I know. I have a concrete blocking point when proselytising socialism: Finance! If only workers are allowed to set up a company, where does Das Kapital come from to set up the means of production? I want to set up a factory with my buddies without stealing the machines from our old boss... what do we do?
@@Viki1999 credit unions could be used for the same purpose as well ... in fact those could be interwoven into the fabric of a cooperative network, as reservoirs of investment resources within the network
@@Viki1999 Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate it. You may be better off recommending me a book now because I still have loooooads of questions: Right, loans solve the "acquisition" or "Constitution" stage of production. I wonder how things could work if I want to change jobs at any point, would I be "bought out"? How does one acquire a job in an existing factory if he cannot "buy" his way into part-ownership? What about inheritence? Can I have some of what my parents have accumulated when they die? What can be done about genuinely lazy individuals who would rather spend more energy NOT being productive than pulling at least their own weight in society?
@@Viki1999 The only discord that I have been on up to today is youtube's "TLDR" discord. Too much going off topic or "debate" for the sake of it and I quickly realised that it was more of an "entergagement" ploy than anything else. Could you recommend me a place in particular?
7:49 as a full blooded american, I can explain why everyone uses the term "socialism" incorrectly in out country. I comes down to that for decades right wing media calls everything they disagree with socialism and no one really corrected them so eventually the american population accepted it as a fact.
don't worry my guy, i think its just a trend with right wingers in general to not know what socialism is at all. my ultraconservative dad also thinks that socialism is when government does stuff and communism is when government does lots of stuff
7:50 Bernie never even denied his staff of $15/hr. Everything has been media manipulation. When they said they were working more than expected Bernie offered to pay more to reach that $15/hr but the union rejected it, to negotiate better conditions instead. So Bernie said "don't work more until an agreement is reached" and that got filtered and spinned as "Bernie won't pay so he cuts hours" or something. The negotiations ended up with much better conditions than just raising the salary.
That’s cool! So maybe Walmart can just keep paying people $8/hr as long as they have a really dope coffee machine in the staff room and hour long lunch breaks.
I genuinely got really amused the moment a liberal went, "oh you socialists don't understand that there aren't infinite stuff." This.... this showcase of comprehension so mindblowingly rudimentary it wouldn't even get one through one of the most basic courses in economics is... fucking amazing.
Lmao. The first thing in economy class you learn is to recognize which resource is finite and which isn't and to understand how to deal with these. These "red-pilled' people is denying everything that has nothing to do with their agenda.
@@Jonathan-os5eo No true scotsman fallacy. Which are the realer capitalists? The richest billionaire ceo's and investors, or you? Capitalism requires capital accumulation, private property, trade, wage labour, and commodity production(generally). Few economists see the free market as the most important part of capitalism.
I have to tell you, “the man whose name sounds like a magic spell that generated park benches” made me cry with laughter. This was a ridiculously fun video to watch.
@@squarek123 Just because there is a wiki page explaining what it is it doesn't mean that it works. A country which is socialist will not remain democratic for very long.
that 'libertarian views' guy could actually do a complete 180 without changing his name, libertarian socialism is about 100 years older as a term than the (right wing use of) "libertarianism" from 1970s
@@hyperion3145 Usually it means privatize everything in the economy and completely defund all welfare programs, or at least making steps towards that direction. The only thing somewhat based about it is that they usually believe in decriminalizing/legalizing certain drugs, but they probably wouldn't support/decently fund proper rehabilitation programs for people who suffer from addiction.
As someone who spent two years studying "basic" economics in college I am 100% certain that I know more about economics than 98% of all AnCaps (with the other 2% being the Chicago Boys and other right-libertarian economists).
I took AP microeconomics, taught by 2 libertarians. Microeconomics is actually somewhat scientific, and despite my teachers’ ideology, that class was a key informer of my modern socialist ideology.
Libertarian Views Scotty M the economic calculation problem states that only market pressures can inform supply chains - thus planned economies will never be efficient. Record-keeping and technology informs supply chains, not profit motive. Everywhere from grocery stores to factories work using “just in time” delivery where they predict how much stuff they will need based on past usage and order new stock to arrive “just in time” as they need them to refill. You can do that with or without the profit motive. The point of Hayek and Mises’ argument was that planned economies are to slow to respond to market pressure, but in reality, modern industrial society can only exist due to heavily planned supply chains. Planned by profit-oriented people, but planned all the same. So, actually, our economy is heavily planned and calculated right now. In fact, if transactions weren’t planned out months or even years in advance, we’d create a lot more inefficiencies (notably: more warehouse requirements and spoiled goods). Instead of planning the economy to benefit small owner class, we should plan the economy to benefit everyone. That’s just a matter of tinkering with algorithms, it is technically quite simple. Additionally, socialist and other planned economies have routinely proven that they are quite efficient. Maybe not as efficient at producing profit for the owner class, but efficient at improving people’s quality of life. For example, when Thomas Sankara took over Burkina Faso, he transferred land control from Neo-feudal lords to collective peasant ownership. Burkina Faso previously required heavy food import to feed its population, but under Sankara they produced enough to export. After a coup killed Sankara and reinstated capitalist policy, Burkina Faso has been one of the poorest and most corrupt nations on Earth. So bam. Economic planning is necessary for modern life and when planned correctly, beneficial to regular people.
@@TheJovian16 For any stupid person to sit and say it is backed by no evidence despite seeing it everywhere is not only saying you don't understand the economic calculation problem, it proves you know nothing about history. The NHS is rancid with the economic calculation problem, to say that's not evidence is just unreal. Your baseless claims are backed by nothing compared to the real world of history and economics.
... and a lot of the things galaxy-brains love to refute about Marx wasn't even his invention - such as the labor theory of value, which he took from Smith and Ricardo, and then explained how if you run the algorithm _they_ describe you get instability and crisis, poverty and misery, and all that bad stuff.
Well, that shows you the Swedes must have more intelligence than that of yourself, because what is capitalism? It's the free market; the separation of the economy from government control or intervention in the economy. That is capitalism. The reason you don't like that is that socialism has to have a presence in the mixed economy and that's precisely what pertains to socialism. I mean, it's not my fault people like yourself lack intelligence.
on the second thought, you're libertarian. why am I so naive to expect basic understanding of social sciences and research deeper than facebook groups from you
Ben Shapiro: "the reason a BLT doesn't cost $1600 is Becuase of free trade and private ownership" Economists:"no the reason it doesn't cost that much per BLT is Becuase of economies of scale where you can drive down the costs of certain aspects of production through mass production and choosing where to produce things (weight gaining vs weight loosing products)... This has nothing to do with political ideology as this is will be true wether you're in the United States or Soviet Russia..."
