Ideology of the Cold War: Capitalism vs Communism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มี.ค. 2019
- The Cold War happened for a variety of different reasons and we will talk about them throughout our series. However, ideological differences between the two camps were the main, enduring factor. In this video we will talk about the basics of the Capitalism and Communism. first factor which made this conflict inevitable was the
Consider supporting us on Patreon: / thecoldwar
Although the channel is now monetized, we are not getting full ads due to the nature of our content. Hence, we hope that you guys will consider supporting us via patreon www.patreon.com/thecoldwar
Wait why is the channel monetized?
Wasn't Stalin the general secretary not the premier?
The ads that TH-cam gives everyone have gone up in both frequency and annoyance lately. Ads in the middle of videos more often, sometimes 2 ads back to back. Please sell merch and shill crowd funding and do whatever you need to do to turn off ads on your videos for good. They are super distracting from the content, I absolutely hate them
i want you to do a video about resistance war agints france and america is my country of vietnam patriotic war
I'm very interested in seeing how you deal with the Bolsheviks and the genocides that they wrought across Ukraine etc. If you do a video on the Holomodor I will contribute significantly to you!
You know you grew up in an excommunist country when everybody wants to be an engineer
Kinda sad that we're lacking good engineers nowadays.
The situation in India too is more or less the same, and engineers suffering from mass unemployment are forced to take up menial jobs
And a doctor
and Kosmonavt :)
Not sure if this is a joke or not
The production value on this video is much better. I most applaud you for dealing with a history that many still see as politics.
The history of mankind since the dawn of civilization is the history of class struggle. Class struggle didn't end with the cold war and it certainly was not a victory for Democratic Imperialism. The heirs of Stalin brought back capitalism to the Soviet Union just as Trotsky said the would do without a new Party and political revolution. The Stalinist's were always incapable of reform and the Cuban revolution shows that the ideas of revolutionary Marxism are true with a living socialist revolution that is still making history in Cuba.
capitalism won!
socialists cope!
Really like how you show the pros and cons of both ideologies without trying to convince anyone about which one is better
The struggle for socialism is first and foremost a struggle for ideas which is why the Stalinist's failed at building socialism. You can't move forward when you bring violence into the labor movement to settle disputes. Its not bad ideas that are a threat rather the threat comes form those who want to shut down all debate. You need to use ideas as weapons and than the elementary human right of self defense to build a revolutionary movement that can defeat the coming fascists bandits.
Yea because otherwise the comment section would be set on fire
Simply looking at the number of people trying to break the borders into communist or advanced capitalist countries clearly shows how many 'pros' communism has! Nobody wants to go to live into a communist country, simply because communism does not care about people and basic human nature/needs, so there is little development! The results of communism speak for themselves!
If you want to see "which one is better", look up the word "holomodor", and read about it.
That’s what communists do, they make free markets look bad and make government control look good.
It only works on poor idiots.
Well, as a Russian, i can say that the explanation is very clear, imtelligent and shows both advantages and disadvantages of these ideologies. Well done, thank you for the lack of stereotypes about communism.
I'm sure this is the way the leaders of both sides of the cold war would want it presented as some sort of gentlemanly affair. In reality I never liked living under the alternate flight path for the B-52 bombers armed with nuclear weapons. I also saw the real injustices of racism going on in the US 100 years after the civil war. The killing of four students at Kent state ruined my high school graduation. I had already been wondering why the communist manifesto hadn't been put in practice world wide. The lies and death caused by the unjust war against the people of Vietnam would lead me towards the communist movement except by this time the communist movement in the US had already fractured into multiple parties. Once I read Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed my thinking became much clear. The Militant paper of American Trotskyism since 1928 is still published here while the today the Communist Party USA has only a website and no party press.
Stereotypes? The 100 million deaths were stere- *gets abruptly killed by a KGB agent*
All modern economies today have elements of free markets and state control. The only difference is: should the resources, wealth, and industries be in the hands of a select few, or should it belong to everyone? Everything else is commentary.
Let’s just hope the comments section is just as civil as the guy in the video.
LoL! That was a good joke.
It seems to be quite well mannered at the moment, hope it stays that way haha! xD
YOU CAN TAKE YOUR CIVILITY AND have some more. That sounds lovely. Cheers.
Or we could just give all communists a free helicopter ride, Pinochet style
I think they are, when you making a political video without strawmanning, scapegoating and blaming people actually discuss nicely (most of the time).
Well, this is a great darn channel to teach me about an era of history that I'm not quite familiar with.
Great job Kings and Generals, keep up the great work!
As a swede, when I see Charles I up vote
Yes
Is the kinds and generals? I thought it was the great war guys.
@@sjewitt22 You wouldn't be at fault by the naming convention, but no it is Kings and Generals
Seriously, how is this comment section so civil? I scrolled down expecting a trainwreck, and instead I got people acting like decent, well-mannered human beings.
For god's sake, somebody throw a chair.
@@truegrit1860 trump is lost man...
because radicalised people dont look at neutral stuff like this
@@truegrit1860 And you're proud that you're toxic?
