Pros and cons, pros and cons... Full video: th-cam.com/video/JcA5szcnESY/w-d-xo.html Join our Discord! 😳 discord.gg/bbyZ8KFcHw 📧 DM/Email for VIDEO EDITING jobs/gigs 📧 th-cam.com/users/BrainRotPoliticsabout
Empires end regardless of capitalist or socialist. US isn't the same empire it once was. UK is capitalist and its empire is gone. Russia hasn't gone, its empire has.
The problem here is that the 1) the USSR wasn't socialist, it was communist, and for its duration saw the largest wealth gap of any developed country. 2) Extant socialist countries tend to recover faster than the US, because they have mechanisms in place to stabilize their economies to prevent booms and busts. Look at any country typically cohorted as socialist; Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Greenland, Japan; their economies may not grow as rapidly as the US (once we account for population and GDP differential) but they also don't shrink as much either. 3) Booms and Busts actually hurt the majority of people in a capitalist economy, while helping a handful who are already rich. I'd argue that our country, today, resembles nothing at all to what it was in the 1960s when we had the tightest wealth gap in US history, and the highest median wage in US history. Our country is still "here" but it is not the same country economically speaking. We're closer now to where we were during the Great Depression, than we were in the 1960s economically speaking. Whereas the aforementioned countries above, minus Germany and Japan, have more or less remained steady in their economy in the same timespan.
@@epeasy9148 Its so ironic that you're slam dunking on socialism while you have the time to do so thanks to socialists fighting for the Fair Labor Standards Act.
@@afgor1088 additional could you name some of those countries so i know where we stand (do you mean as far back as like the romans or something later than that)
Yeah he's in right, a crises happens, millions of people lose their jobs, their incomes plummet and the economy recovers until it fails again. It's not a bug it's a feature folks
Isn't the feature the economy getting back to a stable state even with the crisis? I mean when China was socialist it had a flood that completely fucked up the country. Since then they have become capitalist and with even worse floods, the effects are way less devastating.
He's wrong, but not entirely wrong. The reason why we have "booms and busts" cycles is because we have a credit-based economy (heck, even China and other socialist countries have boom and bust cycles). "Why not get rid of credit?" you may ask, well, my friend, it's because without credit, the only way to get more and more money is to become more productive, meaning working LONGER hours. When you purchase money using a credit card, you basically get the purchased item for free, but you also create debt, of which you have to pay at a certain time. Credit is really good if you buy something productive, like a tractor to help you farm, because then you get MORE money than when you bought the tractor before. Credit is bad when you buy something like a TV because it doesn't earn you income. But people are people, so they usually go the second option and buy useless stuff, which means that they accumulate debt and have no way to repay that debt, meaning that people will borrow less and less money so that they can be more productive and work more to raise their income. That's not all, the economy is A LOT more complex than that (it's mostly all human behaviour and psychology), but that's the gist of why we have boom and bust cycles.
What a wonderful feature, people get thrown out on the street, go hungry, get divorced, small businesses die, debt swells, all the while elites lounge around in their mansions. Don't worry, it'll get better! It won't happen again for another 4-7 years until the next financial crisis!
“I consider our cycle of abuse as only strengthening our relationship. Sure, he beats me to within an inch of my life, but then he’s in the hospital with me as I recover so sweet
@@e-man7418Well when literally every capitalist country is actively trying to find ways of destroying your country because of a difference of ideology; I’m sorry but it will take a few times to get it right. Not everything the Soviet Union did was correct and I will admit that it eventually did became authoritarian however you HAVE to admit that what it accomplished with the small amount of time it had is nothing short of amazing. ww1, ww2, civil war, political and economic crises did not stop socialism with competing with the most powerful country on the earth, America.
@@TeddyHood I will admit the Soviet Union did a lot, but not cause was socialist/communist. It was because of industrialization. Also, like you said, it fell apart and became authoritarian. Why would we take that gamble with America? We can barely deal with the authoritarian running for office
@@uchennanwogu2142Shhhh inconvenient to the narrative...also don't point out that communist China has the raw manpower to just...decimate every capitalist country on earth by 5pm tomorrow...
But the reason countries survive busts isn't because the free market regulates itself. It's because in those times the government intervenes with subsidies. The housing bubble was fixed by massive government checks.
No it really is necause the free market coreects and adjusts itself... the reasons socialist countries go under is because there is no free msrket no free monwy flow in the economy the government basically controlls and regulates everything
Its just like people who are dinb enough to want "means of production" taken away from companies and given to workers...aounds like a good idea but never works and woukd neber work because #1 you would need the government to intervene to forcibly take away means of production from the compnaies #2once government has taken means of productions from thr companies why in gods name would they give it too the people once they have it because with it they control and regulate ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING and can starve you too death if you get out of line they literally control it all
The housing crisis was caused by government guaranteeing the losses of risky business decisions. They would never have made so many sub-prime loans if they were playing the game with their own money/debt.
@@ryaugn Nah that’s cap. Government’s have to federally back large banks, or our funds wouldn’t be stable and the entire system would crash. The crisis was caused by free market decisions. The bail out was the government footing the bill and forgiving those risky decisions. There’s a balance to everything. Capitalism works best when neither the free market is properly supported by it’s government, not controlling it’s government
@@ryaugn The housing crisis was caused by big banks caring about nothing else but making profit. Even if that meant peddling stuff with negative worth to people who didn't know better. The government had to pick up the pieces that capitalism left behind.
Capitalism explicitly refuses to respond to most crises, because solving those crises is not profitable (nevermind how it's necessary to solve them for the average person to be able to live). The boom and bust cycle of capitalism is not a feature, it's a permanent drawback that consistently damages the poorest in a country, who have the least ability to sustain damages.
Imagine thinking a crisis like the housing crisis is good for the country lol. What happens to housing in this case? Prices go through the roof. Imagine running a military this way. Your soldiers desperately have needs like ammo, food and medical supplies. People are desperate? Then charge as much as you want. The end result would be an absolute failure. This is why capitalism is not applied to the things that matter to the system the most. It's funny how these capitalist countries reverted to top down central planning in both world wars. The War Production Board proved a centrally planned economy can work. In fact all economies are centrally planned. Ours is planned by Vanguard/Black rock to benefit themselves at the peoples expense.
right, people are stupid for touting american capitalism as an end all be all, and that there are no other options in their eyes. it’s refreshing to see that people aren’t afraid to stand up to capitalism and it’s unjustness
@@ChristopherGray00I don‘t know about Cuba but Vietnam is doing pretty good actually. After repelling the western imperialism, and they were finally able to live their lives through self determination, life expectancy, literacy rates and daily nutritional intake have all increased on average and are now equal, or even higher, than in western countries
@@VVVVV99611 are you as poor as a poor person 100 years ago? 200 years ago? You might not be “rich” right now but we live in a time where the opportunity is there and it’s very real, and the majority of people with the right decisions could easily lead more comfortable lives then kings of 1000s of years ago.
"I consider that a feature instead of a negative" bro is on crack. "I consider the emotional highs and lows that my bipolar disorder gives me a feature". Actual insanity
@@callumreilly9107 The Soviet Union did all it could to undermine capitalism as well. Your point? Name one country that has reached prosperity without a free market economy. Didn't think so.
@@andresrojas7924 The Soviet Union dissolved 30 years ago, but keep beating that dead horse. Also, considering that a true “free market” is completely unrestricted, a country that has any level of market regulation doesn’t qualify. I’ve heard America is a bit of an economic powerhouse, though the standard of living is relatively low.
@callumreilly9107 I'm not sure what you consider free market. Of course markets are restricted by taxes, regulations, etc, but they are still free markets. That's like saying that a homeowner is not technically a homeowner because he pays property taxes or that a private school isn't really private because it follows laws and regulations. You do know that in socialism the government sets the prices right? LOL Some mericans are so ignorant. Your ruling class made a country in which anyone could live comfortably without even trying (I became a homeowner at 25 and didn't buy earlier because I didn't have my papers yet) and you complain all day long.
It's like saying: " Listen, for a time in my life i become poor, depressed, suicidal i hated my life and i snorted lot's of cocaine but then i became rich and happy and the cycle continuous." I wouldn't call that a stable life and i would try taking you to a therapist.
Well not really, for example Vietnam responded to Covid faster than most other countries and considering their geography forcing them to live in dense cities it’s even more impressive.
Most Asian countries responded quickly because they have a society that prioritizes health. Look at how many old Asians there are compared to other countries/continents
@@michaeldromes3948 and yet South Korea enacted Socialist measures to fight covid now ain't that ironic? also, no Culture was inherently made to fight diseases or be hygenic.
@@samkhodabakhshzadeh7244 what socialist measures?? And yes, if asian countries tend to for example practice mask wearing, they are inherently in better shape to fight diseases.
How exactly would socialism fix it? Still got the same amount of people that consume and use the products that are the result of over explotation of nature. Unless you take all that away from them of course.
@@makchot3263China 1990 economy was 300bi a year now is 17 trillion a year, Russia was a feudal country in 60 years was the second largest economy and was on the edge of space technology.
do a little bit of Research you'll see that more often than not the cia is behind the so called failures of former socialist projects, no socialist country had 300 years of uninterrupted development like the US, and yet in the short time those countries existed they proved that with similar economic development a country with a socialist way of organizing provides better quality of life @@makchot3263
The downfall of the Soviet Union was due to a multitude of reasons such as CIA infiltration of Soviet leadership, poor leadership, and never getting a chance to really develop. The Union existed for so much shorter than the States but managed to get to around the same economic level. The regions of the Union were a feudal BACKWATER before the Revolution and the Union elevated them to a much higher level. But they only got around 25 years to actually focus on development because the USA began a Cold War with them. Keep in mind the Union's losses during WW2 and how much they had to rebuild. The end of the Union wasn't so much a crisis as what it had gone through during and following WW2, it was simply because Russian politicians wanted to go capitalist. Gorbachev's administration is infamous for having been one of the largest factors, as it led to popular discontent and many other issues once he began to enact reforms. By the end, the Union was planning to become some sort of "rump state" whereby massive reforms would occur under a new Union. A referendum was held that should have won the New Union, but, exemplifying discontent from all sides, communist hardliners attempt a coup right before the Union was intended to be placed in. The vote was voided and the Union was dissolved. There's a much, much, deeper level to this topic, but this is all I can explain in a TH-cam comment.
@@BipolarBear-tc5oe I'm pro-markets. I don't think command economies could work better in this system because of the economic calculation problem. However, North Korea and Cuba are under sanctions, so obviously they aren't going to do well. That sucks a lot because we could've seen North Korea vs South Korea and seen which economic policies were better. I'm not educated on the Berlin Wall, but were there significant differences besides the socialism and capitalism that could've affected economic development?
