but because they are increasingly reliant on the government this fails, so they are forced to flee. Capitalism, although it may appear unfair because there is such a small minority of individuals that own a large percent of wealth, is the only system that has successfully lifted millions people out of poverty. It is these people at the top that create the opportunities and incentives for those at the bottom to become their own arbiters of wealth and it is the only system that allows for upward mobility among classes. There is no perfect system that has ever been developed, but at this point in history, capitalism is the most tried, tested, and successful forms of economic system ever implemeted.
Well said. When God dispersed humanity at Babel, He was, in essence, saying that humanity is better off not collectivizing and just living life quietly and peaceably. Socialism, communism, and similar forms of collectivism all fail because they hark back to Babel, which God hates. We should unite in truth, which is Jesus Christ, not in error.
@@IllustratetoEducateyou did a good job with the video, but I critique the way you laid out the negatives since some of them are just shallow talking points, for example the theory of incentives is flawed since you can't earn your own worth in a capitalist society, but under a socialist one you could. So the argument of incentives is just directed for the employers who exploit their workers. For 95% of people the pay would just get much Higher than their current salary. For the rest of the people the "high earning millionaires" they won't have to give up all their wealth but rather have to make their workers make the decisions for their company, in most cases they would still get a ton of money from them( If they did a good job beforehand) and if not, they just have to make due with their 11 billion $
Hybrid systems like the Nordic model seem to be the best. I know what works in one country may not work in another, but the Nordic countries all have very low inequality and the people have a high standard of living when it comes to education, healthcare, and income. Low government corruption is a big factor too.
My thought exactly. It was distorting to only cite pariah states like N.Korea, China and USSR as Socialist, (instead of Communist) without mentioning successful European examples.
Nordic here, and the answer is yes and no. Yes - I do think we currently have the most sustainable economic model, but since 1980 the "socialism" part has fallen out of favor and we're mostly a capitalist nation too, albeit with free education, free healthcare and a somewhat working security net. But the rich are getting richer fast, and poverty is increasing. While the 80s were the catalyst - Norwegian politicians being influenced by Reagan and Thatcher - the 90s was when thing really started getting less equal with the part-privatization of most stated owned companies like Statoil (Now equinor), Norwegian Hydro and others
@@anofsti We have had a hybrid system in the USA also, though not as comprehensive as yours. When progressives try to add healthcare and education to that system, right wingers start crying Communism as if we will turn into the pariah states that I mentioned previously. Weirdly the poorest states who would benefit the most, tend to send Republican Fascist types to Washington. I have no sympathy for them as they love poverty and stupidity. Reagan was the start of our current race to the bottom.
How are you a socialist, in this capitalist world? LIke you alone cannot do much. Why you chose to become socialist, and how do you define yourself in this era?
Well… for the host country, yeah, but it’s only affordable by the ludicrously rich ones, and kinda just outsourced the suffering of capitalism to others, though it is better, it’s not a long-term solution.
@eaglestryker1338 governmental reform is one of the fjrst priorities, and the sample group of politicians will drastically expand, allowing for higher representation of the people and workers in the government. Past socialist countries have actually had constitutions and amendments made via the idea contributions of literally millions of their citizens.
I just wanted to add some feedback, my friend... I'm older than you, but I'm finishing up my BA in psychology and taking an economics class at the moment. I'm finishing a 9-page assignment comparing capitalism, communism, and socialism... I happened on to your video as I had lots to say about capitalism and communism but not a lot about socialism. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to make a really cool video and the information you added. I actually used a small part of your video, and changed the wording around, so while I'm not going to cite you lol. I figured I'd give you credit here, lol. Thanks for the information I thought the video was a perfect brief description of socialism. Great job man
Hey dude, I have a question. Some states claim to be socialist that immediately means they will at least provide their people with the basic needs (resources for living, health, education, ...) but when I see their social movements, their entertainment media (Web series, movies), the case is otherwise. For example, an individual is struggling for money for his family member to get treated in a hospital. Can you please clarify my this ambiguity?
I live in Germany and as you know Germany is very much capitalist country. But there are aspects there are organised in socialist ways. For instance our healthcare system is privatised, you chose your own provider but your employer will fully pay for it, and apart from this monthly healthcare plan you pay zero for anything else, than can be visit at your doctor, specialist, therapist, hospitals, operations. Other example is education, college is for free, as a 37 year old person i can still go to college. Nobody has to live in poverty in Germany, people that live on the streets are mostly addicts or people with mental health issues that refuse to get help. Anyone that loses a job will get monthly minimum wage from government and money for accommodation. This help is not limited, you will receive this help as long as its needed. If there will be no jobs in your sector, you will be offered education for other sectors. I was born in Slovenia in a time where we transitioned from being a socialist country to capitalist country. I wrote an extensive comment about it few posts up, in case you are curious
One reason might be that the country is poor and the poverty is based on that not on the socialist system, plus lots of times other non-socialist countries will intervene in other countries affairs to make money even rigging elections plus capitalism and socialism is on a spectrum and some countries will go certain ways on different issues.
@Flo do you seriously mean workers under socialism are more exploited compared to workers under capitalism? Because if that's really the case, I invite you to Google the USSR's 3h workdays...
@@sethroseblood9456 the difference between socialism and capitalism is that under capitalism you voluntarily choose were to work while in socialism the state choose it for you.
Real socialism means redistribution of ownership of the means of production & 1 way to do that is to make a law that makes it possible for workers to buy stocks in the companies they work in with out the owners consent. This was proposed over 40 yrs ago in Sweden but met lots of resistance from business owners.
Yes and the other law is that workers get first rights to buy a private company when sold and in some cases Govt even loans the cash. Workers owning the means of production underpins the whole of socialism but often gets lost in the noise. By contrast Sweden taxes high and reallocates funding for free health, free education and social security. Kind of socialist governments but not forin the Marxist sense.
@@Movingforward2000 Workers having buying ownership in their employers companies for decades,no law is required and none ever was. You really should know what you are talking about because those who don't know what they are talking about have no right to am opinion on the subject, ever.
As was said in the video socialism is a regime where means of production are collectively owned, while communism is the classless, moneyless, stateless society. The USSR is called "communist" despite it being a state, because communists were in power and their goal was to create such society, but until they reached that goal their countries are socialist.
There is no clear cut definition, some go by the stateless, moneyless and classless societies, however, there are more ways, the one I find to be the most plausible is that there is no socialism and communism but rather lower communism and higher communism, and the stateless moneyless and classless society is just the highest form of communism, and socialism is just a lesser form of communism
At 1:40 you say that the Soviet Union has a socialist economy, yet the symbol for communism, the hammer and sickle, are pictured in the flag of the USSR. If you do believe this is true, could you please state your source that says the soviet union had a socialist economy?
An early illustration you have collective ownership and control of means of production including nationalization. Then the government may play a significant role. Isn't nationalization where the government takes control? One of the really important incentives in a free society is a public confidence in the predictability of the legal system. Part of which is intellectual property. How is this handled under socialism? I've been around for quite a while, and socialist experiments have not really delivered on the promises.
Nationalization is a very common thing under socialist countries, but often it’s for key industries that provide the most pivot to change the economic system. It tends to be a semi-necessary stage, though the government can merely nationalize as a way to hand the means of production to the workers while holding it up via regulations and incentives, sorta like a cooperative system with government regulation. The main priority for the state would generally be to make it as democratic, transparent, and regulated as possible, sorta like the people and the government are two things chained together and leaning forward in opposite directions. Intellectual property is less of a priority, sometimes being eliminated and used for the public, though the creator of those ideas does get compensation and credit for it.
@@KenH60109 So charming that you have such confidence in the ability of a cabal of socialist henchmen (i.e., the government) to arise one morning haloed with the untarnished light of virtue and wisdom flowing from their hearts and minds as they first assume all power over all goods and services while always maintaining their utopian goal to then graciously and selflessly "hand" that power (i.e., "the means of production" of all the nation's goods and services) "to the workers." Please, Ken, can we get you past those "See Spot run" grade-school primers? People and power are just a bit more complicated than that.
Consider how many people Elon Musk employs in his various companies, and by extension the companies his companies have to do business with. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history, by far.
Don't all of these ideologies have a similar outcome if people behave the same way under them and are selfish and greedy? And that is why none of them work that well because we are greedy and generally only care about ourselves?
I appreciate the unbias. I get no sense of whether the creator is for or against Socialism yet accurate information about people's opinions are the matter were stated clearly.
That’s more of a capitalist thing, especially in more authoritarian capitalist forms, but if a company fails, the money from it tends to just be sent elsewhere to strengthen others, or surplus from the country goes to propping it up without using real “taxation” in most ways.