@@glenwicks4976 and you can't understand a joke
@@bingwen469 How do YOU know it's a joke?
I must say the writing in this video is nothing short of unmitigated genius
As intended. :-)
Hey step back! Are you possibly gonna try and get involved with the channel? Maybe provide some insight?
@@guyguy7634 Check the credits
Are you telling me the writer on this episode is also the guy who did this? th-cam.com/video/U-pf9x2PhzA/w-d-xo.html. If so, it’s pretty clear this channel’s pretense at “balance” is compromised from the start.
Phase Star The green new deal isn’t communism.
*"Our words are backed by nuclear weapons"* - -Gandhi- _The USSR and USA_
You are from which country. How do you know about Gandhi. Are you British
Lol
@@nsms1297 , Gandhi is really popular even in other countries
Civ.
This youtube channel is especially important for anyone born after 1989, when the Berlin Wall collapsed and the Cold war quickly ended.
Particularly since seemingly most kinds these days leave school without even rudimentary knowledge in even modern history.
The video is a bit oversimplistic in its content for my taste, but it provides a background on which to build further knowledge.
The setup of the video is very good though.
What a snob you are. This video isn't trying to explain the cold war entirely, that's what the channel as a whole is for, with many videos.
@@anthonysimmons3281 your description of me as a "snob" within this context is largely correct. I admit that, while I still stand for my opinions about this video.
My main point is that the very basics of the Cold War should not even need to be explained, as they should be properly taught in schools, but they aren't.
I am not really complaining about this channel, because it is great. I am complaining about the fact that the producers of the videos have to be so delicate and basic in their explanations.
@@thabomuso6254 Kudos for taking criticism as just that, and not a personal attack.
In my opinion, your "complaint" is unfair. In the day and age of short attention spans, short form history videos are just gonna be the standard. I'll take "basic" history over none.
Longer form videos are out there for the dedicated audience.
@@jonnyohiggins6969 " In the day and age of short attention spans, short form history videos are just gonna be the standard. I'll take "basic" history over none."
This is kind off my point. Today with a wealth of information unimaginable to us who came into adulthood when the Internet entered the scene, I think that we are living in a world where there is a standard of low expectations.
I have taught history using lectures to give a broader picture and to analyze information, while I mostly gave my students youtube videos to get all of the details.
One media doesn't exclude another one. But students will never learn properly by teaching things fast enough for their taste. Patience is a skill that is essential for learning. And the less education kids are given, the less education they are generally going to expect. It becomes a negative circle.
Absolutely love this channel! Keep it up. Kudos!
Y'all are amazing the succinct citations and simplicity here is perfect for a classroom social studies lesson plan! keep em coming!
Great video! I really like the change you made by adding more images, videos, stock footage, graphs, etc. This makes the video so much better!
It will get only better.
"Two entirely irreconcilable ideas."
China: hold my tea...
Socialism with capitalist characteristics
After seeing how most Westerners depict the dichotomy of Capitalism/Socialism, I was dreading watching these videos, thinking they would just be muddled in silly politics. Although there were a few oversimplifications or generalizations here and there (understandable for such a short video), I was pleasantly surprised. I look forward to the rest of the series, keep it up!
Well considering it was the west who created socialism and has had more socialist states than any other civilization on earth. Have you ever thought that its the west whos right about socialism being a failed theory and you being wrong?
@@MattBiden good point.
Just wanted to thank you for attempting to remain balanced in your presentation of both ideologies.
It's starting everyone! bring your popcorn
and gas masks...
As it turns out, the US were pretty authoritarian and the USSR pretty elitist and they both were a lot more similar than they would like to let on...
2 sides of the same coin, as people say.
I was a little worried when I saw the title of this video, but you did a very good job discussing the two opposing philosophies, right down to the language you use to talk about it. Great job on a difficult task.
One of the most balanced Channel I have ever seen in TH-cam. If the creators were firm believers of Capitalism, they would just demonize the communists and vice versa. But you have tried to do it in very balanced way. I think this is what historians should do. Hats Off.
History is about facts.
Sorry to say but the facts what the Soviet Union and their "empire" did wasn't communism. that was Stalinism, the carricature of it
#trotskyist
@@dheosilalahi7241 they were still calling themselves communists. So ideology and university debates aside, if you define the way they were communist and why they were considering themeselves communist it's very okay to call them communists i think. It's not because they are not what you/we want marxism/communism to be or what it was supposed to be by the book, that it's not communism, it's still very much inspired by Marx, or claim to be. Communism if we understand no state, moneyless society, fully equalitarian (may be wrong, not on point with theory) never has been tried, but such has capitalism in it's purest form. We should acknowledge that all countries have some form of mixed economies, none is fully capitalist or fully communist, even Cuba or the USA.