Tell all the people who lost their homes and jobs in 2008 and then had to bail out the banks and auto industry that the boom-bust cycle is a feature not a bug
Sadly banks gave loans to people who were wildly unqualified cause the government coerced them by giving incentives to promote muh equality n shiet. Ironically the attempt to move towards given every American a hope was one of the bigger problems causing the collapse.
it's like how in Venezuela Chavez expropriated banks because they didn't lend people money. Well shortly after those banks were broke because the unqualified borrowers didn't pay lol
@@adg9042Bullshit, false comparison and proof you’re willing to kill anyone to perpetuate your capitalism. Countless of those in the housing crisis died. Where do you think they went when they had no homes? Atlantis?!
They were a massive world power for decades, large enough that they should have been able to sustain their own economy. But the control model doesn’t work because the system is too complex to manage even with modern technology.
@@GottaGoBoom They were literally going against most of the developed world, if they survived it wouldn't have been because they were too strong but because their opposition was too weak, and the opposition wasn't weak
@@abeljackson3732what’s crazy is Marx understood capitalism better then capitalists to the point he wrote a b😅ok praising it and agreeing it had a place in society but no longer serves a purpose
Could destiny actually provide an actual example of a crisis ending a socialist country. The Soviet Union didn’t just end because of a crisis and their socialism couldn’t handle it. The whole dissolvement of the USSR was a guided thing that happened because of many reasons including Soviet imperialism. It’s always awful to make an point against socialism using an example of the Soviet Union especially with someone like Richard Wolfe. The dissolution of the Soviet Union didn’t happen because socialism couldn’t handle any crisis. The reasons for the dissolution of the Soviet Union was very multifaceted and has more to do with the geopolitics of the time than the economic system. Destiny is just not informed on the history of it neither am I too knowledgeable on it. His historical knowledge is just way too simple and surface level to bring up on a discussion on socialism with Richard Wolf who is very in favor of a market socialism and likes Yugoslavia, now if destiny used examples of Yugoslavia that would be exactly appropriate for Richard Wolfe.
Actually it had to do much with the economics, the USSR was exhausted by the arms race thanks to Leonid Brezhnev, because of this the USSR’s economic system wasn’t making enough and was slowing to a crawl, it was so bad that even Japan overtook the USSR, the economic failure however led Mikhail Gorbachev to make new reforms and eventually led to a crisis which made them disolve, but then again like you said the USSR dissolution wasn’t just 1 factor, it was many.
The reason is not in "bad bad Soviet imperialism!!!11!!", but in the fact CPSU after Comrade Stalin's death was filled with people who had no idea what socialism even is, and later oriented on western market.
@@throwfascistsintopits3062 I disagree, the only person pro western of the market was Gorbachev. But I do agree that Stalin's death was a huge factor to how the USSR was ran.
@@jackcarraway4707 a dictatorship is a government model. Capitalism is an economic system. Most dictatorships lean towards capitalism because it helps solidify control.
Steam creates pressure Make the steam engine which works by using pressure to rotate Sell your product Invent new products Give your workers just enough money to buy your products, make 100x more than you loose. Destroy the competition thus creating a monopoly Bribe government officials with money thus law becomes merely a suggestion Keep them occupied with breads and circuses. Poison their water and food to make them weak Their lives from birth to death will benefit you in some way Convince them that their only way of success and happiness is by contributing to your leviathan (ideas like a dream job) Destroy the environment just to make yourself more powerful Invent "solutions" for the mess you created, profit from those too Foster hatred between them Destroy any non-corporate loyalties They hate each other more than they hate you (This entire comment section) Win no matter what Create a system where you profit from production, transportation, consumption and waste elimination Hold uncontested rule over humanity Become utterly undefeatable.
It’s so easy for him to say when he has so much money, destiny is a sellout and it’s growing more apparent. The only thing he has is his personality, without that he’d be nothing
This is what it looks like, when someone who has absolutely no idea about economics talks with arrogant confidence like he does. Capitalism boom is dependent on the outsourcing of cheap labor in poor countries. People who live in a first world country believe, that their riches comes from the hard work of their own citizens, which is FACTUALLY not true. The data is open for everyone to research, but sadly most people prefer to hear an economic opinion from a twitch streamer that resonates with them than actually doing the research because they are lazy. Your country is rich, because they have cheap suppliers of the core economy (expensive ores, oil and energy, aluminium etc.), who are stationed in third world countries, making "Jamal" work in the mines for 1 dollar a day, so you can buy the next iPhone for more money than Jamal will make in 2 years.
You couldn't grasp economics with such a bird brain. Boom and bust is not capitalism,it is overallocation. This is a phenomenon of economics and not of capitalism. Examples of overallocation and underallocation in USSR were the bumper crops of tomatoes and the shortages of grain caused by the governmen't attempt to do what markets do far better.
Boom-bust cycles are caused by fractional reserve banking, not capitalism. When banks essentially create money out of thin air via fractional reserve banking, this increases the money supply and allows individuals/corporations to make their investments. The more they do this, the more the price of everything goes up, which is inflation. Then the fed, which is horrible at doing its own job, increases interest rates. When the fed does this, interest rates rise for everyone, including the investors who now have to pay more on their loans. The investors' loans begin to be deemed as "unsustainable" and banks demand payments return now so that they can recover their cash. This starts the bust. The failing economy causes the fed to lower interest rates, which then leads to people taking loans again, which starts the next boom.
@@wolfensteinabsolutely8715 if China's economic system is capitalism, then so is the ussr's, so destiny using it as an example of failed socialism makes no sense.
The only reason Australia wasn't severely affected in the 2008 GFC was as a result of government intervention. Capitalist countries only recover from busts when free market greed gets bailed out by the average taxpayer.
As a liberal, I recognize the importance of capitalist markets. And foreign exchange markets that tend to have the flexible or variable exchange rate, but in socialist countries, there tends to be a higher likelihood of a fixed exchange rate, which in the short run is great, but in the long run is not so good
State ownership, especially under an authoritarian government, is not socialism. Never was, never will be - it doesn't meet the definition. You can mock me for saying that socialism has never been tried, but that's not an argument, that's just a thing people say because they don't really know what they're talking about. The soviet union even acknowledged that it wasn't a socialist economy - it was centrally planned with the goal of establishing socialism and eventually communism. There are many forms of socialism which haven't been tried on a wide scale - market socialism, democratic socialism, largely because whenever movements have existed to bring such systems about, they have been crushed by american power, such as in indonesia or chile. That said, global warming, pollution, economic stagnation produced by inequality, none of these things offset the gains made by decentralisation under social market democracies. You can argue that liberal capitalism is better than a state-planned economy and you'd be right - but that doesn't invalidate socialism, because you're not comparing capitalism with socialism by any reasonable definition of what socialism is.
The Soviet Union was socialist and their literature contradicts your conspiracy theory otherwise. Authoritarianism is the philosophical approach Karl Marx suggested for his form of socialist political economy. He designed a totalitarian alternative to liberal democracy which was comprised of a central committee of the proletariat and worker's councils. This became the style of government which "authoritarian" became known to describe. Authoritarianism is required for socialist political economy because "collective control of the means of production" is a foolish idea and a hoax to empower government in excess of human rights since most socialists were too poorly informed to realize government will handle collective affairs and collective is a single interest (autocracy) rather than the plurality of individuals basal to capitalism.
There is nothing socialism couldn't do that isn't already done in a capitalist country. Gov doesn't change. It's the economy that changes. Merely how the means of production is owned. Destiny doesn't even understand what socialism is. He shouldn't talk about it.
This is ignorance. Political economy is one thing. Political Science and Economics are 2 studies of one thing, no differently than anatomy and physiology may study one body. One thing a socialist nation may never do is end dictatorship. If government officials are elected, there's no way to be socialist anymore. Marx knew this and as the only noteworthy philosopher of socialism, fought against the social democracy which emerged during his career.
@@Simboiss Sounds like bullshit, fella. Marxist communism is the most prolific socialist political economic system and this is based upon brutal centralized state dictatorship with no democracy. Marxist politburo is a state institution with zero democratic input from workers, whatsoever. A central committee and state apparatus was intended to run the nation. Since this accounts for Russia and USSR, China, Vietnam and DPRK, Congo, Cambodia, Cuba and Chile among others, your case is impossible. Marx writes: "the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority. They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc." - Address by the Central Committee to the Communist League, Marx. Government is the only appropriate place for which government may mandate democracy. The workplace and labor democracy featured in the marxist tradition, above, and in 3rd Reich and Venezuela is dictatorship of government in lieu of autonomy - freedom - of the public, which abrogates economic rights in UNCHR and conventions of human rights predating marxism (USBoR, Locke, Hobbes, Socrates). Incompetent use of democracy like socialists propose, amounts to dictatorship and we have the receipts from you tyrants to prove it's your go-to mechanics. There's no way for socialists to allow democratic government or the socialists will be voted away immediately and replaced by capitalist legal protections and social democratic, anti-socialist politicians like the conservatives which dominated northern European politics since 1917's socialist option.
The boom and bust cycles aren't inherent to a capitalist, free market economy. They are an effect of our current monetary system based on central banks manipulating the economy.
@@gustavo042wall street and banks were taken care of like babies, pal. Always angry at people wanting a safety net, never noticing how the big players already have one.
That is hilariously simplistic and completely glosses over what happened in the USSR and doesn’t account for other countries that are still around and are still under socialist regimes.
in socialism there are no houses to lose. Plus how much of a loser you gotta be to lose your house in the US. I became a homeowner in my 20s and I didn't do it earlier because I hadn't become a citizen yet.
@@andresrojas7924 I went homeless once when I was six because my mom was late on rent by 2 days (on the house we were renting), but had made enough money to pay it off, but our landlord wanted us out because he wanted to raise rent but our lease didn't allow that. So he wouldn't accept the payment, went to court and got the worst judge in the state, he ruled in favor of our landlord and we were kicked into the streets. It took my mom 2.5 years to save up for a crumby apartment. Also personal property in the form of consumer goods exists in socialism (e.g. houses, toothbrushes, cars, clothes, chairs, couches, etc.) Remember socialism is the stage of transfer between a capitalist and communist economy. Also none of my parents got a college degree mostly because my dad never finished highschool and my mom never had to free time to do college or the support. My dad was abusive to my mom and my brothers they got divorced before I was born. After they tried to rekindle but it didn't work out. I've seen my dad slam my mom against a wall, calling someone a loser for going homeless by assuming their circumstances is childish and disrespectful. I'm under 17 and even I know calling someone a loser for going homeless is disrespectful. It seems you don't know what respect is. Also I live in a state with one of the most overpriced housing markets in the country. Again calling someone a loser for going homeless without knowing their situation and circumstances is disrespectful and stupid.
@@andresrojas7924 Parents?? Bro my Dad left before I was born and only came back after to try to rekindle the family, which my dad was abusive, (I literally saw him slam my mom against a fcking wall when I was fcking 6) he failed at rekindling the family and left again. Also my mom did have the money to pay rent, it was just that my landlord wouldn't accept it, so we sued him, and the dumb judge who is the least liked and lowest rated judge in the state! Ruled in that landlord's favor. I live in a shitty apartment now, but that is because my mom worked her ass off for 2 years to get this shitty apartment. We also live in a state with one of the highest overpriced housing markets in the country. So hell fcking nah I'm not blaming my Mom for things she couldn't control. Where tf does your logic come from? You clearly need to blame your parents for your complete Idiocracy and BS logic.