That's an interesting question let me break it down for you: so you have a company, under socialism you don't work for profit, that means you won't "make" that much to begin with, in quotes because you get more money, because you don't have anyone taking away from your production value. But even if your company which is built for sustainability rather than profit, starts to fall flat, you can either democratically decide with your coworkers how to handle the situation or ask the state for help, which they'll deliver because of strong safety nets, so no worker has to fall into debt. Additionally, in your scenario they wouldn't pay anyway, they would just get paid marginally less, maybe 3ct per worker in a large corporation. My last addition, under a capitalist regime, the workers are the only one who pay when the company starts to crumble, either through pay cuts or through lay offs
It probably does, yes. If the company runs a deficit you get paid less, and maybe work fewer hours. The capitalist alternative means you lose your entire job, or have to work significantly harder
@@eendy that's a hot topic but generally yes but most companies don't lose money they just make less money. Even if so, you could still work things out with the government like making the state control the company for a certain period of time. Generally you will find a solution together with your comrades
That’s a bit disingenuous. People would own the means of production. There are many proposed ways of doing this, aside from what was listed in the video, workers would have ownership in the companies they work in, like through stock ownership for example. Plus the “government” you speak of is still made up of the people democratically, so if anything, they’d have more representation and control over what happens. It’s weird how people forget true socialism when practiced by its definition, must run in a democratic society in order to function.
@@Rastaferrari829 I'm disingenuous? You are projecting a fantasy about "true socialism". There are myriad examples of where socialism has been instituted as a government economy system in the last 100 years. Not only did the people have nothing to say about how things were done, millions of them died as a direct result of the socialism system. The reason there has never been "democratic socialism" is because the system requires autocratic one party rule to function. A wise man once said "Socialism would be a great system if it didn't involve people"..
@@TheBruces56 Before the USSR was established syndicalism (and ideologies based on similar principles) were dominant and in such regimes the workers would pretty much own the means of production. About "no socialism worked" the problem is that the USSR didn´t want to export its ideology and when it did it exported it was Stalinism, which doesn´t work, yet all its allies were pretty much based on same ideology (with local changes and than natural changes as time went, but still from same ideology), which then failed, but it just proves that stalinism doesn´t work. About other socialist ideologies (which have many variations and for example communists and anarchists were basically opposites in almost every way) there were just two superpowers and their respective blocks... and neither of them wanted another socialist countries. The West, because "socialism=bad" and Soviets, because it might show that there are bettera lternatives to their system, so create regime build on completely new ideology, without allies, and survive was pretty hard. Soviets originaly believed in more benevolent regime, but than saw that their revolution wouldn´t survive and so they became more strict. Allende in Chile didn´t plan to abandon democracy and so the USA couped him. Czechoslovakia wanted to create more free communist country, so the USSR invaded it. Socialist in Spain had many different ideas, so both the West and the East sabotaged them...
In a socialist state, the focus is usually on reducing economic gaps and promoting equality. This means that it may be more difficult for a person from a low socio-economic background to become a billionaire in a socialist country, as wealth is often distributed more evenly.
A few corrections: ▪︎ this definition of socialism is more of the Anarchist definition of socialism, that is, the socialist mode of production. A Marxist might instead describe socialism as the transition state between capitalism and communism (a stateless, classless, moneyless society). ▪︎ a socialist economy need not be planned, neither centrally nor in a decentralized way. Some people would prefer a free-market economy, only the workers own/control the means of production and distribution.
Its not about arguing for or against socialist - it's the lack of opportunity for enterprising individuals to obtain the means to aquire and underpinning and the promotion of free market principles through education, and the state to provide for free economy in it's governance.
The Red Terror, the Gulags, night of the long knives, the killing fields, high taxes, rapid inflation, starvation, paranoia, cruelty, division, betrayal, loss of privacy.......
I think implementation would be nearly impossible without technology as it stands today. The software would be something a lot of individuals will question the authenticity of but such a system would likely necessarily require a system of proofs provided by regionally stratified percentages of the entire population under the system's supervision/rulership.
@@originalname1008 OH ISNT THAT IRONIC THAT THE VERY THING U PPL ATE PUSHING FOR HAS NEVER WORKED OUT IN HUMAN HISTORY 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭UR JUST PROVING OUR POINT MORE.
If you think about politics, at the end of the day it's ALL just a theory anyways. So really there could be a completely different way to manage the world/countries that could work even better. I wonder what the world will become. Interesting to think about imo.
The downsides on socialism sound exactly like the downsides of late-stage capitalism. But at least poor people will benefit more in socialism. While in capitalism, the rich benefit more.
this was pretty alright, but also more libertarian leaning forms of socialism, eliminate a lot of the criticisms you mentioned, like your example with the co-operatives
Good analysis but missing an important aspect that needs to be metioned. In socialism the economy is planified. In capitalism it is speculative. This difference gives diferrent results in terms of the success of each one.
Instead of hating socialism parts just change small parts of it and make socialism 2.0; American would be BOOMING in terms of economy and politics drastically. I say change socialism, restore America
socialism is already on 4th version - this bad description of socialism isnt even socialism - you need go back to originals not change t again and confuse people more - see my criticism above
You are constantly mixing up socialism with social democracy. There is no progressive taxation in socialism since people earn virtually the same. Private-public partnerships arent a thing as well unless by private you mean cooperatives.
You are correct there has been a mix and public-private ownership, govt ownership is likely a better hybrid model bar revolution. Worker coops, which is quintessential socialism the stratification is much less but they dont all get paid the same, however they have more opportunity to contribute and they share the rewards and decide what, how, where and when things get produced and what they will do with the profits
@@MiserableMuon Well, those "socialists" you refer to are frogs in the pot of water setting on the stove. And as far as Marx is concerned, it is HIS principles that Communism is based on. They're "kissing" cousins and the "distant cousin" in the mix is liberalism.
I think that those who are for socialism should move to a country that has socialism in place for a year and then report back to tell us if it’s as good as they expected.
No need to move; Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Iceland have already shown that Socialism works not just well but exceptionally when the concept is implemented properly. The reason Americans are so opposed to Socialism is simple; Socialism requires a nation's people to possess a degree of smarts, wisdom, altruism, open-mindedness, and sense of fairness that American culture simply does not engender to the required degrees. These deficits are precisely also why masses of Americans happily defend the virtues of Capitalism (which *are* real) whilst never acknowledging the lack of the 'implemented properly' part and simultaneously being enslaved by the true beneficiaries of Capitalism (a select few private entities). We are currently in the grasp of late stage unchecked capitalism here in the U.S.; with time we will arrive at the natural end-point of the path we're on, neo-feudalism (though we will probably collapse as a nation before we get to *that* end-game).
You really wanna know which system works better? you need to look at the lives of people that have lived it for instance USA versus Russia, which people are living, healthier lives?
In this video you missed one point as far as I can understand is no matter who or what what is in power corruption still takes hold. If the people do not have the ability to control who is putting office how money is spent? It will never make a difference if it’s socialism or capitalism and this predicament we’re in right now. Only a handful of people in history have been good with power the rest week Shady or just write out crocs. My opinion.
Not trying to be negative but how do the means of production/distribution magically get owned by everyone. Do you take it away from those who have already invested time and recourses into each sector and redistribute to everyone. Also does everyone vote on every decision within every production or does the government need to act as a proxy through a republic. Even when you assume you are starting from a ground level it seems like a recipe for disaster. Like let's assume you and a bunch of people create a company that produces some product each person owns in equally. Then let's assume it is doing well and you want to expand.Though to expand you need a worker. So now do you dilute your shares in that company so the new worker who has no experience and didn't front any capital to create the business has equal share. How would that work?