@@phirus02 What do you think is the true definition of capitalism? Because Marx criticized the supporters of capitalism which, while creating "healthy" competition, actually sacrificed the working people and the natural environment. He draws a clear line of class struggle, in which the bourgeoisie and the proletariat have completely different interests on a micro basis. The bourgeois class wants to use the proletarian class to be exploited to produce coffers of wealth, while the proletarian class that is close to the means of production at least wants to live a decent life, when it reaches class consciousness collectively, not class consciousness individually, then they have the right to declare their right to power for the welfare of their people. which gradually created a communist society. Meanwhile, those who are pro-capitalism say that this system is better than the feudal system. It sounds like, it's not even like anymore, it was Adam Smith who said it, but he never mentions a single word "capitalism" in his writings or books (At this point I want to ask, do you really think so?) He only said it was a free market, which in later years Karl Marx found the system to be a capitalist system
@@dheosilalahi7241 This video was about American capitalism vs Soviet communism. It's trues a lot of communists weren't fans of Stalin.
this is very VERY fair-minded on questioning both sides. well done.
All day I was looking for an explanation that had the right pace and went in depth. This is the only video I found.
Well done keep going.
Thank you for making this channel, my knowledge on the cold war from the Soviet side is lacking and it is wonderful to get detailed info like this from both sides. Thank you very much!!!
Thank you for watching.
@@TheColdWarTV I'm sure this how the leaders of each side would agree to have it presented but it is not that simple. In America you had the Witch hunt of the Stalinist's shortly after the end of the second world war and passage of all kinds of anticommunist laws. Although supposedly directed against Stalinism it wasn't long before Jimmy Kutcher a WW2 legless Veteran and life long Trotskyist was fired from his job at the VA. A long struggle insued and Jimmy won back his job and full pay. You see the capitalist were really hoping to tame the labor movement and it made no difference what you thought about Stalin.
Great series!
I'll say it again, though: The problem's not ideologies, it's totalitarian governments and politicians.
Thank you for watching ;)
@@TheColdWarTVThank you and everyone involved for making these! I'm still catching up but, again, great series!
Out of curiosity, are you planning to include South America in these?
And keep up the great work! :)
The problem is totalitarian ideology.
@anatoli p communism can but due to the immense power that is placed in the hands of a single person it is very easy for that person to become corrupt. And yes communism will never work and is not something good, however market socialism keeps the good parts of Marxism such as equality and rights being the same as human needs while also having libery and allowing people who work hard to earn more. But the economy is still reglugated and the state can go in and protect the workers if capitalism goes rampant.
@anatoli p It can, but capitalism leads to dictatorship too. Dictatorship of the monopoly.
that feel like a very good video, pointing out both the good and bad sides of the two nations and their systems. Really good ^^
Just became a member. What an excellent channel!
Very informative and well balanced. Great video!
Very well put together. Great job.
Thank you for watching.
And here we are, 40 years after the end of the Cold War, trying to reconcile the irreconcilable. Providing justice, security, health, shelter, food, education, freedom and pursuit of happiness for all. "Not because it's easy but because it's hard". Because the only possible future for mankind to survive and thrive is for "science" and "engineering" to cooperate against obscurantists.
Thanks for the documentaries. You can still add more videos, maps and photos. Don't listen to those who ask for increase in speech speed. There are many people who don't speak English fluently or English is not their native language. So, they need some time to comprehend the speech. If people need to hear the speech faster they should choose 1.25 at playing speed.
Agreed.
1. watched the video
2. peed
3. made a nice iced coffee
4. rolled 3 cigarettes
5. now im ready to read the comments
Dude you sound like a friend of mine.
God damn the host(sorry I don’t know his name) is just so civil. Subbed for sure and looking forward to more videos.
Would be nice if there would be more footage and less talking to the camera.
This.
😢😢😢
Thanks for offering a non-biased explanation of U.S. capitalism and USSR communism!
This video made me suddenly understand the system of my old country China - fundamentally the same to the Soviet Union - materialistic, self-proclaimed practical, amoral.
Considering the fact that Kings and Generals hang out on Peter Coffin’s channel, this video was surprisingly balanced. Well done.
@@RR-cl2vf key word decent, not great
Awesome. Thank you for creating this video :-)
A very balanced analysis, pointing out the flaws and positives of both systems.
Brilliant stuff right here; great job ...
Well done! Holding true to core values and an unbaissed balance between the two sides!
Finaly an unbiased view of both systems, thank you
Gotta hand it to the Cuban people, despite 70 years of a salt filled air, they kept those American made cars running and looking great. When American cars in a similar environment were eaten into rusted junk in a lot less time.
I wish I could find the images you used in the thumbnail.
good video boss. will be playing this for my class
I really liked this video. Got so much information for my studies .also It' s not boring to listen.
Since your are on the topic of economics, can you talk about how these economic notions of of capitalism and communism change based upon change in their leaderships? Also could also look at countries trying to offer different solutions like third way economics? Or the development of state capitalism?
oh yeah, I want to learn more about South Korean state capitalism!
Danijel Mornarić well you can have an economic system where there is no government control, but have owned by the people who do the work, like a market socialist economy.