@CWW I mean what do we know? We're only leftists afterall, it's not like theese phenomena have been studied by actual economists in order to drive down costs and make shit easier for everyone and will hold true regardless of political ideology...
nonono you have to buy a pig every single time you want bacon and youre only allowed one sandwich per pig you are required to waste the other 95% of the pig every time or Big Pig will go under and die
Even in capitalism no one bases need off of prices 🤦♂️😂 That Scottish guy doesn't even understand the difference between want (demand and supply curve) vs need.
What on earth are you actually banging off about? Yes, I do actually understand the difference between wants and needs, that isn't going to hide or change the very fact that once you destroy the information of price signals you are screwed and you can forget about your needs and wants being met after that. Not that someone as clueless as yourself who doesn't understand economics would comprehend why that is.
@@Libertarianach_na_h-Alba if prices accurately encoded all the information we would need, we would have what William F Sharpe calls an efficient market. In an efficient market there is no arbitrage, and no excess returns. It's like playing a game of poker with all the hands visible all the time. But this is clearly not the world we live in. Prices vary widely, you can find bargains and make profits, you can speculate on the stock market. There are so many reasons that price is not an accurate measure of value, Nitzen and Bichler made a tome about it. But there are way more valuable sources of information than price! Hypothetically, if everything was the same price would you be able to choose between a hamburger and a b.l.t? Sure you would. Would you buy the correct amount to satisfy your hunger? Definitely. Prices are not required for efficient planning. Do you charge your wife money when you make her a sandwich? No, you collectively buy food and distribute it based on need within your household. In fact planned economies are arguably more efficient than market economies because if you only make as many sandwiches as you need, rather than what you think you can sell, less sandwiches go to waste. This is the difference between need and want (demand).
@@keldencowan Value is solely determined by that of the individual, not because of price. Whilst something of higher value may create higher demand which could push price up, businesses can set prices to what consumers are willing to spend, therefore, value is merely something subjective, like a $1,000 pizza, someone has to value it in order for the business to sell it. Prices do accurately encode the information, it's precisely why wherever you find prices left to fluctuate in the marketplace the shop shelves are filled, whereas under socialism the same cannot be said. By leaving consumers to dictate what they want and don't want, resources are allocated to the correct parts of the market. There is no incentive for producers to produce what is not selling. All of that information is gathered through prices driven by consumer demand. No, there isn't more valuable information than price, nothing in the study of economics is of greater importance than the information on prices. If anyone says otherwise they're utterly clueless about economics. It's not like we don't have the evidence of this, we do, we've got mountains of evidence stacked strongly against you. Your question is irrational, it cries out: "I don't understand prices." That's what your question on the choice between the hamburger and B.L.T says. And no, it's an irrational question because it's impossible for everything to have the same price because price is determined through the laws of supply and demand what people are willing to pay for something. The way you make prices sound like is almost as if to claim businesses can set whatever price they like and consumers don't have a choice. That's what you just said there. *_"Prices are not required for efficient planning."_* Yes, they are, because PROFITS tell the market; what to produce more of, what resources to use, where to allocate the scarce resources, what to invest more in and how much to produce and how the resources are transported. Prices are signals, if you don't hold the information of profits and losses, you don't hold that information of what to produce and stop producing. It's price information signals that tell the market what resources are in abundance and what is not. It enables efficiency in many ways. Take for example Thomas Sowell's example on prices with cheese, yoghurt and ice cream; if demand drives up for ice cream during the summer period over that of yoghurt and cheese, the price naturally drives up for ice cream. That price signal is telling the market what is in greater demand over the other. Without the price driving up there's no information in the market to tell you in a vast economy what is in greater demand. You don't seem to comprehend the fact you're picturing in your head someone standing watching large scale demand of people buying ice cream, but what if you're not there, what if you're sitting in an office building and you're in the government, what do you know about who is buying what and what most of? You don't. So how then without that information do you know where to allocate the resource milk? Another example; if the resource of milk runs scarce, price of goods reliant upon it drives up, again, market signals. If you get rid of price signals, how do you know what is running scarce or not? You don't, because you don't hold the information of prices to tell you that information. That's why your socialist regimes overproduced and created surplus waste producing what was not in demand and wasting valuable scarce resources misallocating into the wrong parts of the market. *_"Do you charge your wife money when you make her a sandwich? No, you collectively buy food and distribute it based on need within your household."_* This is off-topic and a complete misunderstanding of prices. *_"In fact planned economies are arguably more efficient than market economies because if you only make as many sandwiches as you need, rather than what you think you can sell, less sandwiches go to waste."_* There is no bullshit greater in size than a person who says planned economies are more efficient than free markets. You could NOT point to a single planned economy that even comes REMOTELY close to the economic efficiency Hong Kong proved between 1948 to 1997. Not only did they lift the masses out of poverty where the average household income was less than $200 per year in 1948 to more than $6,000+ by 1977 and much higher by the early 2000s, but the fact they achieved that with practically NO natural resources. You couldn't say the same thing for ANY planned economy. The prime example of your planned economies were the likes of the Soviet Union, China and even Venezuela who were all disastrous failures who not only used up large quantity of natural resources but remained in extreme poverty as a result of it. What? Wanting and needing is off-topic, what's that got to do with what was being discussed? You honestly haven't got a clue what you're on about.
@@Libertarianach_na_h-Alba Demand is not evidence for the subjectivity of value, you fucktard. When prices rise, people don't pay more for something because they want to, hence "giving" extra value to the product, but because they have to. As stated before, you don't understand the basic difference between wants and needs. Also, your whole argument presupposes that prices will totally be abolished under socialism, which is simply not true. Prices will still exist, but instead of fluctuating according to supply and demand they will be set according to each specific product's cost of production, since the economy will be planned according to people's direct suggestions, as shown in the video.