The means of production tend to change hands via revolution, where the government takes a sort of reset of control and is expanded, decorrupted (sometimes), and sort of recreated itself via mass participation from the people, including scholars, party members, the average worker, ex-managers, etc. The redistribution process often comes from nationalizing certain key industries (not always required at a great extent) and then the government (which becomes a lot more directly democratized) creates a workforce out of it, sets up the rules, decides how people get paid, how people are hired and included, and what needs to be done. Often businesses do vote for their leaders/managers, and can rid themselves of that leader whenever they do chose. Referendums in the nation do often become more common, while the government also does get a bit hands-on with the companies, acting similar to a proxy if that’s how you prefer to describe it. It may seem like a disaster, but the changes in pay tend to make the management of the workplace work a lot better, since the previous theft of capitalists on your total contribution to the business disappears. Under the assumption that a company was made, it would likely have to be approved by the community area, have a set of rules and standards to keep it fair, and the managers would be elected. For new workers, the system works about the same, and specialized workers are very highly valued in general as managers. Getting a job hasn’t really been a problem, it’s growing in that job that was sorta sacrificed when the Soviets went more authoritarian, though since that’s a defensive mechanism against invading nations, let’s assume that’s not a problem here. Generally, pay is given by the contribution you make to the company, with a smaller percentage of that money being “taxed” (its more moved to keep the public funded and working, though it has differences from taxes) than before. The more you work, the higher you can get paid. Though people cannot use the money of other workers to get paid much higher, it does have sizeable differences, especially when certain jobs have a higher level of contribution per person, meaning that the more advanced and specialized a job is, the better it pays. Sometimes the community creates the worker benefits instead of the company itself, though since the company democratically managed itself, it can negotiate with the community to be self-sustaining or to simply provide its own benefits alongside the public. It’s complicated, but largely different in many ways with a very different approach than the usual capitalist country.
@@KenH60109 I like the thought put in to your response and there is alot to it so apologies if I have missed certain parts. Though I like the idea of the vision. I see very sizable flaws in it. To begin with the government will not be more democratized there are too many people in most countries for individuals to have a hands on role in government and come to a consensus on topics efficiently without the aid of representation. Another flaw I see is that who measures what your contribution to the output of a product or service your labor is? Companies make money on your labor in capitalism because they are providing you infrastructure, knowledge and or goods to make your labor into a product or service that is marketable. If I gave you a contract and said I would train you to do something and give you the goods/facility to do that thing should I not make money off of your output? If I am not making money from your output then why did I spend the time and money on training you or giving you the raw materials/facility to produce the good?
We are all of us practising socialists, we pay our taxes, investments in infrastructure are made and from which we draw a social dividend-we get to use the infrastructure.
Paying taxes for infrastructure is not socialism. Those are costs of governing. Socialism is taking from one person who earned it and giving it to someone who did not. By force. Socialism always fails. Please don’t try and defend it. You only fit right into the young college kid who has been indoctrinated stereotype
*The USSR, China and Cuba are examples of a statist, planned economy, not a socialist economy. Planned economies rely on total centralisation and submission of the worker to the state (which is a hierarchical entity, controlled by an elite). That is contradictory to the socialist ideas of equality and freedom. In a socialist mode of production, the workers, rather than the state, control the means of production and distribution.
Correct me if im wrong but the thing about socialism is that it was giving a good start for foreign and agrarian coutries to industrialise but at some point it starts to loose efficiency and shows inability to adapt. I made such conclusion looking at the Cuban's and USSR's example so maybe it is good for poor countries but then its starting to loose efficiency very quickly? Me myself despite sympathising to socialist countries trying to hold some middle ground so please don't start arguing or talking shit if I'm wrong just point it out
I think their efficiency wasn’t as much of a concern as over bureaucratization and outside pressure was. Personally, I think it was actually surprisingly efficient for a bit, but the problem was that socialist countries aren’t supposed to be purely self-sustaining without other nations that’ll assist one another (they have to be socialist themselves because unequal exchange would drain their economy otherwise). If they try that too long, it kinda tends to rebound. Not to mention, Cuba was poor to begin with, and focused too much on monopolizing sugar and using that as an economic base. Overall they made a lot of mistakes, but Cuba had a much worse ending despite still being alive.
I think capitalism is the best system with the best ideas but I also think some of the ideas of capitalism need to be amended with the primary focus and objective now being sustainability not growth. I also think the idea within capitalism that greed and selfishness is somehow a good thing needs to be forgotten. Greed and selfishness in any economy is not good. Competition is good but capitalism also needs to be encouraging much more honesty and responsibility and also promote cooperation, fairness and morality. If capitalism is modified in this way maybe we can’t call it capitalism anymore. Perhaps we can take the good ideas from capitalism and combine it with some of the good ideas from socialism and call it something else. Sweden, Finland, Norway and Demark have had some success it doing this. The thinking that the economy (the production and exchange of goods and services) always has to grow for there to be innovation, progress and prosperity will eventually become a problem on a finite planet. This may have worked well in the past when communities and societies did not know the scale of the planet and the environment but, I think the focus now needs to be on sustainability not on growth! There needs to be flexibility in the system for the economy to be able to expand and contract and for a contraction to be considered normal and not a problem or a failure and for the contraction to be just as innovative and prosperous as the expansion. For this type of thinking to work, there need to be some new economic models developed along with some new types of financial systems. If the academics along with the economist, engineers, politicians, corporations, capitalists and entrepreneurs can figure out some new economic models that are based on sustainability instead of growth, I am sure there will be some noble prizes awarded. The way this can begin and at the same time improve peace, fairness and morality is when our business, government and academic leaders, along with our wealthiest and brightest and smartest among us can start learning how to be much more truthful and honest. People don’t have to love each other. They do not even have to like each other but, they do need to understand that the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the bases for morality. This should also help nations start to build trust and respect in each other so that they will no longer feel the need to spy on each other or feel the need manufacture weapons that can wipe out most of the life on this planet and from there start working towards reducing and eventually stopping the manufacture of weapons for war. If people are struggling to survive or risking their lives defending themselves fighting wars, they will not care about anybody else or about the damage and devastation of their towns, cities and communities including the planet’s environment. They will also be much more aggressive and willing to commit crimes and behave in violent ways with animosity and hatred toward others that don’t look like them or do not share the same religious beliefs. Here are some books with some new economic models and ideas that look like promising developments: 1 “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth 2 “Prosperity without Growth” by Tim Jackson 3 “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins 4 “Beyond Growth” by Herman Daly “The Centre for Advancements of the Steady State Economy” is also a good source of information
Socialism would be good if human greed does not come into play. The main problem with socialism lies in the distribution of resources. This is when corruption takes place. Hence “Everybody is equal but some are more equal than others “. Every so called socialist country fails and turns into dictatorship. However, in a liberal, democratic state, socialism elements may help to create a more fair system. It can only be achieved with the public scrutiny of the government.
Yes just like a capitalist economy, But instead of it being a direct system of buying a portion of a company or an asset, it’s a system of high taxation which pays for the collective ownership of the means of production, housing, etc.
State capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism is private ownership in the means of production. Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. The state is a social institution. They were socialist.
Among the most important aspect of the principles of Freedom and Liberty are the rights to retain the fruits of ones own labor. To remove that is a form of oppression in itself, and a necessary evil of all versions of Socialism. The biggest pitfall to Socialism is that someone among imperfect people will always be in control. If men were angels, there would be no need for Government. I would rather have Freedom then be forced to trust people in high places.
Socialism is the only system that allows to retain the fruits of one's labour, as in a capitalist economy most of it is taken by your boss, while in a statist/command economy it's taken by the state. Only in a socialist mode of production is the worker able to keep what they have produced.
The perpetual myth of the Scandinavian socialist countries! Those countries are capitalist with a strong social safety net, the means of production are in private hands.
@@naturaldisaster2 the beauty of the U.S. is that we have the freedom to believe what we want, practice the religion we want, we are free to think for ourselves here. I don't need to move.
Socialism can work if you have a trusted government who have come from a working class background not the likes of the current uk government who are out to benefit themselves and other governments around the world.
So who gets to choose who does what in a socialist or communist society? who's going to be forced to do the harder or shit jobs? You will still see an unequal balance in both and with centralization. In fact, its easily more corruptible being that everything would be consolidated, and obviously Socialism or communism would still be dependent on capitalisms.
Their is no collective ownership of unless its tribal and unregulated. For example a family member using something of yours etc. Once it's on a large scale what is owned is centralized abd regulated by the government. The people don't own anything the government does. This also prevents people from creating innovation and charitable causes.
If people had no inventions, how do the patents of the USSR and the USA have similar numbers? As for your point of the government owning everything, that is half true, yes the government owned companies, but unlike their capitalist counterparts wanted the best for their workers. They had unions everywhere with some power inside the party as well as workers in the parts themselves. While the Soviet Union couldn't do everything as they wanted to like in Marxist theory, they tried to accommodate for that.
NO. That is a wrong definition Socialism is made from "social" (relative to society) and "ism", sufiz that means system, doctrine , school. So, it means system relative to society. That has a long variety of interpretations China, for example is anything but communist. It is socialism with capitalism merged What part of the word "socialism" speaks about justice, equality or property?