@@tristinjudd2595 Yeah pretty much. Just like how the ideas of the enlightenment Europe where crushed when Napoleon had lost. Never the less though these ideas resurfaced decades prior. The USSR the entire world against them from the start. So yeah it makes sense
The thing about socialism is that it must sound very nice to the average lower or middle class person but put into practice the flaws are glaring. I mean no political ideology is perfect I guess
This is 100% false. It wasn’t until the government stuck its nose into the economy in which we’ve seen these great recessions and depressions. Recessions always fixed themselves in 2 or less years
@@fate8007 unless they have government involvement of course. The people who make money don’t like when the economy is in the toilet. They like when it’s going well
@@ryanweidman6338 after a little bit of research it seems to me I was caused by a tight Money supply (which was caused by the government) after they got off silver in favor of gold. This collapsed the silver mines and then it seems a domino effect happened. Obviously I would have to do more research into the topic
While I do agree with you that this is a feature not a bug of capitalism when this happens it utterly destroys people's lives. But this is a system working exactly as it should be. and a lot of times when this happens a large amount of wealth generally moves from the poor to the rich. In this country we don't have trickle-down economics we have trickle-up economics and that's in the best of times
Are all capitalist economies equally good at responding to such crises - or is it only the wealthy developed ones - because I'm going to guess the latter.
They were never given a chance to work due to the insane amounts of prejudice and oppositional forces set in place by capitalistic society. When we have a society based on care and not who can gain as much as possible financially, the rich become obsolete. I’m not saying that there haven’t been many bad men who have taken advantage of this and used military force, torture and other unspeakable tactics against the people. But if people were to learn that we didn’t come in to this universe, we came out of it and that everything we do is an expression of who we are, and that we are just the universe experiencing itself subjectively. We aren’t humans having a spiritual experience, we are the one great spirit have every human experience individually and collectively.
I get the dude is just an influencer but this is the most braindead take I've ever heard. The fact (as in, actual fact, not a meaningless opinion couched by rhetoric) is that when a crisis happens, such as a war for example, countries tend to respond by centralizing management and resources; essentially performing central planning. For example, in WW2, every single country, regardless of political leaning was forced to centrally plan their economies to survive and win the war. Capitalist Britain instituted rationing to better allocate resources for the war effort. According to the logic here, the market should have figured that out (hint: It couldn't).
The USSR didn't collapse due to an economic crisis though, the collapse of the USSR was political in nature. If you want to talk about Soviet economic crises then you don't have to look far, there were plenty of crises to go around in the early years but the USSR survived them and went on to develop the world's second largest economy at the time. The continued existence of the Chinese and North Korean regimes despite events like the Great Leap Forward and the Ardeous March speak for themselves. I'm not a fan of Soviet style communism but facts are facts.
No, the economic situation is very much relevant. The soviet economy had been stagnating sense the late 1970s and the fact that the soviets had declining male life expectancy is a testament to this stagnation. As such soviet leaders were scrambling to try and fix the problem. Unfortunately they did a little to much a little to fast and the whole structure just sort-of exploded.
Dude, Marx’s central problem with capitalism is that these crises are recurring frequently in way where societies don’t recover well in between. It’s the accumulation of inequalities made worse by these crises that damages social stability and well-being. The next step would be asking why crises happen so often in capitalism compared to any previous system; and what that has to do with production and consumption levels, wages, classes, etc.
… you’ve read that? On Wikipedia. First of all, there are no socialist countries. You can’t have an island of socialism in a sea of capitalism and you can’t have an island of capitalism in a sea of socialism. It just doesn’t work that way. It’s like saying you’re “kinda pregnant”. But countries with more social programs and a government more focused on the wellbeing of the population rather than just the needs of the wealthy, like Vietnam, handled covid a lot more effectively than the United States did.
The ussr benefitted from the great depression and was rarely affected at all by global economic recessions. The reason the ussr doesn't exist anymore is completely unrelated to its economy but more so internal opportunism and external pressure.
What do you mean unrelated to economy? The Soviet Union was economically fucked in the 80s and 90s, completely on its knees. If the Soviet Union was economically strong it wouldn't have collapsed
@@drened8502 there was stagnation but that was hardly the cause of the collapse. This is usually touted by western commentators to talk about how "horrible and horrific" life was. The collapse of the ussr was largely due to growing internal nationalist divisions brought on by opportunism which had been growing since the the destalinization process which grew to cause the secessions. The economy was at play but compared to everything else its role was very insiginificant, even if the economy was booming the USSR would still likely be unable to cope with these divisions and opportunist trends.
@@anasain6590 USSR did not end due to any political conflict or opportunism. It ended in a referendum of those suffering under the authoritarian government they maintained. Russians and almost all member state populations wanted the stupid ideas to end so they could operate like a normal country.
I hate when I want to disagree with a video and the comments are an endless gallery of every possible disagreement, and my contribution is now redundant.
This argument is nonsensical. Capitalism is superior because it reaponds better to the negative effects of the business crisis... That a planned economy avoids in the first place. Let me put it like this: would you rather have a car that when crashes easily recovers and saves the user with idk, advanced safety cushions or a car that doesn't crash ever in the first place?
But boom and bust isn’t even a feature according to Austrian economics. It’s not that there is always a boom after a bust, but the bust is caused by the boom in the first place. Less government injection of future money through debt makes the booms bigger this making the busts bigger as well. Theoretically the more free a market the smoother the growth line as oppose to it being a boom-bust shape
Dude he's wrong AND unqualified, so why can't I debunk him? Capitalist countries aren't better at responding to crises. Countries with resources and infrastructure are. Poor capitalist countries get fucked by famines and weather just as bad as non-capitalist ones. And communist countries are technically more capable of recovering from crises quicker, since their goal is distribute resources to those that need them. The USSR actually did a better job at recovering from the famous massive drought right after they were established than neighboring capitalist countries despite having basically no resources after getting destroyed in the world War. What destiny is saying is a brain dead take. The only crises a capitalist country would be better able to solve would be crises caused by capitalism.
Soviet Union and Maos China both had massive famines that were far worse than that of the US Great Depression. Ahhh but socialism sure can be made to look good when it’s not in practice and it’s being compared to capitalism that is in practice
@@cl5619 Thing is, current society focuses on the failures of socialism and the successes of capitalism. This is not a way to compare ideologies. Capitalism fails every 10 years due to recessions. As I've said, it makes millions homeless, (something that wasn't a thing in socialist countries) as well as kills many thousands. On top of that, we're living in a time where we have 1.3 times the amount of food needed to feed the whole entire world. But since it isn't profitable to give everyone food, I guess they have to starve. Per year, capitalism allows 10-15 MILLION PREVENTABLE DEATHS. If this is not a global failure of capitalism, then I do not know what to tell you.
@@Dummigame What is this “10-15 million preventable deaths” number? And where are these starving people? In the US, the poor tend to be obese. And why did you not address my citing of the famines in China and USSR? If you are going to say that socialism makes food security air tight, then tell me why it totally didn’t in its two most ambitious implementations.
@@cl5619he could point out that both of these countries were incredibly poor and ill developed before they became socialist and the new economic system didn’t have time to adjust.
Capitalism is never the cause, was never the cause, and can never cause economic depressions. All depressions are caused by government interference in the economy. Capitalism is a social system based on individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. In application, in action it means a complete separation of state and economics. The government is completely hands off the economy. Thus, there are no capitalist countries. The only time there was a country that came close to that and by measuring that proximity we see the results of good, and human flourishing (capitalism is the only moral social system geared to the life of a human being) that we can see it was the departure of capitalism that is the detriment to the economy-which means in personal terms the destruction of human life. If a country regulates its economy it’s not a capitalist country or economy. All there are are mixed economies.
Can't really compare shit like the USSR to genuine socialism since like everything human greed fucks shit up. Same reason why capitalism isn't necessarily a bad thing it's just that greed sends the system spiraling down to a point where shit becomes unfair. Hell the simple concept of a billionaire should not even exist, that is excess beyond excess.
Ya a lot of people think it's crazy when they find out the entire flow of money in the USA is quasai-privitized. Even our reserve of cash and banking system. The "federal reserve" still acts very independently and they are NOT the government from a constitutional perspective. And seeing the US Dollar is the reserve currency for the world, this means the world's currency is currently privatized, which is most likely why we haven't seen total economic disaster in most of the world even though that was very common all throughout history.
Capitalism is better because said crises aren't as catastrophical as the crises brought by socialism. Man do you socialists have a single functioning braincell?
Socialism usually just defaults to "we arent ethno nationalists but we are" with extra steps. Capitalism actually have Unions where socialist nations bans them. People forget Unions also hate each other and compete against each other.
I feel like it wouldn't take a history degree to understand that the USSR was not ended because of a "sudden economic crash." It's economic growth was stagnating due to corruption and institutional issues that Gorbachev tried to reform. And it's main collapse was due to ethnic tension spurred independence declarations after a failed coup.
@@unholydiver1095It no longer exists yes, but socialism isn’t the reason why it no longer exist. You could write a book on the factors that brought down the USSR. But even if we pretend it was socialism at fault, that would mean the dozens of capitalist countries and regimes that have collapsed throughout history have collapsed due to capitalism right?
@@soulcapitalist6204 No actually, the vast majority of the USSR as a whole didn’t want the country to break apart. It was undemocratically dissolved and in Russia specifically, capitalism was a nightmare for people. Just look up what life expectancy was in the 90s. Before it fell, the soviets had the 2nd largest economy on earth. If socialism was the reason for the fall then why’d it take 100 years for it to happen? Were there problems with the economy at the time? Yes of course. But to say socialism is the reason for its end is disingenuous
@@prestigev6131 Get the history straight. A directly democratic referendum required capitalist individual rights in order for the union to stay together and this proves socialism was at issue. Secondly, this was democratically rescinded due to socialist hardliners attempting to return the country to a socialist human rights regime. The socialist bollocks lasted 70 years, not 100. It lasted due to the authoritarian, totalitarian, autocratic, socialist politburo political institution which operated without public mandate, whatsoever. Socialism was attempted and failed. During the entire time, in all nations subscribed, socialism was the reason why all citizens suffered abrogation of their human rights - a flaw and untenable failure of polity of itself.
To all tankies, socialist, or communists in the comments, communism/socialism has yet to work anywere historically. Any European countries with your policies refuses the label and uses capitalism. Also i have yet to see or hear of a single person willing to die just to escape capitalism meanwhile Florida has a huge cuban population just from refugees. To anyone about to leave an angry message, please actually site a location or year instead of "its well know dude"
I don't think the U.S. was very good at responding to the covid pandemic crisis in the wake of it. A goofy tiny example was the toilet paper shortage, citizens wanted to be resellers, bought and sold toilet paper at a egregious price, trying to make money rather than helping each other.