The "the reason a BLT doesn't cost $1600 is because of capitalism" quote is really funny because economies of scale is one thing the Soviet Union did really well. It's a lot easier to produce say lots of affordable televisions if all factories use the same parts and produce the same range of models than if you have 10 brands each with different designs for models with more or less identical functionality, all of which use different parts
Nazi Germany outsourced the production of military hardware to the private sector, which produced several different models of tanks, each suited for different terrain, all built to last, all using different parts, none of which were interchangeable, not even the scews. The USSR used one model of tank. The USSR won the war.
Yeah, so advanced that if you don't have the private sector to finance your economy, your only option left is the printing press. How did that turn out throughout history? hahahaha
xfritz5375 hes saying that without capitalism, socialism cannot work because there wouldn’t be enough capital circulating the economy. Russia under Lenin is a good example.
So you understand ADVANCED economy? Tell me how a dry season in south america can affect the price of toyota car made in china for a russian buyer. Taking in consideration the exchange rate in dollar Take that liberal, now explain, why ukraine can be the victim of the 1930s starvation?
Venezuela was a result of government incompetence, they tied the Bolivar to oil prices in the 90’s, they overspent and didn’t save enough money to mitigate a disaster. There’s a of other information about the situation but in essence that is mainly the reason why.
I just found this video and it's amazing! Thank you, comrade Viki, you made my day. "Literally Stalinism" killed me dead, +1 to one million gazillions literally killed by Stalin himself! Also I love your voice. And your voice acting when you say "socialism" over and over with different intonations. That was hilarious! :D
You're right I prefer law and order to wanton anarchy people shouldn't expect a government to provide them with everything the beauty of capitalism is choice you can choose to eat a salad or a candy bar the government doesn't tell you what you can eat; If you live in the US and have the proper licensing you can own a machine gun and even a rocket launcher; If you want to own something you can under capitalism vs. Socialism where the taxes are high, and you can't own what you want without government approval. capitalism allows for free thinking while socialism seeks to destroy the power of the individual.
@Morgan K. Where did you get that from; I just feel like the Government should only cover things like roads and laws, but they shouldn't shepard us like sheep we are free thinkers and none is more important than another it's all based on circumstance and I personally hate rioters because they seek to destroy the businesses of people who believe in the free market, also consider that many small businesses will not reopen after the rioting subsides because many invested their whole life savings into their business. Also the riots are out of control mainly up north here they burnt down the oldest scifi bookstore because fuck people who read I guess
Oh my god... I never considered that 'Ben'shapiro!' was the bench summoning spell - this makes so much more sense than a deeply insecure sadistic gremlin.
@@elmascapo6588 Keynesianism was abolished in 1979 in the UK by Thatcher and in 1980 in the US by Reagan, and then the rest of the world followed suit. So 2008 was actually caused by neoliberalism that, among other thing, included Bill Clinton repealing the Glass-Steagall Act that was passed during the Great Depression to prevent another 1929. Also, you may want to read up on the Kondratiev technological cycles - each time one bottoms out, there's a big crisis, and they happen around every 40 years. And there was one exactly on schedule in the 1970's, started by the collapse of Bretton Woods in 1968. That was what resulted in a global move to neoliberalism. The next one was predicted to happen around 2010, and 2007-08 was not that far from it.
Your work story reminds me of when I cut my finger on a lawnmower. (I was fine a band aid patched my finger up) And my boss asked what happened and when I told him he asked how bad it was. I said 'not bad', he said 'good', 'I dont have to fire you then.' That was the day I learned what workmans compensation was.
Obviously I will add you can do positive tax cuts but they should be for the poorest in society, as they will have much higher marginal propensity's to consume, they will spend 100% and even more (unlike rich who will just save the money) which will increase the circulation of money in society, creating jobs etc.
Ben Shapiros anecdote about sandwiches was about economy of scale. Basically if you produce one can of monster energy it's more expensive per unit than producing 12. Now this is a bit daft because economy of scale actually benefits egalitarian societys. Let's say we produced food an a collectively owned kitchen we wouldn't have to suffer the additional costs of buying indervidial stoves, pans ect ect such as we do in an indervidialist society. Thus making the production per unit lower and food is cheaper under socialism. Fantastic own goal from everyone's least favourite auctioneer impressionist. (Hope this helps
SANDWICH TIME. The video shapiro refers to is called "Why Chicken Sandwiches Don't Cost $1500" by wendover productions. In the video the guy makes all components by himself. All that was to explain one thing, the thing that was in the videos THUMBNAIL. That was -- ECONOMICS OF SCALE. The tendency and various tricks that are used by big economies to make goods cheaper. In the video he has to ship sea water back home in order to make salt, which makes for very very expensive salt. However actual economy can produce salt on the spot and have cheaper shipping. Another example is juice. Small producer might just fill a truck with orange juice and ship it, however larger producer can cut shipping costs by evaporating water in the juice, shipping the concentrate and adding water where the juice is sold. These tricks apply to every economic system. Socialists would look at the orange juice production and decide on the same thing, concentrating juice takes less resources and fewer work hours. Even a viking could figure out you get more riches if you stuff your ships full. Yet he claims it is done by free market .. only. Funny, he does not understand the economics topic in the video he himself refers to.
My problem with the idea of just "asking the consumer what they want" is it's incredibly inefficient when you have thousands of new products entering the market every month. Nobody wants to fill out a huge new survey about what they think the price of X product should be. So you'd have to have "specialists" of some sort, eg a group of phone specialist that decides the prices of phones. But how are they chosen? An election process for every type of specialist is equally cumbersome. The market process is a simple solution to this. Those who care about an item, just buy it, and the act of buying it justifies the price. If people don't buy it, they don't agree with the price. The market system is really just a voting system.
Milton Friedman literally repudiated monetarism, which argues that the money supply directly causes inflation. It was known before the 80s by virtually everyone that wage rates and direct spending have an effect on inflation because money is actually being circulated. The reason inflation has been so low in the West recently because real wage rates have been cut and the rich have been looting real wages, with the rich hiding their wealth in their bank account The laffer curve was also drawn on the back of a napkin in a restaurant. Narrowing inequality and full employment were both achieved under high tax regimes
The Laffer curve is theoretical, and in almost no situations has it ever actually been shown that cutting tax rates increases tax revenue. You'd have to have such absurdly high tax rates (without loopholes) for that to happen that it's basically not a problem.
@@Viki1999 and today the capitalists feel (perhaps rightly so) that the workers have become stupid and complacent and will not revolt if you take away their rights.
maximo beluatti You have WAY more rights Free education, free housing, free electricity, free water, etc. You are a human and the state should work for you and naturally you will work for them.