Socialism is an ideal, and doesn’t exist in a pure form. Your video got a bit mixed up, because you didn’t distinguish between pure socialism and social-democracy. But the ideas can be implemented in societies, like a progressive tax system. In a pure socialistic world you won’t need progressive tax, because everyone earns the same. Another example are cooperations. They were implemented in Germany and The Netherlands by farmers very successfully. One of largest banks in The Netherlands, the Rabobank, is a cooperation. So is the biggest flower auction in the world in Aalsmeer, where flowers from the whole world are traded.
In theory, the only socialist countries are what people call communist countries- Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos. In actuality, none of them really fit the definition of being truly 100 percent socialist. In fact if you visiited each of them, you would see what seems completly different economies. Granted the econmies are are planned in some way shape or form, but none of them hit all the criteria to be totally socialist.
Saying some have suppressed political consent and individual freedoms is a lie. The proper word would be most. Even in america, you can see the silencing of political rivals. It's hard to defend bad ideas so just shut ppl down instead.
both capitalism and socialism are good on paper, but terrible in practise. a completely capitalist country will put the poor and unfortunate at a disadvantage but you will get paid fairly by the amount of work you put in, whereas a completely socialist society will help the poor and unfortunate, but you will only be paid by what you need, regardless of how much you work I think the best possible solution would be to have a capitalist economy with socialist systems such as essential health care, tax paid public education and pensions for anyone who is unable to work, whilst still allowing private ownership over distribution and production
It’s not a long term solution, the problems of socialism came mostly from the outside attacks of capitalist countries, not inherent economic flaws (mismanagement was the main issue, not the system). Social policy sounds nice on paper too, but it can’t be coupled with capitalism in the long term since we’d have to force companies to take a non-profitable route, and if we let it do as it pleases, then capitalism would simply outsource the costs to maintain a social democracy to exploitation of poorer countries and cheaper labor. It actually kinda tightens the system of capitalism, but also gets closer to socialism than usual.
Socialism is the relationships of those involved on the basis of the immediate conditions; the here and now. Capitalism is the relationships of those involved on the basis of the immediate conditions PLUS the expected conditions AN INDIVIDUAL anticipates. The 'there and later'. So Capitalism involves the perception of the future by an Individual. This Individual may get his 'guess' as to what this future state of being will be, or he may get it wrong. This Capitalist risks his own resources in his Entrepreneurial enterprise which, if he is correct in his guess, he increases. If his guess is wrong his resources are reduced. In this case of guessing 'wrong' the society at large experiences no loss. Whereas in the Socialist Enterprise the community acting as a whole risks some, maybe ALL, of its resources. And its guess as to the future conditions does NOT come into the process. For the Socialist group the future is not a consideration. And its 'guess', most of the time, about 95% of the time will be wrong. Most of the time their resources are reduced. This loss translates for the Socialist community in the reduction in their standard of living.
May I recommend making a video on the concept of degrowth or negative growth ? Also excellent video as always 👍
Great suggestion! Thank you!
I would like to see the ideas of sustainability integrated into a socialist framework and what that looks like. It would inclide degrowth in some areas.
@@IllustratetoEducate@IllustratetoEducate a sidebar, I have a lot of chords & friends who are feeling the pain of Joe Biden. My friends had confidence in America and switched his or her pay to USA dollars ... sadly, that was a very bad decision. With sleepy & corrupt Joe in office, how much ground has the dollar lost? I think this information, in your format, should be an eye-opener. Sadly, too many left-minded people are clueless when it comes to value, work, money, and ethics. When it comes to these left-minded people ... well, I don't have the patience to try & communicate with them...other than discovering these people's buttons and pressing them. Left-minded people, well, it doesn't take much for them to have an epic & hysterical meltdown. P.S. these meltdowns are awesome fodder material, but sadly, I have yet to make one of their heads implode (like in the movie Scanners)
One God I believing.
This videos is great and explains socialism in a way everyone can understand and that’s why this channel is great
Thank you! I'm glad you find the video and the channel overall to be easy to understand!
@@IllustratetoEducateYou are spreading misinformation and ignorance. Socialism is nonprofit for the purpose of saving the less profitable routes from going out of business.
The more successful products don't capitalize in socialism. And the better hamburger capitalizes in capitalism.
Your video is talking about the people are equal. Vs the products are equal. Do you see the switch-a-roo in ignorance?
The USPS has different pay rates to the government jobs. People getting better paychecks will live a better life.
The two economics systems are taking about the more profitable routes capitalize or not capitalize.
Please tell you narcissist boss they are stupid.
#FBI
#TH-cam
#misinformation
Socialists are destroying my Canada now. It's a socialist third world sh*thole now.
This video focuses on the fantastical positives that no Socialist system has ever achieved. And then it gave very brief and very Negatives at the end of the video which no one ever makes it to.
but we need to have these pro socialist people spend quality time with Dr. Phil. Anyone that wants socialism is broken, weak, lazy, mentally defective but worse is how morally bankrupted he or she is
A part of me feels that socialism could work, but another part of me questions how that society would even be implemented in the first place, considering the betrayal of former socialist countries turning to totalitarian control over the population and workplaces after "giving up" on trying to implement it. Everything sucks!
Canada and US are being destroyed by socialists now.
What makes you "feel" it would work, when every time this stupid system was out into practice, it ended in horrific misery?
That is a serious question. After 100+ years of something not working(and at an abysmal cost), how are you not embarrassed to say you "feel" it "might work"?
Try thinking instead of feeling for once.
@@user-iu1ru1qz7uI gave it some more thought and realized that socialism can actually be pretty useful in the future once automation has taken up most jobs. Work would entirely be optional at that point.
@@_icey have you ever seen anybody get paid for becoming obsolete?
Do you think people are spending their own money in r&d of automation, so that you can sit at home and live for free?
I don't think you thought at all.
@@user-iu1ru1qz7u Well, how are we gonna live once automation, ai, etc takes all the jobs? What's your idea?
Throughout history the fact remains that no one has ever fled a country that has a free market based capitalist system, however, millions have fled a socialism. And this is because although it sounds good and just in theory, in practice it always leads to economic stagnation as the people become increasingly reliant on the government and the government realizes they do not have the resources to take care of the people and instead take care of themselves. This leads to a massive power shift and it gets to a point where people attempt to revolt but because they are increasingly reliant on the government this fails, so they are forced to flee. Capitalism, although it may appear unfair because there is such a small minority of individuals that own a large percent of wealth, is the only system that has successfully lifted millions people out of poverty. It is these people at the top that create the opportunities and incentives for those at the bottom to become their own arbiters of wealth and it is the only system that allows for upward mobility among classes. There is no perfect system that has ever been developed, but at this point in history, capitalism is the most tried, tested, and successful forms of economic system ever implemeted.
I believe most of us are fine with the system we have now, but we could do a better job of not letting monopolies grow so large
Why bother watching a video if you are both uneducated and have a closed mind. Waste of time
you don’t understand what you are writing about. Please educate yourself before trying to educate others.
@@oscarmccoy9102who exactly are you referring to? bc there is historical evidence to back up the original comment if you somehow disagree.
Well said. When God dispersed humanity at Babel, He was, in essence, saying that humanity is better off not collectivizing and just living life quietly and peaceably. Socialism, communism, and similar forms of collectivism all fail because they hark back to Babel, which God hates. We should unite in truth, which is Jesus Christ, not in error.
I really like the way they explain socialism with diagrams and write for better attraction and understanding
Thank you! 🙏🏼
@@IllustratetoEducateyou did a good job with the video, but I critique the way you laid out the negatives since some of them are just shallow talking points, for example the theory of incentives is flawed since you can't earn your own worth in a capitalist society, but under a socialist one you could. So the argument of incentives is just directed for the employers who exploit their workers. For 95% of people the pay would just get much Higher than their current salary. For the rest of the people the "high earning millionaires" they won't have to give up all their wealth but rather have to make their workers make the decisions for their company, in most cases they would still get a ton of money from them( If they did a good job beforehand) and if not, they just have to make due with their 11 billion $
Hybrid systems like the Nordic model seem to be the best. I know what works in one country may not work in another, but the Nordic countries all have very low inequality and the people have a high standard of living when it comes to education, healthcare, and income. Low government corruption is a big factor too.
My thought exactly. It was distorting to only cite pariah states like N.Korea, China and USSR as Socialist, (instead of Communist) without mentioning successful European examples.
Nordic Countries are not socialist, they are capitalist with social programs. Additionally the nordic countries are a homogenous society.