These comments are insane. Capitalist countries are more robust as they act as a very decentralized system. What is desired by the people is created whether by voting with a ballot or with the dollar. If people are less interested in purchasing multiple vehicles or are unable to do so, gas prices, car prices, and car markets will adjust accordingly. In a top down collectivist system, the robust cushion provided by the population as a whole is unavoided. If suddenly people decide to no longer wait in line for cars, the government has no indication/slow indication of that, so car manufacture will be maintained. Since people still require employment, as it is state mandated, people will be paid for doing nothing, or paid for making things no one will use, leading to huge government asset waste. Socialism is inherent austere, and cannot adjust for crises
If only the free market and the invisible hand actually worked... You can plainly see people are not being able to buy food and the prices just don't drop out of a sudden so people can buy them. There's no competition because of monopolies (many timed being a single umbrella company posessing hundreds of brands, like Nestle, Unilever, Coca cola etc), so there's no way to "vote with your wallet", because you'll just be voting for the same company but with glasses and a fake mustashe. And sorry to say, but your actual 100% democracy TM vote for presidents don't matter much either. What we have today is the umtra rich (the bourgieoisie) in power, fiddling with the decisions behind the curtain (and sometimes not even trying to hide it)
The americans caused the ussr the collapsed. It was still highly voted to keep the ussr culture and environment, but of course the US is the US, and they always "win," all in the means of competition.
@@MUZUKUN-YT USSR was collapsed democratically by Russians and citizens of other member states. Communism was a stupid idea and they just wanted to be normal and have liberal democracy.
@@MUZUKUN-YT You forgot that the vote was specifically for the public to get the economic rights USSR abrogated them for the first 70 years. As soon as the USSR hardcore made their putsch attempt, the entire country voted out communism. USSR was ended by the civilians they tortured for generations.
Yeah, in 2008 when the last financial crysis occured, the government had to help the private area so they won't collapse and you say capitalism (which is exclusively privatization) can handle a crysis. And of course, those money came from the people that work so basically each crysis proved that socialism helped capitalism
Thats because there is no good example of a socialist regime. Even the nordic countries are still capitalist, they just have socialist policies aswell.
@@lifeonhigh851 did you not read the comment? America desperately tried to eliminate every socialist nation for over 50 years because it gives power to the people and threatens the profits and power of capitalist pigs who rely on exploited labor and imperial domination of foreign industry. Without America and western capitalists constantly trying to take out communism it would flourish.
“Capitalist countries are better at responding to catastrophes than Socialist ones” was this man in coma during Covid? Or Katrina. Or any catastrophe of the last 20 years.
You can’t blame a wide spreading pandemic and a natural disaster on capitalism, china handled Covid way worse. Chernobyl is one incident that happened under socialism due to human error
@@CalebMaupintime Modern China is capitalistic. You can freely open businesses there. They have even higher wealth inequality than the US, and are on track to have more billionaires. They have a silicon valley. They just so happen to have an authoritarian gov. South Korea, Japan, China are all capitalistic and respond well to crisis only because Asians like to follow laws.
They printed and gave me $800 a week in UE when I was only making $500 a week at my job... The government's _Socialist_ response destroyed the economy and countless small businesses.
Oh, my god. The comments are atrocious. Literally everyone complaining about capitalism doesn't even know what capitalism is. There's no country in the world that has a complete free market economy. And the fact that everyone here complains about bail outs when those aren't capitalism is the biggest proof of that.
Yeah you're literally the first positive comment I've seen. I'm guessing this short is getting traction because it's controversial among left leaning people
@@e-man7418 it wasn't that controversial in the 90's although not universally embraced either. It's like nobody remotely left remembers Bill Clinton saying "it's the economy, st*pid".
@@AkiraFelix-k2l Yeah, there’s just waves of people that think anything capitalist and/or American is just bad. Or they wanna daydream their ideal socialist world with no idea how it would actually work in practice. Just leftist things I guess…..
@OLG this is some clown times works just fine. Keep up the cope. Good job on having no actual input bud. I am saying THIS entire video is some clown times. Just like your comment is clown time. Maybe learn some proper reading comprehension before trying to correct grammar. How about stick to adventure time vids? This is not your lane.
The airline industry is one of the most safest and simultaneously regulated industry in America. It’s one of the most steady private sector. The airlines only ever get effected when people physically can not fly, ie COVID
@@jaybrown8807 honestly bud sounds like you're still scared of it😂😂 enjoy being exploited youre entire life by people who only view you as a money machine.
@@migchoi2136 well maybe the reason we feared it in the west was because we saw how unhappy the people were. We didn't want gulags and starvation over here as well.
The problem with most of the arguments is that they blame capitalism for things not of its fault. Imperialism and Slavery is just normal human condition, it’s the base line that existed long before capitalism. Capitalism did not invent them per se. It’s another question on whether it will eventually devolves into it by design or left unchecked for too long, or it simply makes the evil more efficient.
Well it depends, by socialist nowadays that could mean the UK, some Nordic countries etc - not communism. Socialism just means running a country through providing the public with necessities through higher tax mainly. Some socialist countries such as the UK has responded to crises such as covid terribly but that’s solely down to an incompetent government. If you look at other socialist countries such as Sweden and Norway, they handled covid very well in terms of economy, thus making this point destiny makes as not the truth. I would say crises management is really just whether the incumbent government is competent or not.
@@masanity2k i lived in a socialist country (yugoslavia) , life couldnt get any better there, i saw only one homeless person there, and everyone had a house, money, job Capitalism steals money from people and it has been proven
@@Wotah6That’s just anecdotal evidence, and the quality of basic necessities all across the USSR was extremely poor, from housing, to healthcare, to food.
@@Wotah6 Socialism is when the means of production/distribution of goods and services are controlled by the government/public, and communism is when sharing and stuff
Capitalism does not encourage innovation. It encourages profitability. How come the clothes you're wearing wear out in only a couple years? That's weird. Before capitalism clothes used to be constructed to last a long time. Huh. How come we're still using gas powered cars even though electric cars are better for the environment and we've known about them for a hundred years? How come more solar panels aren't developed? Not very innovative.
@@muzzle_4717 Yeah thats why the USSR was the first to send a man into space... Also the reason why the USSR is the first to send satelites in space...
@@paul.g5828The USSR was the first to Send a satellite into space The first to send earth bacteria into space The first to send a mammal into space The first to send a man to space And the first to send a woman into space.
It's also super convienent that every cycle ends with the rich even richer, the poor even poorer, and more of the middle class falling into poverty. Super awesome feature.
As an Portuguese Im feeling the consequences of socialism in our life's, most ppl still oblivious, but there's no denial my country is at edge of falling of an cliff
@@perfectlyfine1675 In 50 years governed 2/3 by socialists some of those times in colligation with communist party and extreme left, social democrats are still very socialist even the creator and many inside of the party recognize it as center left just slightly to the right of the socialists. Right in my country gets easily associated with extreme right from the media, gets associated with our previous dictator that was an ultra nacionalist.
I I'm very republican but he seems to align more with old democrat. He has a lot of good points. I disagree with a lot of others and think some points are very good. It's weird but it's a good weird.
Pros and cons, pros and cons...
Full video: th-cam.com/video/JcA5szcnESY/w-d-xo.html
Join our Discord! 😳
discord.gg/bbyZ8KFcHw
📧 DM/Email for VIDEO EDITING jobs/gigs 📧
th-cam.com/users/BrainRotPoliticsabout
Empires end regardless of capitalist or socialist. US isn't the same empire it once was. UK is capitalist and its empire is gone. Russia hasn't gone, its empire has.
It's worth noting that even though we are a capitalist country we have large common socialist tendencies. (Firefighters)
The problem here is that the 1) the USSR wasn't socialist, it was communist, and for its duration saw the largest wealth gap of any developed country.
2) Extant socialist countries tend to recover faster than the US, because they have mechanisms in place to stabilize their economies to prevent booms and busts. Look at any country typically cohorted as socialist; Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, Greenland, Japan; their economies may not grow as rapidly as the US (once we account for population and GDP differential) but they also don't shrink as much either.
3) Booms and Busts actually hurt the majority of people in a capitalist economy, while helping a handful who are already rich. I'd argue that our country, today, resembles nothing at all to what it was in the 1960s when we had the tightest wealth gap in US history, and the highest median wage in US history.
Our country is still "here" but it is not the same country economically speaking. We're closer now to where we were during the Great Depression, than we were in the 1960s economically speaking. Whereas the aforementioned countries above, minus Germany and Japan, have more or less remained steady in their economy in the same timespan.
Tell us what’s happened to real wages since the 70s
@@atom5341 Ffs, a firefighter is not socialist.
Capitalism sure responded to the crisis of covid real well.
Soviets didn’t respond well either..or at all lol
I remember when all the surviving (and definitely not failed)socialist countries handled covid wonderfully
@@angrychickenyt I find it so ironic how this person is slam dunking on capitalism while using consumerist technology.
@@epeasy9148 vuvuzela iphone plz go home. nobody needs to debunk you. Workers make that product, not capitalism.
@@epeasy9148 Its so ironic that you're slam dunking on socialism while you have the time to do so thanks to socialists fighting for the Fair Labor Standards Act.
You could fill a library with the names of capitalist countries that were destroyed by capitalism
Destroyed by Communism and blamed on Capitalism.
that’s true depending on how you define capitalism, however i don’t see why socialist countries would do any better
@@lifesucks5322 1. No it doesn't
2. They do, objectively
@@afgor1088 today there exist no socialist countries at least not by my definition
@@afgor1088 additional could you name some of those countries so i know where we stand (do you mean as far back as like the romans or something later than that)
Yeah he's in right, a crises happens, millions of people lose their jobs, their incomes plummet and the economy recovers until it fails again. It's not a bug it's a feature folks
that good when its in west countries
Isn't the feature the economy getting back to a stable state even with the crisis? I mean when China was socialist it had a flood that completely fucked up the country. Since then they have become capitalist and with even worse floods, the effects are way less devastating.
He's wrong, but not entirely wrong.
The reason why we have "booms and busts" cycles is because we have a credit-based economy (heck, even China and other socialist countries have boom and bust cycles).
"Why not get rid of credit?" you may ask, well, my friend, it's because without credit, the only way to get more and more money is to become more productive, meaning working LONGER hours.
When you purchase money using a credit card, you basically get the purchased item for free, but you also create debt, of which you have to pay at a certain time.
Credit is really good if you buy something productive, like a tractor to help you farm, because then you get MORE money than when you bought the tractor before. Credit is bad when you buy something like a TV because it doesn't earn you income. But people are people, so they usually go the second option and buy useless stuff, which means that they accumulate debt and have no way to repay that debt, meaning that people will borrow less and less money so that they can be more productive and work more to raise their income.
That's not all, the economy is A LOT more complex than that (it's mostly all human behaviour and psychology), but that's the gist of why we have boom and bust cycles.
What a wonderful feature, people get thrown out on the street, go hungry, get divorced, small businesses die, debt swells, all the while elites lounge around in their mansions. Don't worry, it'll get better! It won't happen again for another 4-7 years until the next financial crisis!