Thank you for putting this piece together 🖤💜💙💚💙💜🖤 That eye story was harrowing! Contrast that Response to my experience, yt person, working at a hardware store, passing out on the job due to my own lack of attention to my low blood sugar, and being forced by my boss to leave work to go to the hospital to check for a concussion and further being forced by my boss to open a workmans compensation claim despite the issue having nothing to do with work and my personal disinterest in claiming anything workmens comp. Then being treated suspiciously by my boss the remaining time I worked there because he was afraid I would make another claim or try to sue. That whole incident cost me $1200, plus work time lost, because I had health insurance at the time, but would have cost me nothing if I had just eaten some lunch, drank some water, and continued working that day. The hypocrisy, to force me into paying money so I could not come back at them with a lawsuit. America. and yet... acidic cleaner in eye *shrugs*
I don't think there is one of just that, but I think the video where it's from is called "Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]" off of Wolff's Democracy At Work YT channel.
I have similar work place horror stories splashing chemicals on my face and it being ignored, industrial sanitizer splashed in my eye when I went to mix a sanitizer bucket if I hadn't have closed my eye so fast it would have been much worse I could feel it burning my eyelashes
i now will never be able to unhear "Bench Appearo"
I need a place to sit...Now I know.
This literally killed me. I’m dead now. Brilliant
@Hungry Microwave I enjoyed that a lot
Viky made my day.
@@Viki1999 hahaha you roasted him pretty badly viki
It's strange that "socialism is a communism, and communism is bad" is literally how deep most people's understanding of socialism is.
I know. I have a concrete blocking point when proselytising socialism: Finance! If only workers are allowed to set up a company, where does Das Kapital come from to set up the means of production? I want to set up a factory with my buddies without stealing the machines from our old boss... what do we do?
@@Viki1999 credit unions could be used for the same purpose as well ... in fact those could be interwoven into the fabric of a cooperative network, as reservoirs of investment resources within the network
@@Viki1999 Thanks for your feedback, I appreciate it.
You may be better off recommending me a book now because I still have loooooads of questions:
Right, loans solve the "acquisition" or "Constitution" stage of production.
I wonder how things could work if I want to change jobs at any point, would I be "bought out"?
How does one acquire a job in an existing factory if he cannot "buy" his way into part-ownership?
What about inheritence? Can I have some of what my parents have accumulated when they die?
What can be done about genuinely lazy individuals who would rather spend more energy NOT being productive than pulling at least their own weight in society?
@@Viki1999 The only discord that I have been on up to today is youtube's "TLDR" discord. Too much going off topic or "debate" for the sake of it and I quickly realised that it was more of an "entergagement" ploy than anything else. Could you recommend me a place in particular?
@@luxuryvagrant6496
Thought Slime reference. Noice
"Which sadly isn't a real socialist, but one of those american ones who want healthcare"
HAHAHHAHAA
Hahaha oh this country is so screwed
7:49 as a full blooded american, I can explain why everyone uses the term "socialism" incorrectly in out country. I comes down to that for decades right wing media calls everything they disagree with socialism and no one really corrected them so eventually the american population accepted it as a fact.
don't worry my guy, i think its just a trend with right wingers in general to not know what socialism is at all. my ultraconservative dad also thinks that socialism is when government does stuff and communism is when government does lots of stuff
Don’t forget about the “red scare.”
7:50 Bernie never even denied his staff of $15/hr. Everything has been media manipulation. When they said they were working more than expected Bernie offered to pay more to reach that $15/hr but the union rejected it, to negotiate better conditions instead. So Bernie said "don't work more until an agreement is reached" and that got filtered and spinned as "Bernie won't pay so he cuts hours" or something.
The negotiations ended up with much better conditions than just raising the salary.
so bernie's working conditions needed improvement.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 They had the first ever unionized presidential campaign, what more do you want?
@@DiThi oh, this is about what i want, not about bernie having shitty working conditions? lol. i want no government, because adults govern themselves.
That’s cool! So maybe Walmart can just keep paying people $8/hr as long as they have a really dope coffee machine in the staff room and hour long lunch breaks.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 What do you think unions are for?
I genuinely got really amused the moment a liberal went, "oh you socialists don't understand that there aren't infinite stuff."
This.... this showcase of comprehension so mindblowingly rudimentary it wouldn't even get one through one of the most basic courses in economics is... fucking amazing.
Lmao. The first thing in economy class you learn is to recognize which resource is finite and which isn't and to understand how to deal with these. These "red-pilled' people is denying everything that has nothing to do with their agenda.
And yet they think theirs an infinite amount of money to spend bombing the middle east
You mean Scotty was serious? I was sure it's a parody or a satire. Poe's law.
Capitalists when poor people are starving: "Just learn to code bro"
Capitalists when they might not make a profit: *Money printer go BBRRRRR*
You are MY big brother!
Not even not make a profit, just make less profit than last quarter or something
Real capitalists wouldnt print money. This the problem with socialists, they dont even know what a free market is
@@Jonathan-os5eo
No true scotsman fallacy. Which are the realer capitalists? The richest billionaire ceo's and investors, or you? Capitalism requires capital accumulation, private property, trade, wage labour, and commodity production(generally). Few economists see the free market as the most important part of capitalism.
This is proof that you don't understand capitalism.
I have to tell you, “the man whose name sounds like a magic spell that generated park benches” made me cry with laughter. This was a ridiculously fun video to watch.
Same. Now, any mention of Ben Shapiro will make me think about park benches
I'm sobbing, that part was so funny
Capitalists: basic economics
Socialists: A D V A N C E D economics
Exactly! They always pull out "basic economics" because that's their level of comprehension.
Yeah, if I have another one of these morons explain to me what a free market is as if its going to blow my mind I may actually blow my mind.
@@timk6181 Don't do that, just blow their brains, simple.
That advanced you can't show one place on planet earth where your socialism ever worked.
@@Libertarianach_na_h-Alba Oh look its Scotty! Oh bless x
That joke about the american who wants healthcare had me in stitches. Thanks.
Hit too close to home for me to laugh ;-)
"Nothing screams open mind like putting your ideology in your username"
*DemocraticSocialist01 has entered the chat*
There is literally no such thing as democratic socialism.