Nordic here, and the answer is yes and no. Yes - I do think we currently have the most sustainable economic model, but since 1980 the "socialism" part has fallen out of favor and we're mostly a capitalist nation too, albeit with free education, free healthcare and a somewhat working security net. But the rich are getting richer fast, and poverty is increasing. While the 80s were the catalyst - Norwegian politicians being influenced by Reagan and Thatcher - the 90s was when thing really started getting less equal with the part-privatization of most stated owned companies like Statoil (Now equinor), Norwegian Hydro and others
@@anofsti We have had a hybrid system in the USA also, though not as comprehensive as yours. When progressives try to add healthcare and education to that system, right wingers start crying Communism as if we will turn into the pariah states that I mentioned previously. Weirdly the poorest states who would benefit the most, tend to send Republican Fascist types to Washington. I have no sympathy for them as they love poverty and stupidity.
Reagan was the start of our current race to the bottom.
@@fredfox3851 true, in many ways FDR and the New Deal was the template for many of the post war social and economic policies in Western Europe
that was awesome! as a socialist and someone who still is trying to learn about different systems to check his own biases, i appreciate this very much
How are you a socialist, in this capitalist world?
LIke you alone cannot do much.
Why you chose to become socialist, and how do you define yourself in this era?
NO NO , its all wrong and misleading see my comments above
Basically hes talking of authoritarian command economy like USSR which is not socialism.
😂
Stop learning how to leach off others and go create something.
@@Cuzzazbuzz???
Social democracy is a good middle ground between socialism and unregulated capitalism.
@eaglestryker1338socialism calls for a governmental reform, first and foremost, and it’s a bridge between capitalism and communism
Capitalism lifted millions of people out of poverty since the 1400s
Well… for the host country, yeah, but it’s only affordable by the ludicrously rich ones, and kinda just outsourced the suffering of capitalism to others, though it is better, it’s not a long-term solution.
@eaglestryker1338 governmental reform is one of the fjrst priorities, and the sample group of politicians will drastically expand, allowing for higher representation of the people and workers in the government. Past socialist countries have actually had constitutions and amendments made via the idea contributions of literally millions of their citizens.
That's why the most successful nations on earth are capitalist nations, and all the socialists are shitholes right?
I just wanted to add some feedback, my friend... I'm older than you, but I'm finishing up my BA in psychology and taking an economics class at the moment. I'm finishing a 9-page assignment comparing capitalism, communism, and socialism... I happened on to your video as I had lots to say about capitalism and communism but not a lot about socialism. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to make a really cool video and the information you added. I actually used a small part of your video, and changed the wording around, so while I'm not going to cite you lol. I figured I'd give you credit here, lol. Thanks for the information I thought the video was a perfect brief description of socialism. Great job man
Appreciate the feedback. Glad you could use the video and that it was helpful to you. 🙏🏼 thank you so much
can you make a video about distributism
Hey dude, I have a question. Some states claim to be socialist that immediately means they will at least provide their people with the basic needs (resources for living, health, education, ...) but when I see their social movements, their entertainment media (Web series, movies), the case is otherwise. For example, an individual is struggling for money for his family member to get treated in a hospital. Can you please clarify my this ambiguity?
Alot of states that claim to be socialist, either have their own "form" of socialism, or, they're falsely claiming to be socialist.
I live in Germany and as you know Germany is very much capitalist country. But there are aspects there are organised in socialist ways. For instance our healthcare system is privatised, you chose your own provider but your employer will fully pay for it, and apart from this monthly healthcare plan you pay zero for anything else, than can be visit at your doctor, specialist, therapist, hospitals, operations.
Other example is education, college is for free, as a 37 year old person i can still go to college.
Nobody has to live in poverty in Germany, people that live on the streets are mostly addicts or people with mental health issues that refuse to get help.
Anyone that loses a job will get monthly minimum wage from government and money for accommodation.
This help is not limited, you will receive this help as long as its needed.
If there will be no jobs in your sector, you will be offered education for other sectors.
I was born in Slovenia in a time where we transitioned from being a socialist country to capitalist country.
I wrote an extensive comment about it few posts up, in case you are curious
@@NMandarina great
One reason might be that the country is poor and the poverty is based on that not on the socialist system, plus lots of times other non-socialist countries will intervene in other countries affairs to make money even rigging elections plus capitalism and socialism is on a spectrum and some countries will go certain ways on different issues.
@@92calebnewmancapitalism what’s you to be dependant
Of the 4 arguments against socialism, I find reduced economic efficiency to be the most interesting.
More efficient because people are exploidet. I dont know If this is a good thing
@@Flo-cg2jl exploited how?
@Flo do you seriously mean workers under socialism are more exploited compared to workers under capitalism?
Because if that's really the case, I invite you to Google the USSR's 3h workdays...
@@sethroseblood9456 the difference between socialism and capitalism is that under capitalism you voluntarily choose were to work while in socialism the state choose it for you.
@@sethroseblood9456 yes the bastion of success, the USSR.
Real socialism means redistribution of ownership of the means of production & 1 way to do that is to make a law that makes it possible for workers to buy stocks in the companies they work in with out the owners consent. This was proposed over 40 yrs ago in Sweden but met lots of resistance from business owners.
Yes and the other law is that workers get first rights to buy a private company when sold and in some cases Govt even loans the cash. Workers owning the means of production underpins the whole of socialism but often gets lost in the noise. By contrast Sweden taxes high and reallocates funding for free health, free education and social security. Kind of socialist governments but not forin the Marxist sense.
You mean people rejected stealing from business owners? How horrible!!!
From memory Jeremy Corban tried that when he was leader of UK Labour party
People really undermine the importance and hard work it is to run a business. 🤦♂
@@Movingforward2000 Workers having buying ownership in their employers companies for decades,no law is required and none ever was.
You really should know what you are talking about because those who don't know what they are talking about have no right to am opinion on the subject, ever.
Great wait to see more videos to discuss different ideologies like militarism for example.
Same
Billy says this is helping my essay! thanks!
What’s the difference between socialism and communism?
As was said in the video socialism is a regime where means of production are collectively owned, while communism is the classless, moneyless, stateless society. The USSR is called "communist" despite it being a state, because communists were in power and their goal was to create such society, but until they reached that goal their countries are socialist.
@@tefky7964 only per Lenins redefinition of socialism. True socialists dont call it socialism
@@malcolm-danielfreeman5940 Yeah, but thats totally different discusion.
There is no clear cut definition, some go by the stateless, moneyless and classless societies, however, there are more ways, the one I find to be the most plausible is that there is no socialism and communism but rather lower communism and higher communism, and the stateless moneyless and classless society is just the highest form of communism, and socialism is just a lesser form of communism
At 1:40 you say that the Soviet Union has a socialist economy, yet the symbol for communism, the hammer and sickle, are pictured in the flag of the USSR. If you do believe this is true, could you please state your source that says the soviet union had a socialist economy?
I just want to say that these videos are really awesome! Wish there were teachers using this technique when I was in school!! 💡💡💡
My country is under USA ruling and we are happy, we want to become statehood. We do not want socialism nor communism. We are Puerto Rico 🇺🇸
Have you done mercantilism? If not please do a video on it!!
An early illustration you have collective ownership and control of means of production including nationalization. Then the government may play a significant role.
Isn't nationalization where the government takes control?
One of the really important incentives in a free society is a public confidence in the predictability of the legal system. Part of which is intellectual property. How is this handled under socialism?
I've been around for quite a while, and socialist experiments have not really delivered on the promises.
Nationalization is a very common thing under socialist countries, but often it’s for key industries that provide the most pivot to change the economic system. It tends to be a semi-necessary stage, though the government can merely nationalize as a way to hand the means of production to the workers while holding it up via regulations and incentives, sorta like a cooperative system with government regulation. The main priority for the state would generally be to make it as democratic, transparent, and regulated as possible, sorta like the people and the government are two things chained together and leaning forward in opposite directions. Intellectual property is less of a priority, sometimes being eliminated and used for the public, though the creator of those ideas does get compensation and credit for it.
@@KenH60109 So charming that you have such confidence in the ability of a cabal of socialist henchmen (i.e., the government) to arise one morning haloed with the untarnished light of virtue and wisdom flowing from their hearts and minds as they first assume all power over all goods and services while always maintaining their utopian goal to then graciously and selflessly "hand" that power (i.e., "the means of production" of all the nation's goods and services) "to the workers."
Please, Ken, can we get you past those "See Spot run" grade-school primers? People and power are just a bit more complicated than that.
Capitalism is working great for us! - Elon Musk
Yeah he would definitely say that. haha
Consider how many people Elon Musk employs in his various companies, and by extension the companies his companies have to do business with. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history, by far.
Why?
@@ExpatriatePaulhow
@@crazypato3752 Via free market trade, apparently objective history is not your forte.