@@croatiangambler8059
"Because business owners do the most work and the hardest work typically if they are too succeed. But always take on the most risk, it’s their credit, loans, investment, reputation and livelihood in the line of it fails."
yeah sure. Bezos is the most hard working individual person on this planet, he deserves so much many as tens of millions of people have together because he works as much as tens of millions of people combined. In 24 hours, he simply works 10,000,000*8h thats why he is the richest man on earth, totally owned, nothing is stolen haha long live capitalism the true meritocracy
@Bruno Pereira So what? In what way does cheaper stuff justify exploitation? In what way does cheaper stuff justify that one person extracts to much value from thousands of workers, that he becomes the richest man on earth?
In what way was Bezos as a person necessary to make the books cheaper? there is no need for a capitalist to create a business, a worker controlled economy can do the same without making thousands of people poorer and one person richer
"State capitalism" is the worst of them all. People are worried that some corporations accumulated too much wealth and power that they can influence/control the government. Yet here we have "state capitalism", where the government and corporations is actually single entity.
So too communism, the so-called "dictatorship of the proletariat" is very similar to "state capitalism" in practice, but with much worse efficiency since it has to maintain a vestige of popular support instead of focusing on the service/product for customer satisfaction.
Having to choose either state capitalism or communism, I'd choose communism. I'd rather live in stagnation and slow decline than being violated by the state.
Nice, needed this
One key point I have heard that wasn't mentioned, is of the inherent inefficiency of any centrally planned and managed economy compared to the extremely granular self management nature of a individualist focused economy.
According to the FBI: Soviet citizens and US citizens had very similar live with the exception of Soviet citizens having better access to good quality food.
Voice seems to be improved. Good job :)
Thank you for your video, it really placed a clear view towards capitalism and communism. It helped me learn both sides thank you
This video was so helpful, thank you.
Amazing how objective and informative this video is! Finally! Hats off to you sir
Since I asked you to make at least one video about the different ideologies I think it is fair if I judge this video and give some comment. First off - overall this video is not bad. The inacurracies are small and it's almost nitpicking what I am doing later on. But I think it is very, very important to do this. When talking about the Cold War, we will encounter so much propaganda from all sides. It's terrible and the only way to explore things is when the basic terminology is explained.
I really hope you can keep on doing neutral content. So far you exceeded my expectations...but we will see - Korea is coming up, isn't it? ;)
2:45 "The Soviets planned *every* function of the economy through the government". Ideally this was the plan, but in reality it was not possible until the mid-80s to plan out a whole economy in detail. There simply wasn't enough calculation power for that much information at that time. And once there was, the Soviets have already gone back to reintroducing markets. So the planned economy of the Soviet Union actually was not that centralised as possible. The main focus was heavy industry and that was the sector in which the planners invested most calculation time - well, we know the success of planned sectors - they worked much better than sectors with less planning. Sadly the production of consumer good wasn't in the focus of the Soviet planners. For most sectors of the economy, only some plan targets were set. But these were not some detailed plan and the enterprises had to meet the targets in monetary terms, which does not work very well in a planned economy. If someone is interested in the whole topic of planned economies and socialism, Dr. Paul Cockshott (a leading expert on this topic) has a TH-cam channel and I recommend the video called "going beyond money" for the insight in the reasoning of Soviet planning.
3:03 Indeed, centralised planning happened many times to achieve great goals. In the US during the second world war, f.e.. Even NASA used centralised planning for their task to get people on the moon. I know you didn't say that, but some people still think it so I will point it out again: A planned economy does not imply socialism and vice versa.
3:10 As a communist I agree with that in part. If there would be more democratic decision making in the workplace itself and/or direct democracy to determine the direction the economy should develop, that would be much more in line with socialism.
4:40 Yeah, thats not what dictatorship of the Proletariat means. The DotP is just a transition period in which all property of the means of production, distribution and exchanged are collectivized and shared for the whole population. After that is done, no more private property of the means of production, distribution and exchange exists, i.e. no more capitalists - i.e. classes are abolished since the proletariat also ceases to be the proletariat (since it now owns the means of production, which contradicts the definition of proletariat). Hence, the DotP is just a transition period which abolishes itself. The problem with the Soviet System was that the DotP was associated with the rule of the Communist Party. That is simply wrong. I blame Lenin, he came up with that idea of the Vanguard party.
7:18 "Communist countries" - Here again. I know the media uses it all the time. But you literally explained in this video that the economy of the USSR was socialist, not communist. When we talk about socialist and capitalist countries, we mean distinguish them through their economic system, not the ruling ideology. Otherwise, there would be not one capitalist block and one socialist block, but dozens of liberalist countries, half a dozen of fascist countries, two dozens of social democratic countries, some socialist countries and some other more fringe ideologies. Only if we distinguish between economic systems, we can divide the world in two (or three) blocks and thus look at the Cold War. So again, please say "Socialist countries" for the countries that fit the definition you gave at the beginning of the video.