@@dexterjettster8875 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
@@squarek123 Just because there is a wiki page explaining what it is it doesn't mean that it works. A country which is socialist will not remain democratic for very long.
@Morgan K. it doesn't work for most things
@@dexterjettster8875 sorry no.
Existing socialist countries are more democratic than the US.
Your videos are becoming better and better
I love Viki's videos because Q U A L I T Y :)hmmmm :).
that 'libertarian views' guy could actually do a complete 180 without changing his name, libertarian socialism is about 100 years older as a term than the (right wing use of) "libertarianism" from 1970s
What even is a right wing libertarianism? It's used differently every time I see it
@@hyperion3145 Usually it means privatize everything in the economy and completely defund all welfare programs, or at least making steps towards that direction. The only thing somewhat based about it is that they usually believe in decriminalizing/legalizing certain drugs, but they probably wouldn't support/decently fund proper rehabilitation programs for people who suffer from addiction.
We must never forget Bench Appearo, the right-wing political commentator.
Did you know his wife is a doctor!?!?!?!?
As someone who spent two years studying "basic" economics in college I am 100% certain that I know more about economics than 98% of all AnCaps (with the other 2% being the Chicago Boys and other right-libertarian economists).
What's the economic calculation problem?
@@Libertarianach_na_h-Alba One of Mises and Hayek's unsupported by evidence assertions.
I took AP microeconomics, taught by 2 libertarians. Microeconomics is actually somewhat scientific, and despite my teachers’ ideology, that class was a key informer of my modern socialist ideology.
Libertarian Views Scotty M the economic calculation problem states that only market pressures can inform supply chains - thus planned economies will never be efficient.
Record-keeping and technology informs supply chains, not profit motive. Everywhere from grocery stores to factories work using “just in time” delivery where they predict how much stuff they will need based on past usage and order new stock to arrive “just in time” as they need them to refill. You can do that with or without the profit motive.
The point of Hayek and Mises’ argument was that planned economies are to slow to respond to market pressure, but in reality, modern industrial society can only exist due to heavily planned supply chains. Planned by profit-oriented people, but planned all the same.
So, actually, our economy is heavily planned and calculated right now. In fact, if transactions weren’t planned out months or even years in advance, we’d create a lot more inefficiencies (notably: more warehouse requirements and spoiled goods). Instead of planning the economy to benefit small owner class, we should plan the economy to benefit everyone. That’s just a matter of tinkering with algorithms, it is technically quite simple.
Additionally, socialist and other planned economies have routinely proven that they are quite efficient. Maybe not as efficient at producing profit for the owner class, but efficient at improving people’s quality of life. For example, when Thomas Sankara took over Burkina Faso, he transferred land control from Neo-feudal lords to collective peasant ownership. Burkina Faso previously required heavy food import to feed its population, but under Sankara they produced enough to export. After a coup killed Sankara and reinstated capitalist policy, Burkina Faso has been one of the poorest and most corrupt nations on Earth.
So bam. Economic planning is necessary for modern life and when planned correctly, beneficial to regular people.
@@TheJovian16 For any stupid person to sit and say it is backed by no evidence despite seeing it everywhere is not only saying you don't understand the economic calculation problem, it proves you know nothing about history. The NHS is rancid with the economic calculation problem, to say that's not evidence is just unreal. Your baseless claims are backed by nothing compared to the real world of history and economics.
9:44 - Sorry Ben, if you wish to make a BLT from scratch, you must first invent the Universe.
The best part of this is that Marx WAS an economist
... and a lot of the things galaxy-brains love to refute about Marx wasn't even his invention - such as the labor theory of value, which he took from Smith and Ricardo, and then explained how if you run the algorithm _they_ describe you get instability and crisis, poverty and misery, and all that bad stuff.
But marx lived in the mid 1800's. In no way is he at all relevant.
@@dexterjettster8875 i hope you're doing a bit rn
@@dexterjettster8875 But adam smith lived in the 18th century, no way he's relevant.
@@dwc1964 Kropotkin made that connection as well between Smith, Ricardo, and Marx in the bread book
False, Swedes also think it’s socialism when the goberment does stuff
False! Your sentence just irritated me.
Well, that shows you the Swedes must have more intelligence than that of yourself, because what is capitalism? It's the free market; the separation of the economy from government control or intervention in the economy. That is capitalism. The reason you don't like that is that socialism has to have a presence in the mixed economy and that's precisely what pertains to socialism.
I mean, it's not my fault people like yourself lack intelligence.
@@Libertarianach_na_h-Alba so its fine to let people be poor while the rich get everything? I think u lack intelligence.
@@Libertarianach_na_h-Alba look whos here
on the second thought, you're libertarian. why am I so naive to expect basic understanding of social sciences and research deeper than facebook groups from you
Great video and you should definitely do a video on inflation.
@@elmascapo6588 But then why was there a deflation when the money was printed more than ever?
@@elmascapo6588 Down where?
Ben Shapiro: "the reason a BLT doesn't cost $1600 is Becuase of free trade and private ownership"
Economists:"no the reason it doesn't cost that much per BLT is Becuase of economies of scale where you can drive down the costs of certain aspects of production through mass production and choosing where to produce things (weight gaining vs weight loosing products)... This has nothing to do with political ideology as this is will be true wether you're in the United States or Soviet Russia..."
REEEEEEEEEEEEEE! GET OFF MY PANEL COMMIE!!!!!!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
@CWW I mean what do we know? We're only leftists afterall, it's not like theese phenomena have been studied by actual economists in order to drive down costs and make shit easier for everyone and will hold true regardless of political ideology...
nonono you have to buy a pig every single time you want bacon and youre only allowed one sandwich per pig
you are required to waste the other 95% of the pig every time or Big Pig will go under and die
The funniest thing is that he attributed 5$ sandwiches not to free trade and private ownership, but to global trade and "freedom of income."
Even in capitalism no one bases need off of prices 🤦♂️😂
That Scottish guy doesn't even understand the difference between want (demand and supply curve) vs need.
...difference between want (demand and supply curve) vs need (Life and death, basic economics yo).
What on earth are you actually banging off about? Yes, I do actually understand the difference between wants and needs, that isn't going to hide or change the very fact that once you destroy the information of price signals you are screwed and you can forget about your needs and wants being met after that.
Not that someone as clueless as yourself who doesn't understand economics would comprehend why that is.