And when socialism plummets it just stays there 😃
“I consider our cycle of abuse as only strengthening our relationship. Sure, he beats me to within an inch of my life, but then he’s in the hospital with me as I recover so sweet
😂😂
Better luck paying your health care bill
Where's the socialist countries again?
@@e-man7418Well when literally every capitalist country is actively trying to find ways of destroying your country because of a difference of ideology; I’m sorry but it will take a few times to get it right. Not everything the Soviet Union did was correct and I will admit that it eventually did became authoritarian however you HAVE to admit that what it accomplished with the small amount of time it had is nothing short of amazing. ww1, ww2, civil war, political and economic crises did not stop socialism with competing with the most powerful country on the earth, America.
@@TeddyHood
I will admit the Soviet Union did a lot, but not cause was socialist/communist. It was because of industrialization.
Also, like you said, it fell apart and became authoritarian. Why would we take that gamble with America? We can barely deal with the authoritarian running for office
Capitalist countries also don't have a superpower trying to undemocratically dissolve them
Exactly
the soviet union existed you know
@@uchennanwogu2142Shhhh inconvenient to the narrative...also don't point out that communist China has the raw manpower to just...decimate every capitalist country on earth by 5pm tomorrow...
@@uchennanwogu2142 he knows, that's what he's talking about, that's exactly what he's talking about
@@naimtebbakh4253 no, the soviet union set up capitalist nations with their secret services too
But the reason countries survive busts isn't because the free market regulates itself. It's because in those times the government intervenes with subsidies. The housing bubble was fixed by massive government checks.
No it really is necause the free market coreects and adjusts itself... the reasons socialist countries go under is because there is no free msrket no free monwy flow in the economy the government basically controlls and regulates everything
Its just like people who are dinb enough to want "means of production" taken away from companies and given to workers...aounds like a good idea but never works and woukd neber work because #1 you would need the government to intervene to forcibly take away means of production from the compnaies #2once government has taken means of productions from thr companies why in gods name would they give it too the people once they have it because with it they control and regulate ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING and can starve you too death if you get out of line they literally control it all
The housing crisis was caused by government guaranteeing the losses of risky business decisions. They would never have made so many sub-prime loans if they were playing the game with their own money/debt.
@@ryaugn Nah that’s cap. Government’s have to federally back large banks, or our funds wouldn’t be stable and the entire system would crash.
The crisis was caused by free market decisions. The bail out was the government footing the bill and forgiving those risky decisions.
There’s a balance to everything. Capitalism works best when neither the free market is properly supported by it’s government, not controlling it’s government
@@ryaugn The housing crisis was caused by big banks caring about nothing else but making profit. Even if that meant peddling stuff with negative worth to people who didn't know better. The government had to pick up the pieces that capitalism left behind.
Capitalism explicitly refuses to respond to most crises, because solving those crises is not profitable (nevermind how it's necessary to solve them for the average person to be able to live). The boom and bust cycle of capitalism is not a feature, it's a permanent drawback that consistently damages the poorest in a country, who have the least ability to sustain damages.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
True
Imagine thinking a crisis like the housing crisis is good for the country lol. What happens to housing in this case? Prices go through the roof. Imagine running a military this way. Your soldiers desperately have needs like ammo, food and medical supplies. People are desperate? Then charge as much as you want. The end result would be an absolute failure. This is why capitalism is not applied to the things that matter to the system the most. It's funny how these capitalist countries reverted to top down central planning in both world wars. The War Production Board proved a centrally planned economy can work. In fact all economies are centrally planned. Ours is planned by Vanguard/Black rock to benefit themselves at the peoples expense.
right, people are stupid for touting american capitalism as an end all be all, and that there are no other options in their eyes. it’s refreshing to see that people aren’t afraid to stand up to capitalism and it’s unjustness
@@vashlash6870Stop making sense please this is the internet full of mindless drones.
“The economy booms again!” My family has still not fully recovered from the 2008 crash, I have been a permanent renter ever since.
Maybe the worst take in a very long time. That was crazy.
how is laos, cuba, and vietnam doing?
Uh... Watch your back. I am waiting for the opportunity. I am waiting for Nazi prey.
@@ChristopherGray00none of them as bad as most capitalist nations
No because seriously. This is by far the stupidest thing he has ever said. I can tell history isn't his Forte
@@ChristopherGray00I don‘t know about Cuba but Vietnam is doing pretty good actually. After repelling the western imperialism, and they were finally able to live their lives through self determination, life expectancy, literacy rates and daily nutritional intake have all increased on average and are now equal, or even higher, than in western countries
And how many people are immiserated and economically destroyed by these cycles ? A good system wouldn't have that 'feature' to begin with.
Exactly
And how many people are uplifted by the booms?
@@mohammadwaled409 a lot of people, then after a few years or decades later it's all gone.
Yeah fr. Also the crises he's talking about are often caused by capitalism in the first place.
"We solved the housing crisis we caused, guys!"
@@davidtaylor142 yah and socialism leads to bread lines and dictators
It's kinda like he's advocating for a toxic relationship
It's like advocating for a toxic relationship that works*
Capitalism brought the western democracies where they are now. Rich and wealthy.
@@Diepvries11 true
@@Diepvries11 Who is rich? Who? We aren't.
@@VVVVV99611 are you as poor as a poor person 100 years ago? 200 years ago? You might not be “rich” right now but we live in a time where the opportunity is there and it’s very real, and the majority of people with the right decisions could easily lead more comfortable lives then kings of 1000s of years ago.
"I consider that a feature instead of a negative" bro is on crack. "I consider the emotional highs and lows that my bipolar disorder gives me a feature". Actual insanity
capitalism has highs and lows but socialism is a constant low.
@@andresrojas7924 Yeah sure, that’s why America does all it can to undermine it.
@@callumreilly9107 The Soviet Union did all it could to undermine capitalism as well. Your point?
Name one country that has reached prosperity without a free market economy. Didn't think so.
@@andresrojas7924 The Soviet Union dissolved 30 years ago, but keep beating that dead horse.
Also, considering that a true “free market” is completely unrestricted, a country that has any level of market regulation doesn’t qualify. I’ve heard America is a bit of an economic powerhouse, though the standard of living is relatively low.
@callumreilly9107
I'm not sure what you consider free market.
Of course markets are restricted by taxes, regulations, etc, but they are still free markets. That's like saying that a homeowner is not technically a homeowner because he pays property taxes or that a private school isn't really private because it follows laws and regulations.
You do know that in socialism the government sets the prices right? LOL
Some mericans are so ignorant. Your ruling class made a country in which anyone could live comfortably without even trying (I became a homeowner at 25 and didn't buy earlier because I didn't have my papers yet) and you complain all day long.
It's like saying: " Listen, for a time in my life i become poor, depressed, suicidal i hated my life and i snorted lot's of cocaine but then i became rich and happy and the cycle continuous."
I wouldn't call that a stable life and i would try taking you to a therapist.
so you've never had a time in your life where you were rock bottom? are you like 15?
@@ChristopherGray00 If you keep hiting rock bottom over and over again i strongly advise you to seek help.
Money isn't for wealth, socialist. Money is just an asset for trade. You cannot make fair trades, because you don't understand consent.
@@dmitarobradovic2551If you never it rock bottom, it probably means you live at rock bottom.
Well not really, for example Vietnam responded to Covid faster than most other countries and considering their geography forcing them to live in dense cities it’s even more impressive.
Most Asian countries responded quickly because they have a society that prioritizes health. Look at how many old Asians there are compared to other countries/continents
South Korea has one of the best records on covid and they're ultra capitalist. It has more to do with asian culture than their economy.
@@michaeldromes3948 and yet South Korea enacted Socialist measures to fight covid now ain't that ironic? also, no Culture was inherently made to fight diseases or be hygenic.
@@samkhodabakhshzadeh7244 what socialist measures?? And yes, if asian countries tend to for example practice mask wearing, they are inherently in better shape to fight diseases.
How dare You
Why is no one is talking about how capitalism is making the planet slowly unhabitable?
How exactly would socialism fix it? Still got the same amount of people that consume and use the products that are the result of over explotation of nature. Unless you take all that away from them of course.
They think they will survive it since they survived centuries of bloodshed and pandemics
Name me one socialist or communist country that prospers 🤡
@@makchot3263China 1990 economy was 300bi a year now is 17 trillion a year, Russia was a feudal country in 60 years was the second largest economy and was on the edge of space technology.
do a little bit of Research you'll see that more often than not the cia is behind the so called failures of former socialist projects, no socialist country had 300 years of uninterrupted development like the US, and yet in the short time those countries existed they proved that with similar economic development a country with a socialist way of organizing provides better quality of life @@makchot3263
The downfall of the Soviet Union was due to a multitude of reasons such as CIA infiltration of Soviet leadership, poor leadership, and never getting a chance to really develop. The Union existed for so much shorter than the States but managed to get to around the same economic level. The regions of the Union were a feudal BACKWATER before the Revolution and the Union elevated them to a much higher level. But they only got around 25 years to actually focus on development because the USA began a Cold War with them. Keep in mind the Union's losses during WW2 and how much they had to rebuild. The end of the Union wasn't so much a crisis as what it had gone through during and following WW2, it was simply because Russian politicians wanted to go capitalist. Gorbachev's administration is infamous for having been one of the largest factors, as it led to popular discontent and many other issues once he began to enact reforms. By the end, the Union was planning to become some sort of "rump state" whereby massive reforms would occur under a new Union. A referendum was held that should have won the New Union, but, exemplifying discontent from all sides, communist hardliners attempt a coup right before the Union was intended to be placed in. The vote was voided and the Union was dissolved. There's a much, much, deeper level to this topic, but this is all I can explain in a TH-cam comment.
This is what happens when you think that the USA is the only country in the world
Explain North Korea and Cuba and the Berlin Wall and the fact that China's economy improved under Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms
@@BipolarBear-tc5oe I'm pro-markets. I don't think command economies could work better in this system because of the economic calculation problem. However, North Korea and Cuba are under sanctions, so obviously they aren't going to do well. That sucks a lot because we could've seen North Korea vs South Korea and seen which economic policies were better. I'm not educated on the Berlin Wall, but were there significant differences besides the socialism and capitalism that could've affected economic development?
@@anon6799 South Korea, West Berlin, and West Germany were also under sanctions, yet they outperformed their communist counterparts.
Tell all the people who lost their homes and jobs in 2008 and then had to bail out the banks and auto industry that the boom-bust cycle is a feature not a bug
Sadly banks gave loans to people who were wildly unqualified cause the government coerced them by giving incentives to promote muh equality n shiet. Ironically the attempt to move towards given every American a hope was one of the bigger problems causing the collapse.
it's like how in Venezuela Chavez expropriated banks because they didn't lend people money.
Well shortly after those banks were broke because the unqualified borrowers didn't pay lol
These people are doing much better 10 years later. How about those who endured the Holdomor? How’d they fare?
@@adg9042Bullshit, false comparison and proof you’re willing to kill anyone to perpetuate your capitalism. Countless of those in the housing crisis died. Where do you think they went when they had no homes? Atlantis?!