9:50 I seriously don't know where that comes from. There were no rich people in the USSR, not even the politicians. The inequality of wages is somethign I don't want to defend, as I don't want to defend the Communist party of the USSR, but it doesn't seem like a fair argument to make if the wage differentials in the USSR were always much much lower than in any capitalist country.
About p.1. I read that Walmart long ago have more intricate economic model than the whole USSR. But copes it well because of computer and network power available.
@@ksotar that would be interesting to read, do you still have the link to the source?
@@LibertarianLeninistRants unfortunately couldn't find the exact paper I read, but instead I found a latest book that describes all the same:
books.google.ru/books?id=_IFDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=walmart+ussr+comparison&source=bl&ots=Rq8VmJnXhG&sig=ACfU3U1UI4jrSues_MyWuuNQn4Ka8mG4Ww&hl=ru&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiVueGJ8a_hAhWMxIsKHbULAkMQ6AEwB3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=walmart%20ussr%20comparison&f=false
@@LibertarianLeninistRants you may also find this article interesting, as well as the documentary mentioned in it:
mempko.wordpress.com/2013/09/08/big-data-and-the-soviet-ghosts/
@Libertarian_Leninist_Rants Thank you for this added content on this video. Since you seem to be a self identified communist, I am curious to hear your take on the role/necessity of conflict in Marxism. Can an ideal peaceful society be brought through the means of conflict?
I would just point out that when Marx said ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ he didn’t actually mean a DICTATORship, he just meant that power was in the hands of everyone in the proletariat, so each would have according to their abilities to each according to their needs. Marx hoped for a stateless society in the long run. Lenin and the rest of the soviet leadership took this idea and misunderstood it as an *actual* dictatorship, which Stalin then put to the logical extreme.
From a syndicalist and communist, I really have to applaud your attempts at objectivity and neutrality while keeping it simple.👍
Especially the point about segregation and apartheid, a lot of people in the U.S. forget about the fact that we still had a large portion of the population both under essentially police control and excluded from our "democratic" institutions at the time, who's suffrage was only achieved through the actions of American socialists and communists such as MLK and Malcolm X, and Fred Hampton.
If I have any criticism to make it would be the lack of the term Marxist-Leninist and Marxism-Leninism as a specific label for the U.S.S.R's ideological positions, as many communists from Trotskyites, to Anarchists, to Syndicalists, to Orthodox Marxists, have views that differ almost to the point of juxdaposition with the Soviets, while still being under the umbrella of "communism". It would also help to clarify more as you used the specific and more accurate term "liberalism" to refer to the U.S. under Truman, without giving a specific Soviet counterpart.
Good work! Look forward to more. 😁
@@croatiangambler8059 That's a loaded question, care to clarify?
@@croatiangambler8059 I support workers' self-management and democracy and representation in the workplace.
I support people receiving value based on what the produce and contribute, not whether they happen to hold a factory or resource that entitles them to dictate how (and with what standard of living) their workers live their lives.
The value that the labor of a worker produces with their limited time alive, should belong to them, and therefore when working in organized labor such contributions should entitle them to democratic organizational representation in the group and control over their working lives.
I support escaping capitalism's inevitable cycles of spiraling decline and internal implosion, which lead to massive bouts of unemployement, starvation, poverty, death, and conditions ripe for fascist dictatorships, such as the Nazi regime, which as a Jew and a human I have an upmost responsibility to prevent.
I support the limiting of the institutions of the police, military, state, and political structures which are constructed out of rigid and inhuman hiearchies, encouraging alienation and the most dangerously brutal conformism. These institutions should and must likewise be democratized and horizontalized in their structure.
In short, I support the application of libertarian rights (in the classical French anarchist sense, not American "libertarainism") to not just the social or political sphere, but also to the economic, and the only way that can be achieved is through the abolition of private (not personal, this equivocation is often made, but there is a distinction) property and the state structures that uphold it.
The personal ideological mixology that I possess is most closely defined as Anarcho-Syndicalism, although I am also fundamentally influenced in my analysis by the Orthodox Marxism of Marx and Luxemburg, as well as Kropotkonite Anarcho-Communism/ Libertarian Socialism.
libcom.org/thought/anarcho-syndicalism-an-introduction
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Marxism
libcom.org/thought/anarchist-communism-an-introduction
If rather than turning us this into some rambling and convoluted debate in the TH-cam Comments (which I think we all know never helps anyone) you would like to read about my views and deciern their validity for yourself, here are some good works to start with:
"Wage Labour and Capital"
- Karl Marx
"Reform or Revolution"
(Sometimes called "Social Reform or Revolution")
- Rosa Luxemburg
"The Conquest of Bread"
- Pytor Kropotkin
"Why Socialism?"
- Albert Einstien
"The Capitalist System"
- Mikhail Bakunin
(If you made it to the bottom, good job 😄, I barely did.)
There's nothing more disgusting than seeing a Communist in the comment section.
@@jaylefer4285 love you too, man with Nazi marching songs listed on his TH-cam profile
@@a.e.m.1452 apply cold water to burned area
As sympathizer of planning economy, i need to emphasize - first part about economics was excellent, short, capacious and correct for both sides. Thanks for this series!