Don't all of these ideologies have a similar outcome if people behave the same way under them and are selfish and greedy? And that is why none of them work that well because we are greedy and generally only care about ourselves?
I appreciate the unbias. I get no sense of whether the creator is for or against Socialism yet accurate information about people's opinions are the matter were stated clearly.
Does collective ownership mean if the company is losing money you have to pay
Of course not! What is it you have to pay?
That’s more of a capitalist thing, especially in more authoritarian capitalist forms, but if a company fails, the money from it tends to just be sent elsewhere to strengthen others, or surplus from the country goes to propping it up without using real “taxation” in most ways.
That's an interesting question let me break it down for you: so you have a company, under socialism you don't work for profit, that means you won't "make" that much to begin with, in quotes because you get more money, because you don't have anyone taking away from your production value. But even if your company which is built for sustainability rather than profit, starts to fall flat, you can either democratically decide with your coworkers how to handle the situation or ask the state for help, which they'll deliver because of strong safety nets, so no worker has to fall into debt. Additionally, in your scenario they wouldn't pay anyway, they would just get paid marginally less, maybe 3ct per worker in a large corporation.
My last addition, under a capitalist regime, the workers are the only one who pay when the company starts to crumble, either through pay cuts or through lay offs
It probably does, yes. If the company runs a deficit you get paid less, and maybe work fewer hours.
The capitalist alternative means you lose your entire job, or have to work significantly harder
@@eendy that's a hot topic but generally yes but most companies don't lose money they just make less money. Even if so, you could still work things out with the government like making the state control the company for a certain period of time. Generally you will find a solution together with your comrades
The last time i checked, Castro didnt share anything with his cuban people. Idk
I like socialism more than capitalism, thank you for the video.
The "people" do not own the means of production, the government does and that is a huge difference.
That’s a bit disingenuous. People would own the means of production. There are many proposed ways of doing this, aside from what was listed in the video, workers would have ownership in the companies they work in, like through stock ownership for example. Plus the “government” you speak of is still made up of the people democratically, so if anything, they’d have more representation and control over what happens. It’s weird how people forget true socialism when practiced by its definition, must run in a democratic society in order to function.
@@Rastaferrari829 I'm disingenuous? You are projecting a fantasy about "true socialism". There are myriad examples of where socialism has been instituted as a government economy system in the last 100 years. Not only did the people have nothing to say about how things were done, millions of them died as a direct result of the socialism system. The reason there has never been "democratic socialism" is because the system requires autocratic one party rule to function. A wise man once said "Socialism would be a great system if it didn't involve people"..
@@TheBruces56 Before the USSR was established syndicalism (and ideologies based on similar principles) were dominant and in such regimes the workers would pretty much own the means of production.
About "no socialism worked" the problem is that the USSR didn´t want to export its ideology and when it did it exported it was Stalinism, which doesn´t work, yet all its allies were pretty much based on same ideology (with local changes and than natural changes as time went, but still from same ideology), which then failed, but it just proves that stalinism doesn´t work. About other socialist ideologies (which have many variations and for example communists and anarchists were basically opposites in almost every way) there were just two superpowers and their respective blocks... and neither of them wanted another socialist countries. The West, because "socialism=bad" and Soviets, because it might show that there are bettera lternatives to their system, so create regime build on completely new ideology, without allies, and survive was pretty hard. Soviets originaly believed in more benevolent regime, but than saw that their revolution wouldn´t survive and so they became more strict. Allende in Chile didn´t plan to abandon democracy and so the USA couped him. Czechoslovakia wanted to create more free communist country, so the USSR invaded it. Socialist in Spain had many different ideas, so both the West and the East sabotaged them...
In a socialist state, the focus is usually on reducing economic gaps and promoting equality. This means that it may be more difficult for a person from a low socio-economic background to become a billionaire in a socialist country, as wealth is often distributed more evenly.
A few corrections:
▪︎ this definition of socialism is more of the Anarchist definition of socialism, that is, the socialist mode of production. A Marxist might instead describe socialism as the transition state between capitalism and communism (a stateless, classless, moneyless society).
▪︎ a socialist economy need not be planned, neither centrally nor in a decentralized way. Some people would prefer a free-market economy, only the workers own/control the means of production and distribution.
I criticised the whole video- the only things he got right was the definition of socialism. After the definition he basically described USSR
Can you do maybe one on libertarianism next?
Great suggestion! I’ll do that one after the one I’m working on. So plan on it in two weeks from today.
@@IllustratetoEducate awesome
Its not about arguing for or against socialist - it's the lack of opportunity for enterprising individuals to obtain the means to aquire and underpinning and the promotion of free market principles through education, and the state to provide for free economy in it's governance.
perhaps you explain your vague comments in english ?
Your channel is phenomenal.
Thank you so much! I really appreciate that compliment 😊
The Red Terror, the Gulags, night of the long knives, the killing fields, high taxes, rapid inflation, starvation, paranoia, cruelty, division, betrayal, loss of privacy.......
do Frantz Fanon-ism
Great video, easy to understand.
I think implementation would be nearly impossible without technology as it stands today. The software would be something a lot of individuals will question the authenticity of but such a system would likely necessarily require a system of proofs provided by regionally stratified percentages of the entire population under the system's supervision/rulership.
I agree with socialism, at least most of it.
Move to Cuba or China
Socialism is good if done correctly
@@haiiwje name one place in history ? Ok than
@phantomsylla4617 its never been done correctly that's why
@@originalname1008 OH ISNT THAT IRONIC THAT THE VERY THING U PPL ATE PUSHING FOR HAS NEVER WORKED OUT IN HUMAN HISTORY 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭UR JUST PROVING OUR POINT MORE.
If you think about politics, at the end of the day it's ALL just a theory anyways. So really there could be a completely different way to manage the world/countries that could work even better. I wonder what the world will become. Interesting to think about imo.
The downsides on socialism sound exactly like the downsides of late-stage capitalism. But at least poor people will benefit more in socialism. While in capitalism, the rich benefit more.
this was pretty alright, but also more libertarian leaning forms of socialism, eliminate a lot of the criticisms you mentioned, like your example with the co-operatives
Good analysis but missing an important aspect that needs to be metioned. In socialism the economy is planified. In capitalism it is speculative. This difference gives diferrent results in terms of the success of each one.
Instead of hating socialism parts just change small parts of it and make socialism 2.0; American would be BOOMING in terms of economy and politics drastically. I say change socialism, restore America
socialism is already on 4th version - this bad description of socialism isnt even socialism - you need go back to originals not change t again and confuse people more - see my criticism above
Great video
You are constantly mixing up socialism with social democracy. There is no progressive taxation in socialism since people earn virtually the same. Private-public partnerships arent a thing as well unless by private you mean cooperatives.
You are correct there has been a mix and public-private ownership, govt ownership is likely a better hybrid model bar revolution. Worker coops, which is quintessential socialism the stratification is much less but they dont all get paid the same, however they have more opportunity to contribute and they share the rewards and decide what, how, where and when things get produced and what they will do with the profits
You are pretending socialism isn't socialism because they just didn't do it right. Social democracy is socialism in every way.
@@sabotagefate69 Socialism is when the means of production are owned by the workers. Socialdemocracy doesn´t go that far
Best video
Thank you! Really appreciate it. 🙏🏼
I look this up, all I saw was some “⬇️⬆️⬅️⬇️⬆️➡️⬇️⬆️”….I don’t get it
Have a taste liber-tea
"The goal of Socialism is Communism"...Vladimir Lenin.
That was lenin.
Both socialists and Marx Himself would disagree.
@@MiserableMuon Well, those "socialists" you refer to are frogs in the pot of water setting on the stove. And as far as Marx is concerned, it is HIS principles that Communism is based on. They're "kissing" cousins and the "distant cousin" in the mix is liberalism.
@@sess122 agreed.
Yet USSR never attained socialism outside agricultural reform. Lenin and co failed so not sure why you point to that example😄
I think that those who are for socialism should move to a country that has socialism in place for a year and then report back to tell us if it’s as good as they expected.
No need to move; Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Iceland have already shown that Socialism works not just well but exceptionally when the concept is implemented properly. The reason Americans are so opposed to Socialism is simple; Socialism requires a nation's people to possess a degree of smarts, wisdom, altruism, open-mindedness, and sense of fairness that American culture simply does not engender to the required degrees. These deficits are precisely also why masses of Americans happily defend the virtues of Capitalism (which *are* real) whilst never acknowledging the lack of the 'implemented properly' part and simultaneously being enslaved by the true beneficiaries of Capitalism (a select few private entities). We are currently in the grasp of late stage unchecked capitalism here in the U.S.; with time we will arrive at the natural end-point of the path we're on, neo-feudalism (though we will probably collapse as a nation before we get to *that* end-game).