@@adg9042”those people are doing much better 10 years later”
lmao
When it comes to his "Where is the USSR" example, he's leaving out foreign interference.
if your system couldnt handle `foreign interference` then maybe it was weak to begin with ? just a thought after all.
They were a massive world power for decades, large enough that they should have been able to sustain their own economy. But the control model doesn’t work because the system is too complex to manage even with modern technology.
@@GottaGoBoom They were literally going against most of the developed world, if they survived it wouldn't have been because they were too strong but because their opposition was too weak, and the opposition wasn't weak
@@GottaGoBoomso capitalism must be week because dozens of capitalist countries fell in part because they couldn’t handle foreign interference
@@B4az17 Bro I was literally defending the USSR and communism in that comment
Franklin d Roosevelt: uses socialist policies in response to crisis
This guy: and that’s capitalism
FDR didn't use "socialist policies" you dolt. He was a Keynsian. Different ideology.
@@novinceinhosic3531no such thing as falling rate of profit. You have no idea what you are talking about
@@novinceinhosic3531your definition of “profit” is not the definition usually used. Marxist analysis always “forgets” that part
@@abeljackson3732what’s crazy is Marx understood capitalism better then capitalists to the point he wrote a b😅ok praising it and agreeing it had a place in society but no longer serves a purpose
And socialisr policies can fit and be used within an overall capitalist system. Where's the issue?
Could destiny actually provide an actual example of a crisis ending a socialist country. The Soviet Union didn’t just end because of a crisis and their socialism couldn’t handle it. The whole dissolvement of the USSR was a guided thing that happened because of many reasons including Soviet imperialism. It’s always awful to make an point against socialism using an example of the Soviet Union especially with someone like Richard Wolfe. The dissolution of the Soviet Union didn’t happen because socialism couldn’t handle any crisis. The reasons for the dissolution of the Soviet Union was very multifaceted and has more to do with the geopolitics of the time than the economic system. Destiny is just not informed on the history of it neither am I too knowledgeable on it. His historical knowledge is just way too simple and surface level to bring up on a discussion on socialism with Richard Wolf who is very in favor of a market socialism and likes Yugoslavia, now if destiny used examples of Yugoslavia that would be exactly appropriate for Richard Wolfe.
Actually it had to do much with the economics, the USSR was exhausted by the arms race thanks to Leonid Brezhnev, because of this the USSR’s economic system wasn’t making enough and was slowing to a crawl, it was so bad that even Japan overtook the USSR, the economic failure however led Mikhail Gorbachev to make new reforms and eventually led to a crisis which made them disolve, but then again like you said the USSR dissolution wasn’t just 1 factor, it was many.
The reason is not in "bad bad Soviet imperialism!!!11!!", but in the fact CPSU after Comrade Stalin's death was filled with people who had no idea what socialism even is, and later oriented on western market.
@@throwfascistsintopits3062 I disagree, the only person pro western of the market was Gorbachev. But I do agree that Stalin's death was a huge factor to how the USSR was ran.
the end of ussr was because of revisionists and not "soviet imperialism", which is more like anti-capitalist internationalism
the dissolution of the Soviet union was illegal
based on the comments, it just seems that evil people with lots of money and power screw things over for the common folk, no matter the system.
Capitalism is responding to the food crisis in underdeveloped countries really well...
Underdeveloped countries tend to be repressive dictatorships and are not capitalist at all.
@@jackcarraway4707 a dictatorship is a government model. Capitalism is an economic system. Most dictatorships lean towards capitalism because it helps solidify control.
@@jackcarraway4707 Socialism requires industry. These countrys have little to none. How are they not capitalist?
@@a70770 based
Steam creates pressure
Make the steam engine which works by using pressure to rotate
Sell your product
Invent new products
Give your workers just enough money to buy your products, make 100x more than you loose.
Destroy the competition thus creating a monopoly
Bribe government officials with money thus law becomes merely a suggestion
Keep them occupied with breads and circuses.
Poison their water and food to make them weak
Their lives from birth to death will benefit you in some way
Convince them that their only way of success and happiness is by contributing to your leviathan (ideas like a dream job)
Destroy the environment just to make yourself more powerful
Invent "solutions" for the mess you created, profit from those too
Foster hatred between them
Destroy any non-corporate loyalties
They hate each other more than they hate you (This entire comment section)
Win no matter what
Create a system where you profit from production, transportation, consumption and waste elimination
Hold uncontested rule over humanity
Become utterly undefeatable.
It’s so easy for him to say when he has so much money, destiny is a sellout and it’s growing more apparent. The only thing he has is his personality, without that he’d be nothing
Bro reverted to todd howard levels of rhetoric. "It's not a bug, it's a feature'.
This is what it looks like, when someone who has absolutely no idea about economics talks with arrogant confidence like he does. Capitalism boom is dependent on the outsourcing of cheap labor in poor countries. People who live in a first world country believe, that their riches comes from the hard work of their own citizens, which is FACTUALLY not true. The data is open for everyone to research, but sadly most people prefer to hear an economic opinion from a twitch streamer that resonates with them than actually doing the research because they are lazy. Your country is rich, because they have cheap suppliers of the core economy (expensive ores, oil and energy, aluminium etc.), who are stationed in third world countries, making "Jamal" work in the mines for 1 dollar a day, so you can buy the next iPhone for more money than Jamal will make in 2 years.
lol the US has had like 7 or 8 mega booms and busts in the last 200 yrs. Way before any outsourcing. Its you who doesn't know what he's talking about
You couldn't grasp economics with such a bird brain. Boom and bust is not capitalism,it is overallocation. This is a phenomenon of economics and not of capitalism. Examples of overallocation and underallocation in USSR were the bumper crops of tomatoes and the shortages of grain caused by the governmen't attempt to do what markets do far better.
Boom-bust cycles are caused by fractional reserve banking, not capitalism. When banks essentially create money out of thin air via fractional reserve banking, this increases the money supply and allows individuals/corporations to make their investments. The more they do this, the more the price of everything goes up, which is inflation. Then the fed, which is horrible at doing its own job, increases interest rates. When the fed does this, interest rates rise for everyone, including the investors who now have to pay more on their loans. The investors' loans begin to be deemed as "unsustainable" and banks demand payments return now so that they can recover their cash. This starts the bust. The failing economy causes the fed to lower interest rates, which then leads to people taking loans again, which starts the next boom.
destiny says some absolutely dumb stuff. China was literally the least affected country by the great recession.
Yes because they’re economic system is capitalism
@@wolfensteinabsolutely8715 if China's economic system is capitalism, then so is the ussr's, so destiny using it as an example of failed socialism makes no sense.
@@Mark-zk3gu it's state capitalism
@@muzzle_4717 so not capitalism? God you are dumn
Y’all need to shut up and stop complaining 💀
He forgets the part where a bust is usually followed by an increase in homelessness and unemployment
The only reason Australia wasn't severely affected in the 2008 GFC was as a result of government intervention. Capitalist countries only recover from busts when free market greed gets bailed out by the average taxpayer.
As a liberal, I recognize the importance of capitalist markets. And foreign exchange markets that tend to have the flexible or variable exchange rate, but in socialist countries, there tends to be a higher likelihood of a fixed exchange rate, which in the short run is great, but in the long run is not so good
State ownership, especially under an authoritarian government, is not socialism. Never was, never will be - it doesn't meet the definition. You can mock me for saying that socialism has never been tried, but that's not an argument, that's just a thing people say because they don't really know what they're talking about. The soviet union even acknowledged that it wasn't a socialist economy - it was centrally planned with the goal of establishing socialism and eventually communism.
There are many forms of socialism which haven't been tried on a wide scale - market socialism, democratic socialism, largely because whenever movements have existed to bring such systems about, they have been crushed by american power, such as in indonesia or chile.
That said, global warming, pollution, economic stagnation produced by inequality, none of these things offset the gains made by decentralisation under social market democracies.
You can argue that liberal capitalism is better than a state-planned economy and you'd be right - but that doesn't invalidate socialism, because you're not comparing capitalism with socialism by any reasonable definition of what socialism is.
The Soviet Union was socialist and their literature contradicts your conspiracy theory otherwise. Authoritarianism is the philosophical approach Karl Marx suggested for his form of socialist political economy. He designed a totalitarian alternative to liberal democracy which was comprised of a central committee of the proletariat and worker's councils. This became the style of government which "authoritarian" became known to describe.
Authoritarianism is required for socialist political economy because "collective control of the means of production" is a foolish idea and a hoax to empower government in excess of human rights since most socialists were too poorly informed to realize government will handle collective affairs and collective is a single interest (autocracy) rather than the plurality of individuals basal to capitalism.
y
There is nothing socialism couldn't do that isn't already done in a capitalist country. Gov doesn't change. It's the economy that changes. Merely how the means of production is owned. Destiny doesn't even understand what socialism is. He shouldn't talk about it.
Nonsence. Money goes to workers instead rich. Means of production are owned to extract capital from labor for individuals
This is ignorance. Political economy is one thing. Political Science and Economics are 2 studies of one thing, no differently than anatomy and physiology may study one body.
One thing a socialist nation may never do is end dictatorship. If government officials are elected, there's no way to be socialist anymore. Marx knew this and as the only noteworthy philosopher of socialism, fought against the social democracy which emerged during his career.
@@soulcapitalist6204 Socialism comes hand in hand with a strong democracy. It's an absolute necessity.
@@Simboiss Sounds like bullshit, fella. Marxist communism is the most prolific socialist political economic system and this is based upon brutal centralized state dictatorship with no democracy. Marxist politburo is a state institution with zero democratic input from workers, whatsoever. A central committee and state apparatus was intended to run the nation. Since this accounts for Russia and USSR, China, Vietnam and DPRK, Congo, Cambodia, Cuba and Chile among others, your case is impossible. Marx writes:
"the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority. They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc." - Address by the Central Committee to the Communist League, Marx.
Government is the only appropriate place for which government may mandate democracy. The workplace and labor democracy featured in the marxist tradition, above, and in 3rd Reich and Venezuela is dictatorship of government in lieu of autonomy - freedom - of the public, which abrogates economic rights in UNCHR and conventions of human rights predating marxism (USBoR, Locke, Hobbes, Socrates).
Incompetent use of democracy like socialists propose, amounts to dictatorship and we have the receipts from you tyrants to prove it's your go-to mechanics. There's no way for socialists to allow democratic government or the socialists will be voted away immediately and replaced by capitalist legal protections and social democratic, anti-socialist politicians like the conservatives which dominated northern European politics since 1917's socialist option.
@@SimboissStrong democracy: so they would allow opposing parties like a capitalistic party? What if they get elected?
The boom and bust cycles aren't inherent to a capitalist, free market economy. They are an effect of our current monetary system based on central banks manipulating the economy.
Losing your property, losing your house, suddenly being poor is a feature of capitalism?😂
Is your property owned by the state a product a communism
And what do you want? Be taken care of like a baby?
@@gustavo042yes??