Great channel. Great work.
Enjoyed your video. Ideologies may seem noble and just in the logical world (our minds), but difficult to apply in the real physical world (which is not ideal or perfect).
You should improve the speech: there is a lot of echo and it sounds quite monotonous and slow.
Definitely needs more graphics and pictures as well. I feel they're inspired by the Great War Channel and they really should take more notes from them.
@@delta1404 exactamente eso. El presentador le daba emoción, que es algo que aquí no pasa.
@@delta1404 The great War started the same way. They only improve once they started to get big.
Just speed up the video. Works perfectly 😅
The speaker should speak with more confidence as well. It's way too slow/soft. Doesn't sound good.
Excellently presented! This is a very good video.
I'm loving this !
Thank you.
Are you going to cover also Cold War 2 (2008-ongoing) ?
thumbs up for objectivity!
Informative video!
I’ve got some East Bloc postage stamps. Apparently, everyone was reaping wheat. I’ve got a Hungarian stamp with a radar station, and a mother holding a baby all the while celebrating 25 years of the Warsaw Pact.
Excellent video. Good mixture of footage and speech. I hope that you guys will keep talking about ideologies in incoming videos as you said. Also I fully disagree with comments saying "host is too slow, host does not fit the job".
He is doing a really good job. Perfect English, fluent and no hesitations, while spoken at a speed that allows non native English speakers to follow up.
Also don't listen to comments saying "it's a bit flat". I mean that's how it is supposed to be. Tone plays a great deal in equalizing views, so with this approach of yours, neither do you emphasize on or discredit any ideologies.
Put it more simply it is not a show, but history. If they want suspense and drama there are plenty of videos like those on YT.
Thanks, this really helped me
Where i could get this soundtrack ???
OK here's my two cents on the topic of rights:I think the American approach is the concept of rights as things you are born with and the obligation of government is to NOT infringe upon them,not necessarily things that are to be provided to you. For example,you are born with your life,your body, your mind,the right to life,right to speak and think freely. Now the concept of rights as things that are guaranteed to be provided to you is almost a contradictory concept since food,shelter and even health care, ( not Health) are not things you are born with but that are the result of human labor, so when you have the right to the fruits of the labor of your fellow human, that is in effect the privilege of being a slave master .In order for those material guarantees that are seen as rights be given to you, someone else's rights must be trampled over. Remember the State doesn't produce anything, the State only take from some to give to others FORCEFULLY...there's no voluntary transactions it's ALL coercive. I think is way more idealistic the concept of an all-providing State ,that a few brilliant planners are going to bring about material abundance, when empirical evidence demonstrates that free markets are way more effective at creating wealth and improving living standards for most than a system that consistently failed to deliver. Adam Smith, almost a century before Karl Marx in his work "The wealth of nations " was merely describing the mechanism of free market he was seeing happening around him,Marx,in a more idealistic way started talking about a new society, a post-capitalism world with some new order,predicting and designing the future basically. That to me sounds more like the scientist in the scientist -engineer saying.Nobody sat around designing Capitalism, it just happened on what's called spontaneous order ,
So, economies do not live in a vacuum, or, in isolation; I'm sure we'd all agree. Can you address the inter-relationship of the cold war economies?
The Soviets relied on trade with and technology from Western Captialist societies. One observation by the Economist Ludwig von Mises about the USSR and why it didn't collapse right away is that it was an "Island of Communism in a sea of Capitalism." By the 80's the Soviet Union was heavily dependent on American grain bought with money borrowed from Western Europe. It's why the Soviets abandoned the Eastern block. Clamping down on the Eastern Block would have lead to sanctions compromising foreign financing from the West and prevented them from importing needed goods from the West.
@@ShamanMcLamie that's hardly true, the US coerced it's allies to go along with a technology embargo on the Soviet Union which deprived it of many labour saving innovations and productivity multipliers. Not to mention this went as far as denying the sale and/licencing of drugs and vaccines to the soviets too. Nothing was traded that would increase soviet self sufficiency, hence why grain was acceptable as it could be used as a bargaining chip which it was in the event of US imposing its hegemony:
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0022009405049270
@@giansideros How do you enforce a technology embargo, especially within a free country like the US? Most of these labor saving technologies would have been public knowledge and it wouldn't have been difficult for the Soviets to study and develop these technologies themselves if they had the capacity to do so. The Soviets built their own Space Shuttle and everyone is pretty certain they just copied the US Shuttle blueprints which were openly available to the public. The biggest inhibition to the Soviet Union wasn't the West, but the inherent flaws of its founding ideology, Communism. All the excuses about how the Capitalist countries had all these advantages don't exactly excuse Communism which if it was superior should have compensated for these disadvantages. Instead the Soviet Union from its inception was dependent on utilizing technology and innovations pioneered in Capitalist countries. Throughout much of it's history it increasingly fell behind Western counterparts becoming increasingly dependent on them until the whole thing came crashing down. This was do to massive corruption and inefficiencies in the Soviet Union and the Knowledge and Calculation problems inherent to Central Planning.