We would if we could, but you can thank Capitalism for why we're still stuck here in the first place.
What a sad a reductive way to view the world.
There aren't any socialist countries though, so there's nowhere to move to.
@@poot6760 mainly because of economic tampering from the USA.
With true Socialism. Money would become obsolete.
0:23 why the need to make a star of David with the people?
That’s just a circle my friend. I can see where you’re coming from though.
It's also a symptom of solidarity and closeness, not solely a David Star. Free Palestine 🇵🇸
You really wanna know which system works better? you need to look at the lives of people that have lived it for instance USA versus Russia, which people are living, healthier lives?
In this video you missed one point as far as I can understand is no matter who or what what is in power corruption still takes hold. If the people do not have the ability to control who is putting office how money is spent?
It will never make a difference if it’s socialism or capitalism and this predicament we’re in right now. Only a handful of people in history have been good with power the rest week Shady or just write out crocs. My opinion.
Its all about balance while not giving too much power to our governments...
In God, all should put there trust.
Why didnt socialism work in other country?
Not trying to be negative but how do the means of production/distribution magically get owned by everyone. Do you take it away from those who have already invested time and recourses into each sector and redistribute to everyone. Also does everyone vote on every decision within every production or does the government need to act as a proxy through a republic. Even when you assume you are starting from a ground level it seems like a recipe for disaster. Like let's assume you and a bunch of people create a company that produces some product each person owns in equally. Then let's assume it is doing well and you want to expand.Though to expand you need a worker. So now do you dilute your shares in that company so the new worker who has no experience and didn't front any capital to create the business has equal share. How would that work?
The means of production tend to change hands via revolution, where the government takes a sort of reset of control and is expanded, decorrupted (sometimes), and sort of recreated itself via mass participation from the people, including scholars, party members, the average worker, ex-managers, etc. The redistribution process often comes from nationalizing certain key industries (not always required at a great extent) and then the government (which becomes a lot more directly democratized) creates a workforce out of it, sets up the rules, decides how people get paid, how people are hired and included, and what needs to be done. Often businesses do vote for their leaders/managers, and can rid themselves of that leader whenever they do chose. Referendums in the nation do often become more common, while the government also does get a bit hands-on with the companies, acting similar to a proxy if that’s how you prefer to describe it. It may seem like a disaster, but the changes in pay tend to make the management of the workplace work a lot better, since the previous theft of capitalists on your total contribution to the business disappears. Under the assumption that a company was made, it would likely have to be approved by the community area, have a set of rules and standards to keep it fair, and the managers would be elected. For new workers, the system works about the same, and specialized workers are very highly valued in general as managers. Getting a job hasn’t really been a problem, it’s growing in that job that was sorta sacrificed when the Soviets went more authoritarian, though since that’s a defensive mechanism against invading nations, let’s assume that’s not a problem here. Generally, pay is given by the contribution you make to the company, with a smaller percentage of that money being “taxed” (its more moved to keep the public funded and working, though it has differences from taxes) than before. The more you work, the higher you can get paid. Though people cannot use the money of other workers to get paid much higher, it does have sizeable differences, especially when certain jobs have a higher level of contribution per person, meaning that the more advanced and specialized a job is, the better it pays. Sometimes the community creates the worker benefits instead of the company itself, though since the company democratically managed itself, it can negotiate with the community to be self-sustaining or to simply provide its own benefits alongside the public. It’s complicated, but largely different in many ways with a very different approach than the usual capitalist country.
@@KenH60109 I like the thought put in to your response and there is alot to it so apologies if I have missed certain parts. Though I like the idea of the vision. I see very sizable flaws in it. To begin with the government will not be more democratized there are too many people in most countries for individuals to have a hands on role in government and come to a consensus on topics efficiently without the aid of representation. Another flaw I see is that who measures what your contribution to the output of a product or service your labor is? Companies make money on your labor in capitalism because they are providing you infrastructure, knowledge and or goods to make your labor into a product or service that is marketable. If I gave you a contract and said I would train you to do something and give you the goods/facility to do that thing should I not make money off of your output? If I am not making money from your output then why did I spend the time and money on training you or giving you the raw materials/facility to produce the good?
It doesn't.
It just means the government takes everything, and everyone ends up with nothing.
Every. Single. Time.
Everybody in the US is for capitalism yet cry about the homeless problem..
We are all of us practising socialists, we pay our taxes, investments in infrastructure are made and from which we draw a social dividend-we get to use the infrastructure.
Paying taxes for infrastructure is not socialism. Those are costs of governing. Socialism is taking from one person who earned it and giving it to someone who did not. By force. Socialism always fails. Please don’t try and defend it. You only fit right into the young college kid who has been indoctrinated stereotype
*The USSR, China and Cuba are examples of a statist, planned economy, not a socialist economy. Planned economies rely on total centralisation and submission of the worker to the state (which is a hierarchical entity, controlled by an elite). That is contradictory to the socialist ideas of equality and freedom. In a socialist mode of production, the workers, rather than the state, control the means of production and distribution.
Correct me if im wrong but the thing about socialism is that it was giving a good start for foreign and agrarian coutries to industrialise but at some point it starts to loose efficiency and shows inability to adapt. I made such conclusion looking at the Cuban's and USSR's example so maybe it is good for poor countries but then its starting to loose efficiency very quickly?
Me myself despite sympathising to socialist countries trying to hold some middle ground so please don't start arguing or talking shit if I'm wrong just point it out
China, USSR and Cuba are crap examples of socialism
I think their efficiency wasn’t as much of a concern as over bureaucratization and outside pressure was. Personally, I think it was actually surprisingly efficient for a bit, but the problem was that socialist countries aren’t supposed to be purely self-sustaining without other nations that’ll assist one another (they have to be socialist themselves because unequal exchange would drain their economy otherwise). If they try that too long, it kinda tends to rebound. Not to mention, Cuba was poor to begin with, and focused too much on monopolizing sugar and using that as an economic base. Overall they made a lot of mistakes, but Cuba had a much worse ending despite still being alive.
I think capitalism is the best system with the best ideas but I also think some of the ideas of capitalism need to be amended with the primary focus and objective now being sustainability not growth. I also think the idea within capitalism that greed and selfishness is somehow a good thing needs to be forgotten. Greed and selfishness in any economy is not good. Competition is good but capitalism also needs to be encouraging much more honesty and responsibility and also promote cooperation, fairness and morality. If capitalism is modified in this way maybe we can’t call it capitalism anymore. Perhaps we can take the good ideas from capitalism and combine it with some of the good ideas from socialism and call it something else. Sweden, Finland, Norway and Demark have had some success it doing this.
The thinking that the economy (the production and exchange of goods and services) always has to grow for there to be innovation, progress and prosperity will eventually become a problem on a finite planet. This may have worked well in the past when communities and societies did not know the scale of the planet and the environment but, I think the focus now needs to be on sustainability not on growth! There needs to be flexibility in the system for the economy to be able to expand and contract and for a contraction to be considered normal and not a problem or a failure and for the contraction to be just as innovative and prosperous as the expansion. For this type of thinking to work, there need to be some new economic models developed along with some new types of financial systems.
If the academics along with the economist, engineers, politicians, corporations, capitalists and entrepreneurs can figure out some new economic models that are based on sustainability instead of growth, I am sure there will be some noble prizes awarded. The way this can begin and at the same time improve peace, fairness and morality is when our business, government and academic leaders, along with our wealthiest and brightest and smartest among us can start learning how to be much more truthful and honest.
People don’t have to love each other. They do not even have to like each other but, they do need to understand that the wellbeing and happiness of others benefits everyone and is the bases for morality. This should also help nations start to build trust and respect in each other so that they will no longer feel the need to spy on each other or feel the need manufacture weapons that can wipe out most of the life on this planet and from there start working towards reducing and eventually stopping the manufacture of weapons for war.
If people are struggling to survive or risking their lives defending themselves fighting wars, they will not care about anybody else or about the damage and devastation of their towns, cities and communities including the planet’s environment. They will also be much more aggressive and willing to commit crimes and behave in violent ways with animosity and hatred toward others that don’t look like them or do not share the same religious beliefs.