@@Libertarianach_na_h-Alba if prices accurately encoded all the information we would need, we would have what William F Sharpe calls an efficient market. In an efficient market there is no arbitrage, and no excess returns. It's like playing a game of poker with all the hands visible all the time. But this is clearly not the world we live in. Prices vary widely, you can find bargains and make profits, you can speculate on the stock market. There are so many reasons that price is not an accurate measure of value, Nitzen and Bichler made a tome about it.
But there are way more valuable sources of information than price! Hypothetically, if everything was the same price would you be able to choose between a hamburger and a b.l.t? Sure you would. Would you buy the correct amount to satisfy your hunger? Definitely.
Prices are not required for efficient planning. Do you charge your wife money when you make her a sandwich? No, you collectively buy food and distribute it based on need within your household. In fact planned economies are arguably more efficient than market economies because if you only make as many sandwiches as you need, rather than what you think you can sell, less sandwiches go to waste. This is the difference between need and want (demand).
@@keldencowan Value is solely determined by that of the individual, not because of price. Whilst something of higher value may create higher demand which could push price up, businesses can set prices to what consumers are willing to spend, therefore, value is merely something subjective, like a $1,000 pizza, someone has to value it in order for the business to sell it.
Prices do accurately encode the information, it's precisely why wherever you find prices left to fluctuate in the marketplace the shop shelves are filled, whereas under socialism the same cannot be said. By leaving consumers to dictate what they want and don't want, resources are allocated to the correct parts of the market. There is no incentive for producers to produce what is not selling. All of that information is gathered through prices driven by consumer demand.
No, there isn't more valuable information than price, nothing in the study of economics is of greater importance than the information on prices. If anyone says otherwise they're utterly clueless about economics. It's not like we don't have the evidence of this, we do, we've got mountains of evidence stacked strongly against you.
Your question is irrational, it cries out: "I don't understand prices." That's what your question on the choice between the hamburger and B.L.T says. And no, it's an irrational question because it's impossible for everything to have the same price because price is determined through the laws of supply and demand what people are willing to pay for something.
The way you make prices sound like is almost as if to claim businesses can set whatever price they like and consumers don't have a choice. That's what you just said there.
*_"Prices are not required for efficient planning."_*
Yes, they are, because PROFITS tell the market; what to produce more of, what resources to use, where to allocate the scarce resources, what to invest more in and how much to produce and how the resources are transported. Prices are signals, if you don't hold the information of profits and losses, you don't hold that information of what to produce and stop producing. It's price information signals that tell the market what resources are in abundance and what is not. It enables efficiency in many ways.
Take for example Thomas Sowell's example on prices with cheese, yoghurt and ice cream; if demand drives up for ice cream during the summer period over that of yoghurt and cheese, the price naturally drives up for ice cream. That price signal is telling the market what is in greater demand over the other. Without the price driving up there's no information in the market to tell you in a vast economy what is in greater demand.
You don't seem to comprehend the fact you're picturing in your head someone standing watching large scale demand of people buying ice cream, but what if you're not there, what if you're sitting in an office building and you're in the government, what do you know about who is buying what and what most of? You don't.
So how then without that information do you know where to allocate the resource milk?
Another example; if the resource of milk runs scarce, price of goods reliant upon it drives up, again, market signals. If you get rid of price signals, how do you know what is running scarce or not? You don't, because you don't hold the information of prices to tell you that information.
That's why your socialist regimes overproduced and created surplus waste producing what was not in demand and wasting valuable scarce resources misallocating into the wrong parts of the market.
*_"Do you charge your wife money when you make her a sandwich? No, you collectively buy food and distribute it based on need within your household."_*
This is off-topic and a complete misunderstanding of prices.
*_"In fact planned economies are arguably more efficient than market economies because if you only make as many sandwiches as you need, rather than what you think you can sell, less sandwiches go to waste."_*
There is no bullshit greater in size than a person who says planned economies are more efficient than free markets. You could NOT point to a single planned economy that even comes REMOTELY close to the economic efficiency Hong Kong proved between 1948 to 1997. Not only did they lift the masses out of poverty where the average household income was less than $200 per year in 1948 to more than $6,000+ by 1977 and much higher by the early 2000s, but the fact they achieved that with practically NO natural resources.
You couldn't say the same thing for ANY planned economy. The prime example of your planned economies were the likes of the Soviet Union, China and even Venezuela who were all disastrous failures who not only used up large quantity of natural resources but remained in extreme poverty as a result of it.
What? Wanting and needing is off-topic, what's that got to do with what was being discussed? You honestly haven't got a clue what you're on about.
@@Libertarianach_na_h-Alba Demand is not evidence for the subjectivity of value, you fucktard. When prices rise, people don't pay more for something because they want to, hence "giving" extra value to the product, but because they have to. As stated before, you don't understand the basic difference between wants and needs. Also, your whole argument presupposes that prices will totally be abolished under socialism, which is simply not true. Prices will still exist, but instead of fluctuating according to supply and demand they will be set according to each specific product's cost of production, since the economy will be planned according to people's direct suggestions, as shown in the video.
The "the reason a BLT doesn't cost $1600 is because of capitalism" quote is really funny because economies of scale is one thing the Soviet Union did really well. It's a lot easier to produce say lots of affordable televisions if all factories use the same parts and produce the same range of models than if you have 10 brands each with different designs for models with more or less identical functionality, all of which use different parts
😂😂 you literally have zero understanding of economics.
You clearly do not understand economies of scale or horizontal integration . The soviet union did not use economies of scale correctly
@@Lewis-ss6tr good to see you didn't watch the video
Nazi Germany outsourced the production of military hardware to the private sector, which produced several different models of tanks, each suited for different terrain, all built to last, all using different parts, none of which were interchangeable, not even the scews.
The USSR used one model of tank.
The USSR won the war.
@@Lewis-ss6tr ikr
When Vikki starts ranting with that Austrian flavor, true content and truth at the same time.
9:45 Ben is actually mocking innovation here and people making new businesses as well, rather than anything to do with inequality or socialism.
I’m so glad you posted this video. Now I can stop being a Communist since I understand basic economics now!
Capitalists understand basic economics, but socialists understand advanced economics
Yeah, so advanced that if you don't have the private sector to finance your economy, your only option left is the printing press. How did that turn out throughout history?
hahahaha
Libertarian Views Scotty M lmao what are you even saying
How can you understand advanced economics when you do not have a grasp on basic economics?
xfritz5375 hes saying that without capitalism, socialism cannot work because there wouldn’t be enough capital circulating the economy. Russia under Lenin is a good example.