@@ShamanMcLamie
It was not just a technology embargo, it was also a forced diversion of intellectual capital towards unproductive activities (military ind. complex) caused by the reigniting of the arms race by the Reagan administration in the 1980s. The notion that the Eastern Bloc was somehow incapable of producing genuine technological innovations is contradicted by the numerous developments in military technology, aeronautics (sputnik), and in an attempt by Victor Glushkov to create OGAS - a digital system that would have resembled the internet.
In respect to the Soviet economy, to compare a country starting from an agricultural background to a country (US) that had already industrialized is extremely unfair, not to mention the enormous amount of devastation that occurred as a result of the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, the subsequent loss of life, and the destruction of infrastructure and other means of production. Despite being behind and having embargos placed upon the country, the Soviet Union had managed to create an enormous industrial base during the 1930s in time for the Nazi invasion, and also managed to recover from the destruction of WWII in less than 10.
Lastly, in regards to the Economic Calculation Problem, at this point in time where information technology is so advanced, even under a neoclassical perspective would a centrally-planned economy be feasible. Paul Cockshott (I know his name is stupid, bear with me) has written several books on the subject and has created his own theoretical system of economic planning.
The Economic Calculation problem is not taken seriously from the Marxian perspective, since scarcity will manifest itself through the socially-necessary labor required for a commodity's production, and hence market prices are not necessary for capital goods allocation. Also, the notion that capitalism is more efficient is flawed when one views efficiency strictly through the lens of profit maximization. Many labor-inefficient methods of production (sweatshop labor) are utilized because of the lower standard of living and the consequent lower value of labor-power (costs are smaller), strictly for the purpose of maximizing profit, when more labor efficient methods could be used that save human sweat.
see also:
archive.org/details/ABCPlanning
archive.org/details/InPlaceOfProfit/page/n2
www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1986/09/planning.html
www.itif.org/files/Where_do_innovations_come_from.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_inventions
www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?f=125&t=54420
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Glushkov
@@sneed2856 A country coming from behind economically and technologically can catch up. We've seen this happen numerous times in the last century and a half particularly in Asia. Japan, Korea, China to name a few. Just because the USSR started to Industrialize about 50 years after the US and suffered heavily during a World War they should have been able to catch up economically within a 30 to 50 years. If Communism was superior the Soviet Economy should have continued to grow to support it's military budget and meet civilian needs as seen in the United States. Despite huge arms build up the average Americans standard of living dramatically increased in the 1980's and the Soviet Standard of living instead declined.
The Soviet Economic growth slows over time and then stagnates and declines. The main reason the USSR was even able to Industrialize in the first place is that it had access to Industrial Technology and practices developed in the West. As the Soviet Economy grew it became more settled and because you didn't have market forces reorganizing the economy the Soviet Economy couldn't change and adapt. It became very rigid and lacked economic dynanism. Guaranteed jobs prevent, or at least slow reallocation of labor to other sectors of the economy that need it more. Soviet economic planning was a matter of political consideration and not economic.
I never said the Eastern Block never invented anything, but compared to the West the Eastern block was severely lacking compared to the West where the bulk of invention and innovation has taken place in the last century. I don't have time to read an entire book so you're going to need to explain to me how Paul Cockshott solves the Economic Calculation problem.
Computers can't solve the Calculation problem because you need to obtain the needed information instantly process it yesterday, figure out what it means last month and then act on it a year ago. A big part of economic calculations and planning is accounting for expected, or speculated changes in the economy yet to happen. This is something only an entrepreneur can do seriously since they're putting their own capital on the line. They have incentives to get this right. A computer has no will of it's own and the central planners will never have the same incentives to ensure that resources today are allocated in a way that provides efficiency going forward.
I don't doubt at all the Marxists wouldn't take a problem that debunks their entire religion seriously.
Labor Theory of Value has been roundly debunked for over a century now. Socially Necessary Labor is an ill defined term. Who, or what decides what is Socially Necessary? Socially Necessary usually just ends up being Supply and Demand.
You forget that labor has to go into providing those labor efficient methods especially if it is Capital. A machine doesn't just come out of thin air. People first have to invent and e-sign those machines. Labor to produce the raw materials and process them into parts and then labor must be expended to put it all together to create those labor saving machines. The materials that went into those labor saving machines could be used elsewhere. For example a lot of homes in Montana are made from prefabricated parts in New Jersey, shipped to Montana and then assembled quickly. This is do to the lack of laborers in Montana.
Even if Capitalism isn't always being efficient which will always be the case with anything that has flawed humans involved. That doesn't make Communism a superior economic system, or even a valid one at that. It's like a Creationist arguing against Evolution. You can certainly try to poke all the holes you want, but it doesn't build the case for what you're proposing as an alternative.
Well this is going to be a clean comment section...