Here are some books with some new economic models and ideas that look like promising developments:
1 “Doughnut Economics” by Kate Raworth
2 “Prosperity without Growth” by Tim Jackson
3 “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” by John Perkins
4 “Beyond Growth” by Herman Daly
“The Centre for Advancements of the Steady State Economy” is also a good source of information
Socialism would be good if human greed does not come into play. The main problem with socialism lies in the distribution of resources. This is when corruption takes place. Hence “Everybody is equal but some are more equal than others “. Every so called socialist country fails and turns into dictatorship. However, in a liberal, democratic state, socialism elements may help to create a more fair system. It can only be achieved with the public scrutiny of the government.
Question: In a socialist system, does everyone invest in the economy?
Yes just like a capitalist economy, But instead of it being a direct system of buying a portion of a company or an asset, it’s a system of high taxation which pays for the collective ownership of the means of production, housing, etc.
@@J90I true.✊️
Social Security IS a socialist program, and so is socialized medicine in many countries.
God bless you… God used your video to expand my learning for my exam this morning and I wrote well in 😊 I’m grateful to God for your videos 🥹🙏
china and the USSR are and were state capitalist not socialist
Hurrr durrr that's not real socialism
@@SmellYaLatter that's the point
Both are state capitalist not socialist
@@TheLux2077 ussr never has been, china only after 1989 reforms (and only to some degree while progressing through the years)
State capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism is private ownership in the means of production. Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. The state is a social institution. They were socialist.
@@Nanofuture87the few in the gov that control everything is state capitalism
Among the most important aspect of the principles of Freedom and Liberty are the rights to retain the fruits of ones own labor. To remove that is a form of oppression in itself, and a necessary evil of all versions of Socialism. The biggest pitfall to Socialism is that someone among imperfect people will always be in control. If men were angels, there would be no need for Government. I would rather have Freedom then be forced to trust people in high places.
Socialism is the only system that allows to retain the fruits of one's labour, as in a capitalist economy most of it is taken by your boss, while in a statist/command economy it's taken by the state. Only in a socialist mode of production is the worker able to keep what they have produced.
Good summary. The Scandinavian countries are also socialist and rated as the happiest countries in the world. The US ranks far below on the list.
The perpetual myth of the Scandinavian socialist countries!
Those countries are capitalist with a strong social safety net, the means of production are in private hands.
I support socialism.
cuba supports socialism as well
Move to Russia, China or Cuba then.
@@mobetterbreaks Nah. I can stay in the states.
@@jazzyj6640 everyone love socialism but don't want to move to a socialist country
@@naturaldisaster2 the beauty of the U.S. is that we have the freedom to believe what we want, practice the religion we want, we are free to think for ourselves here. I don't need to move.
Individuals working hard will never reap the benefits the owner receives. That happens in our Capitalist society right now.
The few over the many, its unfair and killing the earth
Socialism can work if you have a trusted government who have come from a working class background not the likes of the current uk government who are out to benefit themselves and other governments around the world.
Who’s voting for cornel west in 2024?
Who?
So who gets to choose who does what in a socialist or communist society? who's going to be forced to do the harder or shit jobs? You will still see an unequal balance in both and with centralization. In fact, its easily more corruptible being that everything would be consolidated, and obviously Socialism or communism would still be dependent on capitalisms.
Their is no collective ownership of unless its tribal and unregulated. For example a family member using something of yours etc. Once it's on a large scale what is owned is centralized abd regulated by the government. The people don't own anything the government does. This also prevents people from creating innovation and charitable causes.
If people had no inventions, how do the patents of the USSR and the USA have similar numbers? As for your point of the government owning everything, that is half true, yes the government owned companies, but unlike their capitalist counterparts wanted the best for their workers. They had unions everywhere with some power inside the party as well as workers in the parts themselves. While the Soviet Union couldn't do everything as they wanted to like in Marxist theory, they tried to accommodate for that.
NO. That is a wrong definition
Socialism is made from "social" (relative to society) and "ism", sufiz that means system, doctrine , school.
So, it means system relative to society. That has a long variety of interpretations
China, for example is anything but communist. It is socialism with capitalism merged
What part of the word "socialism" speaks about justice, equality or property?
Living here in Canada were deff a socialist society.
Socialism associated with dictatorships? Can you give the number of dictatorships for right and left in the history of the world?
That's a BINGO
It's a good video but it's to over simplified
I can agree with you on that. It's hard to find a the place where something is informative but simple.
One big socialism pro or more capitalism con is that the greater the wealth inequality, the weaker the democracy
Capitalism is also repressive.
Amen to that
Socialism is an ideal, and doesn’t exist in a pure form.
Your video got a bit mixed up, because you didn’t distinguish between pure socialism and social-democracy. But the ideas can be implemented in societies, like a progressive tax system. In a pure socialistic world you won’t need progressive tax, because everyone earns the same.
Another example are cooperations. They were implemented in Germany and The Netherlands by farmers very successfully. One of largest banks in The Netherlands, the Rabobank, is a cooperation. So is the biggest flower auction in the world in Aalsmeer, where flowers from the whole world are traded.
Socialist model as proposed by Marx, who never talked about is coops. The working model is here th-cam.com/video/8ZoI0C1mPek/w-d-xo.html
Name ONE socialist country you would like to live in. Answer: ZERO.
the ussr?
Chile was quite a nice democratic socialist nation before the USA did a military coup there. Wouldn’t mind that.
Because there aren't any socialist countries in existence.
In theory, the only socialist countries are what people call communist countries- Cuba, China, Vietnam, Laos. In actuality, none of them really fit the definition of being truly 100 percent socialist. In fact if you visiited each of them, you would see what seems completly different economies. Granted the econmies are are planned in some way shape or form, but none of them hit all the criteria to be totally socialist.
@@stananderson4524 socialist economy ≠ centrally planned economy too. None of the countries existing today are socialist in that regard
In ex yugoslavia we had almost perfect socialism
wow
This needs to be sent out to all Trump supporters that do not know what socialism, fascism, or communism is.
I support Socialism
I agree with socialism as well, because socialism super sedes communism
Saying some have suppressed political consent and individual freedoms is a lie. The proper word would be most.
Even in america, you can see the silencing of political rivals. It's hard to defend bad ideas so just shut ppl down instead.
both capitalism and socialism are good on paper, but terrible in practise. a completely capitalist country will put the poor and unfortunate at a disadvantage but you will get paid fairly by the amount of work you put in, whereas a completely socialist society will help the poor and unfortunate, but you will only be paid by what you need, regardless of how much you work
I think the best possible solution would be to have a capitalist economy with socialist systems such as essential health care, tax paid public education and pensions for anyone who is unable to work, whilst still allowing private ownership over distribution and production
It’s not a long term solution, the problems of socialism came mostly from the outside attacks of capitalist countries, not inherent economic flaws (mismanagement was the main issue, not the system). Social policy sounds nice on paper too, but it can’t be coupled with capitalism in the long term since we’d have to force companies to take a non-profitable route, and if we let it do as it pleases, then capitalism would simply outsource the costs to maintain a social democracy to exploitation of poorer countries and cheaper labor. It actually kinda tightens the system of capitalism, but also gets closer to socialism than usual.
Resource based economy would be better...
Socialism should be called governism
iHome I am a very much socialist
Came here to find out what the Labour Party is about to do to the UK, doesn’t sound good at all….
Social Democracy, Public Welfare and Social Justice may live long 🌹
Is China and Soviet union socialist or communists
Communism is a stateless and classless society so it is basically impossible. Socialism is meant to achieve communism. Also refer to above
USSR was a socialist state that tried to transition to a Communist Society but it never happened
China tried to do the same thing but It's now State Capitalist with a Mixed Market economy
Socialist, they called themselves communist because that was the end goal.
China is a state capitalist regime, the Soviet Union was a command economy.
I would control the rich high prices.
Soooo.... there is NO private property then...
Socialism is the relationships of those involved on the basis of the immediate conditions; the here and now. Capitalism is the relationships of those involved on the basis of the immediate conditions PLUS the expected conditions AN INDIVIDUAL anticipates. The 'there and later'. So Capitalism involves the perception of the future by an Individual. This Individual may get his 'guess' as to what this future state of being will be, or he may get it wrong. This Capitalist risks his own resources in his Entrepreneurial enterprise which, if he is correct in his guess, he increases. If his guess is wrong his resources are reduced. In this case of guessing 'wrong' the society at large experiences no loss. Whereas in the Socialist Enterprise the community acting as a whole risks some, maybe ALL, of its resources. And its guess as to the future conditions does NOT come into the process. For the Socialist group the future is not a consideration. And its 'guess', most of the time, about 95% of the time will be wrong. Most of the time their resources are reduced. This loss translates for the Socialist community in the reduction in their standard of living.