So you understand ADVANCED economy? Tell me how a dry season in south america can affect the price of toyota car made in china for a russian buyer. Taking in consideration the exchange rate in dollar
Take that liberal, now explain, why ukraine can be the victim of the 1930s starvation?
"THE GUY WITH THE SUNGLASSES SAID THAT THERE WAS NO INFLATION WITH BITCOIN"
Damn you...I'll never be able to unhear "Bench Appearo"
Can you do a video on Venezuela because of it being the core anti-socialist arguments
hahahahaha
Venezuela was a result of government incompetence, they tied the Bolivar to oil prices in the 90’s, they overspent and didn’t save enough money to mitigate a disaster. There’s a of other information about the situation but in essence that is mainly the reason why.
Vuvuzela
I've been watching your videos for a while, and I have really seen an improvement in the way you present and talk about things. Keep it up ! :)
"and it's a video about this.... very sympathetic man"
Never trust anyone wearing a bucket hat indoors.
I was not expecting the best ben shapiro name puns in this video. GOLD
dang the editing was on point here. Keep it up!
I have a feeling some of these rules aren't quite right.... 🤨
yo my nigga said "bench appearo" LMAOOOOO my sides have officially left orbit. never subbed to someone so fast.
8:18 Well that is exactly what we were taught here in Greece the single time capitalism was even brought up.
I just found this video and it's amazing! Thank you, comrade Viki, you made my day.
"Literally Stalinism" killed me dead, +1 to one million gazillions literally killed by Stalin himself!
Also I love your voice. And your voice acting when you say "socialism" over and over with different intonations. That was hilarious! :D
The people who disliked this video are counter-revolutionaries
You're right I prefer law and order to wanton anarchy people shouldn't expect a government to provide them with everything the beauty of capitalism is choice you can choose to eat a salad or a candy bar the government doesn't tell you what you can eat; If you live in the US and have the proper licensing you can own a machine gun and even a rocket launcher; If you want to own something you can under capitalism vs. Socialism where the taxes are high, and you can't own what you want without government approval. capitalism allows for free thinking while socialism seeks to destroy the power of the individual.
@Morgan K. Where did you get that from; I just feel like the Government should only cover things like roads and laws, but they shouldn't shepard us like sheep we are free thinkers and none is more important than another it's all based on circumstance and I personally hate rioters because they seek to destroy the businesses of people who believe in the free market, also consider that many small businesses will not reopen after the rioting subsides because many invested their whole life savings into their business. Also the riots are out of control mainly up north here they burnt down the oldest scifi bookstore because fuck people who read I guess
@@GrimdarkCrusader20th why do people who have no idea what socialism is, talk so much about it?
I almost died of laughter at the beginning of #5. That was AMAZING.
"bench appearo" really made me crack up way more than it had any right to
“The man who’s name sounds like a magic spell to summon park benches Ben Shapiro” made me laugh so hard
_"Bench Appearo!"_
*park bench appears*
Well whaddya know?
I watch this again every couple of weeks, it's great.
omg dude you are so close to 10k i rememeber when you would get like 50 views dude congratz
They believe that the ONLY theory is neoclassical or neoliberal.
Glad to have found your channel, it is very engaging! You remind me of Koifish in your style
Witty and informative, I love your content
informative??
This is truly the pleasure we need in these dark times, Viki. You sound like you’re having a bit of fun here 💖
Oh my god... I never considered that 'Ben'shapiro!' was the bench summoning spell - this makes so much more sense than a deeply insecure sadistic gremlin.
Capitalists: socialism is bad economy
Also capitalists: (remember 1928 and 2008) imma pretend i didn't see that
1928? lol
@@Adrian-qi5ii He means 1929, the beginning of the Great Depression.
@@elmascapo6588 Keynesianism was abolished in 1979 in the UK by Thatcher and in 1980 in the US by Reagan, and then the rest of the world followed suit. So 2008 was actually caused by neoliberalism that, among other thing, included Bill Clinton repealing the Glass-Steagall Act that was passed during the Great Depression to prevent another 1929.
Also, you may want to read up on the Kondratiev technological cycles - each time one bottoms out, there's a big crisis, and they happen around every 40 years. And there was one exactly on schedule in the 1970's, started by the collapse of Bretton Woods in 1968. That was what resulted in a global move to neoliberalism. The next one was predicted to happen around 2010, and 2007-08 was not that far from it.
@@elmascapo6588 ??????
Never change comrade. That perfect mix of outrage and incredulity is exactly the appropriate way to react to these dumb ass arguments.
Capitalists understand basic economics, socialist understand advanced evonomics
Brrrap, empty the entire fucking AK47 magazine into the air. As I celebrate the debiting of those BAAAAARRZ.
I'm convinced the guy in the in third video was trolling
Love the "this... very cool looking dude"
I love the way you include our beloved Dr. Wolff. Amazing!!!!
Omg im not a socialist but your videos are so funny i can't stop watching them.
Your work story reminds me of when I cut my finger on a lawnmower. (I was fine a band aid patched my finger up) And my boss asked what happened and when I told him he asked how bad it was. I said 'not bad', he said 'good', 'I dont have to fire you then.' That was the day I learned what workmans compensation was.
I laughed at "bench appear-o" way more than I should have
Obviously I will add you can do positive tax cuts but they should be for the poorest in society, as they will have much higher marginal propensity's to consume, they will spend 100% and even more (unlike rich who will just save the money) which will increase the circulation of money in society, creating jobs etc.
I laughed way too hard at that park bench joke...
Ben Shapiros anecdote about sandwiches was about economy of scale. Basically if you produce one can of monster energy it's more expensive per unit than producing 12. Now this is a bit daft because economy of scale actually benefits egalitarian societys. Let's say we produced food an a collectively owned kitchen we wouldn't have to suffer the additional costs of buying indervidial stoves, pans ect ect such as we do in an indervidialist society. Thus making the production per unit lower and food is cheaper under socialism. Fantastic own goal from everyone's least favourite auctioneer impressionist. (Hope this helps
Hey, this is AL, and i'm commenting for ALGORITHM!
Idk how often I already saw this but I still love it.
Amazing video.