@@gustavo042wall street and banks were taken care of like babies, pal. Always angry at people wanting a safety net, never noticing how the big players already have one.
@@gustavo042why not
That is hilariously simplistic and completely glosses over what happened in the USSR and doesn’t account for other countries that are still around and are still under socialist regimes.
The socialist giants like North Korea, Cuba and Vientam(arguably). Awesome places to live in
@@drened8502 What is wrong with Vietnam and Cuba?
@@dmitarobradovic2551 You wouldn't wanna live there
@@drened8502 Yes i would.
@@drened8502 why not?
Aw yes losing my house and going homeless every few years, definitely a "great" feature of capitalism. (edit I am now a Right-Libertarian)
in socialism there are no houses to lose. Plus how much of a loser you gotta be to lose your house in the US. I became a homeowner in my 20s and I didn't do it earlier because I hadn't become a citizen yet.
@@andresrojas7924 I went homeless once when I was six because my mom was late on rent by 2 days (on the house we were renting), but had made enough money to pay it off, but our landlord wanted us out because he wanted to raise rent but our lease didn't allow that. So he wouldn't accept the payment, went to court and got the worst judge in the state, he ruled in favor of our landlord and we were kicked into the streets. It took my mom 2.5 years to save up for a crumby apartment.
Also personal property in the form of consumer goods exists in socialism (e.g. houses, toothbrushes, cars, clothes, chairs, couches, etc.) Remember socialism is the stage of transfer between a capitalist and communist economy.
Also none of my parents got a college degree mostly because my dad never finished highschool and my mom never had to free time to do college or the support. My dad was abusive to my mom and my brothers they got divorced before I was born. After they tried to rekindle but it didn't work out. I've seen my dad slam my mom against a wall, calling someone a loser for going homeless by assuming their circumstances is childish and disrespectful. I'm under 17 and even I know calling someone a loser for going homeless is disrespectful. It seems you don't know what respect is.
Also I live in a state with one of the most overpriced housing markets in the country. Again calling someone a loser for going homeless without knowing their situation and circumstances is disrespectful and stupid.
@@isimperialistSo you clearly need to blame your parents
@@andresrojas7924 Parents?? Bro my Dad left before I was born and only came back after to try to rekindle the family, which my dad was abusive,
(I literally saw him slam my mom against a fcking wall when I was fcking 6) he failed at rekindling the family and left again.
Also my mom did have the money to pay rent, it was just that my landlord wouldn't accept it, so we sued him, and the dumb judge who is the least liked and lowest rated judge in the state! Ruled in that landlord's favor.
I live in a shitty apartment now, but that is because my mom worked her ass off for 2 years to get this shitty apartment. We also live in a state with one of the highest overpriced housing markets in the country.
So hell fcking nah I'm not blaming my Mom for things she couldn't control. Where tf does your logic come from?
You clearly need to blame your parents for your complete Idiocracy and BS logic.
Did the people of socialist countries fare better during the Holodomor and The Great Leap Forward?
People die in these “boom bust” cycles…
people die and then dont necessarily get better in other economies
But the nation survives. The same cant be said for the USSR
@@tristinjudd2595The USSR fell because of capitalist intervention though
@@meanbeaver3192 So the USSR can't survive when in competition with Capitalism
@@tristinjudd2595 Yeah pretty much. Just like how the ideas of the enlightenment Europe where crushed when Napoleon had lost. Never the less though these ideas resurfaced decades prior. The USSR the entire world against them from the start. So yeah it makes sense
The thing about socialism is that it must sound very nice to the average lower or middle class person but put into practice the flaws are glaring. I mean no political ideology is perfect I guess
The reasons the countries survive is not because of the forces of capitalism but rather government intervention and subsidies (socialist policies)
This is 100% false. It wasn’t until the government stuck its nose into the economy in which we’ve seen these great recessions and depressions. Recessions always fixed themselves in 2 or less years
@@wojtek9675 no they don't lmao
@@fate8007 unless they have government involvement of course.
The people who make money don’t like when the economy is in the toilet. They like when it’s going well
@@wojtek9675 have you heard about the long depression?
@@ryanweidman6338 after a little bit of research it seems to me I was caused by a tight Money supply (which was caused by the government) after they got off silver in favor of gold. This collapsed the silver mines and then it seems a domino effect happened. Obviously I would have to do more research into the topic
While I do agree with you that this is a feature not a bug of capitalism when this happens it utterly destroys people's lives. But this is a system working exactly as it should be. and a lot of times when this happens a large amount of wealth generally moves from the poor to the rich. In this country we don't have trickle-down economics we have trickle-up economics and that's in the best of times
Are all capitalist economies equally good at responding to such crises - or is it only the wealthy developed ones - because I'm going to guess the latter.
They were never given a chance to work due to the insane amounts of prejudice and oppositional forces set in place by capitalistic society. When we have a society based on care and not who can gain as much as possible financially, the rich become obsolete. I’m not saying that there haven’t been many bad men who have taken advantage of this and used military force, torture and other unspeakable tactics against the people. But if people were to learn that we didn’t come in to this universe, we came out of it and that everything we do is an expression of who we are, and that we are just the universe experiencing itself subjectively. We aren’t humans having a spiritual experience, we are the one great spirit have every human experience individually and collectively.
I get the dude is just an influencer but this is the most braindead take I've ever heard. The fact (as in, actual fact, not a meaningless opinion couched by rhetoric) is that when a crisis happens, such as a war for example, countries tend to respond by centralizing management and resources; essentially performing central planning.
For example, in WW2, every single country, regardless of political leaning was forced to centrally plan their economies to survive and win the war. Capitalist Britain instituted rationing to better allocate resources for the war effort. According to the logic here, the market should have figured that out (hint: It couldn't).
Yep. Why do conservatives love the war planning board but hate socialism and soviet central planing.
The USSR didn't collapse due to an economic crisis though, the collapse of the USSR was political in nature. If you want to talk about Soviet economic crises then you don't have to look far, there were plenty of crises to go around in the early years but the USSR survived them and went on to develop the world's second largest economy at the time. The continued existence of the Chinese and North Korean regimes despite events like the Great Leap Forward and the Ardeous March speak for themselves. I'm not a fan of Soviet style communism but facts are facts.
I agree, it's so unfair to compare the USA in the 1930s with the USSR in the early 90s
No, the economic situation is very much relevant. The soviet economy had been stagnating sense the late 1970s and the fact that the soviets had declining male life expectancy is a testament to this stagnation. As such soviet leaders were scrambling to try and fix the problem. Unfortunately they did a little to much a little to fast and the whole structure just sort-of exploded.
"Dozens of millions of people died of starvation during the great leap forward but hey that must mean that the system works!!!!"
@@ctd325 "10's of Millions starved and died from starvation under colonial occupation, but hey that must mean the system works!!!!"
Dude, Marx’s central problem with capitalism is that these crises are recurring frequently in way where societies don’t recover well in between. It’s the accumulation of inequalities made worse by these crises that damages social stability and well-being. The next step would be asking why crises happen so often in capitalism compared to any previous system; and what that has to do with production and consumption levels, wages, classes, etc.
Wealth is linked to qi, people have different qis, Some people have low qi, so inequality is caused by nature, not oppression
… you’ve read that? On Wikipedia.
First of all, there are no socialist countries. You can’t have an island of socialism in a sea of capitalism and you can’t have an island of capitalism in a sea of socialism. It just doesn’t work that way. It’s like saying you’re “kinda pregnant”. But countries with more social programs and a government more focused on the wellbeing of the population rather than just the needs of the wealthy, like Vietnam, handled covid a lot more effectively than the United States did.
Capitalism may be good at responding to crises while socialism prevents them in the first place
Holodomor?? Chernobyl??? Hyper Inflation???
@@agenttrash1226 Does capitalism? No. In fact, stores pour bleach over products that cannot be sold so the poor/homeless don't eat them.
Have you ever looked at a socialist country? Just look at the soviet union: famine, slave camps, civil wars
I would not call that preventing a crisis
@@asamanthinketh1937 yknow you just described the usa...
@@Dummigame elaborate with examples
The ussr benefitted from the great depression and was rarely affected at all by global economic recessions. The reason the ussr doesn't exist anymore is completely unrelated to its economy but more so internal opportunism and external pressure.
What do you mean unrelated to economy? The Soviet Union was economically fucked in the 80s and 90s, completely on its knees. If the Soviet Union was economically strong it wouldn't have collapsed
@@drened8502 there was stagnation but that was hardly the cause of the collapse. This is usually touted by western commentators to talk about how "horrible and horrific" life was. The collapse of the ussr was largely due to growing internal nationalist divisions brought on by opportunism which had been growing since the the destalinization process which grew to cause the secessions. The economy was at play but compared to everything else its role was very insiginificant, even if the economy was booming the USSR would still likely be unable to cope with these divisions and opportunist trends.
When you’re people are already at the bottom it doesn’t really matter if they keep falling
@@wojtek9675 aside from this being the same recycled anti communist garbage, what do you mean?
@@anasain6590 USSR did not end due to any political conflict or opportunism. It ended in a referendum of those suffering under the authoritarian government they maintained. Russians and almost all member state populations wanted the stupid ideas to end so they could operate like a normal country.
A system which enables people to benefit from crisis will be in perpetual crisis
That’s all I have to say
I hate when I want to disagree with a video and the comments are an endless gallery of every possible disagreement, and my contribution is now redundant.
Destiny doesn’t know what socialism is.
...but the soviet union was barely affected by the great depression
This argument is nonsensical. Capitalism is superior because it reaponds better to the negative effects of the business crisis... That a planned economy avoids in the first place. Let me put it like this: would you rather have a car that when crashes easily recovers and saves the user with idk, advanced safety cushions or a car that doesn't crash ever in the first place?
The problem with that car that never crashes is that it is old and slow as hell.
But boom and bust isn’t even a feature according to Austrian economics. It’s not that there is always a boom after a bust, but the bust is caused by the boom in the first place. Less government injection of future money through debt makes the booms bigger this making the busts bigger as well. Theoretically the more free a market the smoother the growth line as oppose to it being a boom-bust shape
Cane to listen to all the PHD level economist spew their magnificent knowledge in the comments.
you mean like Destiny.
@@killzone866
Right? As if Destiny is an expert in this stuff. You just says semi-intelligent dumb shit his fans eat up.
@@killzone866 Dilate.
Dude he's wrong AND unqualified, so why can't I debunk him?
Capitalist countries aren't better at responding to crises. Countries with resources and infrastructure are. Poor capitalist countries get fucked by famines and weather just as bad as non-capitalist ones. And communist countries are technically more capable of recovering from crises quicker, since their goal is distribute resources to those that need them. The USSR actually did a better job at recovering from the famous massive drought right after they were established than neighboring capitalist countries despite having basically no resources after getting destroyed in the world War.
What destiny is saying is a brain dead take. The only crises a capitalist country would be better able to solve would be crises caused by capitalism.
Ironically, Richard Wolff, the guy destiny is opposing, is literally a PhD level economist lmao
A feature that kills people and makes millions homeless
Soviet Union and Maos China both had massive famines that were far worse than that of the US Great Depression.