Correct
Its going to be filled with crazy American capitalists
@@grandadmiralthrawn3164 haha I see a hypocrite commie who never thinks twice
My general feeling in this video is that it was geared less toward the stated goal of objectivity and more towards the goal of trying to inject nuance into the opinions of someone who may have a completely pro USA point of view with zero previous thought given towards the USSR being populated by human beings. I think that was detrimental to the general audience who was looking for something more along the lines of the stated goal.
Being objective and injecting nuance are not necessarily incompatible, for reality usually is nuanced. It looked to me like it was giving pros-and-cons for both systems, or at least highlighting the commonly held pros-and-cons. What do you feel was missed?
I really appreciate your channel. You truly know how to give two different view points in a fair manner that doesn't favor one side or an other, and that's priceless in a world where everyone view loaded words like communism or capitalism as absolutes.
Thank you for watching. Much appreciated.
I’m always skeptical of presentations of Cold War ideology from Americans, because most tend to have a national bias towards capitalism, while the few who oppose capitalism often take it too far and engage in Stalin apologia. I’m pleasantly surprised that this was a very even-handed presentation of the ideals of both sides which equally highlights the failures of the Soviets’ efforts to uphold their professed ideas and the Americans’ hypocrisies when it came to applying theirs both at home and abroad.
I mean considering capitalism is the only economic system that somehow succeeded modern history it's no wonder America and West has a bias towards it.
This channel is fucking awesome. It's my favourite history channel so far.
It will get only better
@@TheColdWarTV Hopefully!
You know you had the superior system when you had to build a dual-layer wall with a massive no-man's land filled with traps, watch towers and guards authorized to kill trespassers to keep your people from desperately trying to flee, and many still tried. That's a really good sign.
Bingo! I do not know how people tell there are 'pros' at the communist/socialist regimes when they had to forcedly keep the people to not going to capitalist countries!
This a great video. I really like how unbiased and factually this topic is presented.
Will you guys cover Tito-Stalin split and Yugoslavia as it was one of the main initiators of unaligned movement and was only country considered as friendly both to the West and East?
Yes
@@TheColdWarTV Good! I'mm very excited for the next videos! 😉
This was great: organize, concise, informative, and objective. Could you please do a video comparing and contrasting Soviet society to Western society? More specifically, music, food, entertainment, clothes styles, TV culture, average citizen standard of living in the Soviet Union v USA. There are lots of piece-meal videos out there that attempt to do this but never in the organized and concise manner like you did this video. Please consider doing this---it would help out teachers across the world in teach this topic!
According to the FBI: Soviet and American citizens had very similar lives with one big difference that Soviet citizens would have better access to good quality food.
This was a massive help. Thank you!
4:43
Stalin did something in Soviet Union after Lenin dead
Marx be like : something wrong i can't feel it
excellent video! thank you !
Thank you for watching.
America doesn't "believe" in capitalism- we practice it. There's a huge difference.
Look at that woman just being overwhelmed by the selection of eel and octopus.
Love this channel
Glad this video actually showed the positive aspects of communism in contrast to cspitalism
I hope y'all will eventually cover the labor theory of value and how even Adam Smith believed in it.
Except, in practice, goods and services are worth only what people are willing to pay for them. Regardless of the labor that goes into it, if nobody buys your good, it’s worth nothing.
One can make the argument that artisanal products are of higher quality than something that is mass produced, but the price doesn’t hinge on the labor input per se. Although it definitely is reflected in it.
Great video guys! This an amazing and unbiased (or at least much as possible) look at the differences between the US ans USSR. 2:20 Though I will say that the Soviets didn't have the best relationship with the environment either.
It is a shame that these two ideologies synthesized into state authoritarian capitalism.
We got the worst of both worlds instead of the best of both.
Will you talk about some communist country in future uploads for example how Bulgaria or Germany was like economics army production during communist regime ? Or just any country during that period ( ofcourse without USSR and USA ). Also great video !
We will cover all East European countries.
The dichotomy presented around 9:03 is a perfect illustration of the state of affairs with these ideologies: in capitalism, rights are theoretical. In communism, they are material. You can argue all you want about the real-world implementation of these ideologies, but for me personally, I'd rather strive for real rights over theoretical ones.
What happened to the enormous wealth of the Russian country under Nicholas II? How did the Soviet Union distribute the wealth and power of the monarchy?
Stay blessed sirr
Although I am certain that one of the ideologies was much more hypocritic than the other (guess which one I mean provided I'm Russian), the Cold War is much more pleasant to be thought of as a historical event rather than an ideological one. So, in the end of the day, thank you.
Amazing video
Soviet Water: Vodka
Soviet Gas: Vodka
Soviet Coca Cola: Vodka
Soviet Beer: Vodka
You forgot rocket fuel.
You said nothing about the roots of the systems.. as if the history started in 1945. Before communism, Russia had the tsarism system America never knew and that provoked a socialist choice
Yes, as this is a video about capitalism and socialism within the Cold War and it is less than 11 mins. A whole channel needed to start from the roots and explain everything.
@@TheColdWarTV Just a few seconds to mention that both systems appeared not just for fun
differnt ideas but same classist societies