Your sarcasm gives me a reason to live Hahahaha I fucking love it.
this is hilarious. well done.
SANDWICH TIME. The video shapiro refers to is called "Why Chicken Sandwiches Don't Cost $1500" by wendover productions.
In the video the guy makes all components by himself. All that was to explain one thing, the thing that was in the videos THUMBNAIL.
That was -- ECONOMICS OF SCALE.
The tendency and various tricks that are used by big economies to make goods cheaper. In the video he has to ship sea water back home in order to make salt, which makes for very very expensive salt. However actual economy can produce salt on the spot and have cheaper shipping.
Another example is juice. Small producer might just fill a truck with orange juice and ship it, however larger producer can cut shipping costs by evaporating water in the juice, shipping the concentrate and adding water where the juice is sold.
These tricks apply to every economic system. Socialists would look at the orange juice production and decide on the same thing, concentrating juice takes less resources and fewer work hours. Even a viking could figure out you get more riches if you stuff your ships full.
Yet he claims it is done by free market .. only.
Funny, he does not understand the economics topic in the video he himself refers to.
Austria? Viki is 'n Schluchtenscheißer? Noice!
Bench appearo - this made me laugh for an unreasonable amount of time.
It's obvious that you should sell eastern poland instead of signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, It's basic economics!!
Thank you, I needed this video
I once made a bench apearo but my friend Andrew nieled on it and it broke!
This was a great video Viki, loved it and lmfao!
Can you make a video about inflation?
Hilariously enough, the biggest employer on the planet is Indian Railways, which is, whaddya know, a socially owned service.
Felix from Re:Zero destroys Right Wingers with Facts and Logic.
When AOC started her "Trump Accountability Ptoject" some right wing pundit on Twitter said "This is literally communism."
You're so smug I love it
The origins of the legend of "Bench Appearo", I saw someone else use that then mentioned it somewhere else and was pointed here.
it's not that the free market isn't effecient enough to provide food for everyone, the free market requires starvation and poverty
@Jack McCabe a planned (central or decentral) economy that destributes food equally
ImCheeze115 you mean a system that Lenin tried and caused countless Russians to starve?
@@Jonathan-os5eo yes
Jonathan Lenin absolutely DID NOT starve “countless” Russians. That’s completely false
Arsenal123 millions of people died when the 1920s famine hit. The U.S had to feed the Russians instead. How was that not Lenin’s fault?
Me watching socialist does not understand "basic economics" (And having a laugh at him)
Lol “a whole new level of wrong”
8:24 The government doesn’t do healthcare here in the US unfortunately :(
8:39 Yay, Richard Wolff! :D
I used to be a trump supporter, mistake
glad you made it out 😂
My problem with the idea of just "asking the consumer what they want" is it's incredibly inefficient when you have thousands of new products entering the market every month. Nobody wants to fill out a huge new survey about what they think the price of X product should be. So you'd have to have "specialists" of some sort, eg a group of phone specialist that decides the prices of phones. But how are they chosen? An election process for every type of specialist is equally cumbersome. The market process is a simple solution to this. Those who care about an item, just buy it, and the act of buying it justifies the price. If people don't buy it, they don't agree with the price. The market system is really just a voting system.
Why is a former MTV veejay talking about business.
Milton Friedman literally repudiated monetarism, which argues that the money supply directly causes inflation. It was known before the 80s by virtually everyone that wage rates and direct spending have an effect on inflation because money is actually being circulated. The reason inflation has been so low in the West recently because real wage rates have been cut and the rich have been looting real wages, with the rich hiding their wealth in their bank account
The laffer curve was also drawn on the back of a napkin in a restaurant. Narrowing inequality and full employment were both achieved under high tax regimes
The Laffer curve is theoretical, and in almost no situations has it ever actually been shown that cutting tax rates increases tax revenue. You'd have to have such absurdly high tax rates (without loopholes) for that to happen that it's basically not a problem.
Also, my history teacher keeps saying that capitalism "reformed" itself after world war 2; what's your opinion on this?
@@Viki1999 and today the capitalists feel (perhaps rightly so) that the workers have become stupid and complacent and will not revolt if you take away their rights.
maximo beluatti You have WAY more rights
Free education, free housing, free electricity, free water, etc.
You are a human and the state should work for you and naturally you will work for them.
4:13 lol "there arent enough resources except there are, and there is no other way to know what to produce except there is"
That line about Sharpiro's name killed me.
Thank you for putting this piece together
🖤💜💙💚💙💜🖤
That eye story was harrowing!
Contrast that Response to my experience, yt person, working at a hardware store, passing out on the job due to my own lack of attention to my low blood sugar, and being forced by my boss to leave work to go to the hospital to check for a concussion and further being forced by my boss to open a workmans compensation claim despite the issue having nothing to do with work and my personal disinterest in claiming anything workmens comp. Then being treated suspiciously by my boss the remaining time I worked there because he was afraid I would make another claim or try to sue.
That whole incident cost me $1200, plus work time lost, because I had health insurance at the time, but would have cost me nothing if I had just eaten some lunch, drank some water, and continued working that day.
The hypocrisy, to force me into paying money so I could not come back at them with a lawsuit.
America.
and yet... acidic cleaner in eye *shrugs*
friEND
girlfriEND
boyfriEND
soviet uniON
this is fucking AMAZING lmaooo
ps love your accent omg
Could you do a video on Yugoslav communism aka Titoism?
Love you bro, keep up the good work! :)
It's she, Viki is a Girl.
Viki has really come into her own here, she sounds so much more confident now.
her* (sorry it was probably a mistake just wanted to let u know)
@@enjolraswaters7491 Thank you.
@@pacifactor ...okay?
@@pacifactor Are you Okay in your head mate?
I see Ethoslab in your recommended, respect
Hey where do i find the "socialism is when the government does stuff" video
I don't think there is one of just that, but I think the video where it's from is called "Understanding Marxism: Q&A with Richard D. Wolff [June 2019]" off of Wolff's Democracy At Work YT channel.
th-cam.com/video/CotUd5hSnv8/w-d-xo.html
@@babyblooddistilleriesinc3131 thx
I have similar work place horror stories splashing chemicals on my face and it being ignored, industrial sanitizer splashed in my eye when I went to mix a sanitizer bucket if I hadn't have closed my eye so fast it would have been much worse I could feel it burning my eyelashes