Ahhh but socialism sure can be made to look good when it’s not in practice and it’s being compared to capitalism that is in practice
@@cl5619 Thing is, current society focuses on the failures of socialism and the successes of capitalism. This is not a way to compare ideologies.
Capitalism fails every 10 years due to recessions. As I've said, it makes millions homeless, (something that wasn't a thing in socialist countries) as well as kills many thousands.
On top of that, we're living in a time where we have 1.3 times the amount of food needed to feed the whole entire world. But since it isn't profitable to give everyone food, I guess they have to starve.
Per year, capitalism allows 10-15 MILLION PREVENTABLE DEATHS. If this is not a global failure of capitalism, then I do not know what to tell you.
@@Dummigame What is this “10-15 million preventable deaths” number?
And where are these starving people? In the US, the poor tend to be obese.
And why did you not address my citing of the famines in China and USSR? If you are going to say that socialism makes food security air tight, then tell me why it totally didn’t in its two most ambitious implementations.
@@cl5619he could point out that both of these countries were incredibly poor and ill developed before they became socialist and the new economic system didn’t have time to adjust.
I don't love Destiny's takes but I do appreciate that he is one of the few commentators that genuinely likes discussing different perspectives
Capitalism is never the cause, was never the cause, and can never cause economic depressions. All depressions are caused by government interference in the economy. Capitalism is a social system based on individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. In application, in action it means a complete separation of state and economics. The government is completely hands off the economy. Thus, there are no capitalist countries. The only time there was a country that came close to that and by measuring that proximity we see the results of good, and human flourishing (capitalism is the only moral social system geared to the life of a human being) that we can see it was the departure of capitalism that is the detriment to the economy-which means in personal terms the destruction of human life. If a country regulates its economy it’s not a capitalist country or economy. All there are are mixed economies.
Can't really compare shit like the USSR to genuine socialism since like everything human greed fucks shit up. Same reason why capitalism isn't necessarily a bad thing it's just that greed sends the system spiraling down to a point where shit becomes unfair. Hell the simple concept of a billionaire should not even exist, that is excess beyond excess.
Socialism wouldn't remove greed. And what genuine Socialist countries were you thinking of?
Found the anarkiddie
Glad the comment section isn't dripping with capitalist simbots
Ya a lot of people think it's crazy when they find out the entire flow of money in the USA is quasai-privitized. Even our reserve of cash and banking system. The "federal reserve" still acts very independently and they are NOT the government from a constitutional perspective. And seeing the US Dollar is the reserve currency for the world, this means the world's currency is currently privatized, which is most likely why we haven't seen total economic disaster in most of the world even though that was very common all throughout history.
1921 Great depression Govt does nothing over in little under 2 years
1929 Government tries a lot lasts til 1946
In other words…”there is no paradise.”
It's unbelievable how misinformed he is
so capitalism is better because it can respond to a crisis that socialism wouldnt even have?
socialist countries don't respond to crisis. They are always in a crisis.
bro in every single true socialist country they exterminated those who didn’t agree with the status quo get out of here with that shit
Capitalism is better because said crises aren't as catastrophical as the crises brought by socialism. Man do you socialists have a single functioning braincell?
because a socialist country would dissolve sooner than be able to respond to the crisis.
Socialism usually just defaults to "we arent ethno nationalists but we are" with extra steps. Capitalism actually have Unions where socialist nations bans them. People forget Unions also hate each other and compete against each other.
I feel like it wouldn't take a history degree to understand that the USSR was not ended because of a "sudden economic crash." It's economic growth was stagnating due to corruption and institutional issues that Gorbachev tried to reform. And it's main collapse was due to ethnic tension spurred independence declarations after a failed coup.
But... the USSR survived the Great Depression
Yes exactlu, and it is still thriving and ............ oh wait
@@unholydiver1095It no longer exists yes, but socialism isn’t the reason why it no longer exist. You could write a book on the factors that brought down the USSR. But even if we pretend it was socialism at fault, that would mean the dozens of capitalist countries and regimes that have collapsed throughout history have collapsed due to capitalism right?
@@prestigev6131 Socialism caused the end of USSR. The government made a referendum to guarantee capitalist rights and it was overwhelmingly approved.
@@soulcapitalist6204 No actually, the vast majority of the USSR as a whole didn’t want the country to break apart. It was undemocratically dissolved and in Russia specifically, capitalism was a nightmare for people. Just look up what life expectancy was in the 90s. Before it fell, the soviets had the 2nd largest economy on earth. If socialism was the reason for the fall then why’d it take 100 years for it to happen? Were there problems with the economy at the time? Yes of course. But to say socialism is the reason for its end is disingenuous
@@prestigev6131 Get the history straight. A directly democratic referendum required capitalist individual rights in order for the union to stay together and this proves socialism was at issue. Secondly, this was democratically rescinded due to socialist hardliners attempting to return the country to a socialist human rights regime.
The socialist bollocks lasted 70 years, not 100. It lasted due to the authoritarian, totalitarian, autocratic, socialist politburo political institution which operated without public mandate, whatsoever.
Socialism was attempted and failed. During the entire time, in all nations subscribed, socialism was the reason why all citizens suffered abrogation of their human rights - a flaw and untenable failure of polity of itself.
It’s also a fact that before capitalism economies were much more volatile
So cspitalism ain't volátile in nature?
@@nombre4138 it is but all economies before it were even more so.
To all tankies, socialist, or communists in the comments,
communism/socialism has yet to work anywere historically. Any European countries with your policies refuses the label and uses capitalism. Also i have yet to see or hear of a single person willing to die just to escape capitalism meanwhile Florida has a huge cuban population just from refugees.
To anyone about to leave an angry message, please actually site a location or year instead of "its well know dude"
I don't think the U.S. was very good at responding to the covid pandemic crisis in the wake of it. A goofy tiny example was the toilet paper shortage, citizens wanted to be resellers, bought and sold toilet paper at a egregious price, trying to make money rather than helping each other.
That wasn't just the USA though, that occurred in atleast every English speaking country
People really didn’t want to not have toilet paper in the apocalypse
These comments are insane. Capitalist countries are more robust as they act as a very decentralized system. What is desired by the people is created whether by voting with a ballot or with the dollar. If people are less interested in purchasing multiple vehicles or are unable to do so, gas prices, car prices, and car markets will adjust accordingly. In a top down collectivist system, the robust cushion provided by the population as a whole is unavoided. If suddenly people decide to no longer wait in line for cars, the government has no indication/slow indication of that, so car manufacture will be maintained. Since people still require employment, as it is state mandated, people will be paid for doing nothing, or paid for making things no one will use, leading to huge government asset waste. Socialism is inherent austere, and cannot adjust for crises
If only the free market and the invisible hand actually worked... You can plainly see people are not being able to buy food and the prices just don't drop out of a sudden so people can buy them. There's no competition because of monopolies (many timed being a single umbrella company posessing hundreds of brands, like Nestle, Unilever, Coca cola etc), so there's no way to "vote with your wallet", because you'll just be voting for the same company but with glasses and a fake mustashe.
And sorry to say, but your actual 100% democracy TM vote for presidents don't matter much either. What we have today is the umtra rich (the bourgieoisie) in power, fiddling with the decisions behind the curtain (and sometimes not even trying to hide it)
“Where’s the ussr???” as us Americans have been deliberately stomping out any and all attempts for a country to even have a socialist thought
The americans caused the ussr the collapsed. It was still highly voted to keep the ussr culture and environment, but of course the US is the US, and they always "win," all in the means of competition.
@@MUZUKUN-YTbetter to be the boot than the ant 👀
@@MUZUKUN-YT USSR was collapsed democratically by Russians and citizens of other member states. Communism was a stupid idea and they just wanted to be normal and have liberal democracy.
@MattPhannyPack im not sure what you mean
could you please explain
@@MUZUKUN-YT You forgot that the vote was specifically for the public to get the economic rights USSR abrogated them for the first 70 years. As soon as the USSR hardcore made their putsch attempt, the entire country voted out communism. USSR was ended by the civilians they tortured for generations.
Yeah, in 2008 when the last financial crysis occured, the government had to help the private area so they won't collapse and you say capitalism (which is exclusively privatization) can handle a crysis. And of course, those money came from the people that work so basically each crysis proved that socialism helped capitalism
Me when US intervention in the USSR
Not really a fair argument considering the role of western nations against so-called socialist regimes.
Thats because there is no good example of a socialist regime. Even the nordic countries are still capitalist, they just have socialist policies aswell.
@@lifeonhigh851 did you not read the comment? America desperately tried to eliminate every socialist nation for over 50 years because it gives power to the people and threatens the profits and power of capitalist pigs who rely on exploited labor and imperial domination of foreign industry. Without America and western capitalists constantly trying to take out communism it would flourish.
@@lifeonhigh851 You’re getting Socialism and communism confused. Socialist countries are not anti-capitalism.
@@burningdownthehouse161 Socialism by definition is anti capitalist.
@@burningdownthehouse161 they very much are anti-capitalist. unless its some out there revisionist socialist state.
“Capitalist countries are better at responding to catastrophes than Socialist ones” was this man in coma during Covid? Or Katrina. Or any catastrophe of the last 20 years.
You can’t blame a wide spreading pandemic and a natural disaster on capitalism, china handled Covid way worse. Chernobyl is one incident that happened under socialism due to human error
@@xappletrol9457 what are you smoking lmao. China barely had covid compared to other countries. Covid zero went on too long but it worked better.
@@CalebMaupintime Modern China is capitalistic. You can freely open businesses there. They have even higher wealth inequality than the US, and are on track to have more billionaires. They have a silicon valley. They just so happen to have an authoritarian gov. South Korea, Japan, China are all capitalistic and respond well to crisis only because Asians like to follow laws.
Or fucking climate changeZ
communist countries also have these cycles, during Mao Zedong's era many people died but it got China to where it is now with a rich economy
You missed "Look at our FEDs bakancesheet" and my favourite "Look how hooked we are on 0 rates"
Look at that jaw swing, man’s high.
little poorly timed given the response of capitalist governments to the present covid crisis
tbh while the west is recovering quasi-socialist china is struggling because of their zero covid policy. So the timing might not be that bad
They printed and gave me $800 a week in UE when I was only making $500 a week at my job... The government's _Socialist_ response destroyed the economy and countless small businesses.
Covid single handedly doubled the price of gasoline/shipping
Wouldn't have been a problem if we couldn't print money.
Oh, my god. The comments are atrocious. Literally everyone complaining about capitalism doesn't even know what capitalism is. There's no country in the world that has a complete free market economy. And the fact that everyone here complains about bail outs when those aren't capitalism is the biggest proof of that.
Yeah you're literally the first positive comment I've seen. I'm guessing this short is getting traction because it's controversial among left leaning people
@@e-man7418 it wasn't that controversial in the 90's although not universally embraced either. It's like nobody remotely left remembers Bill Clinton saying "it's the economy, st*pid".
@@AkiraFelix-k2l
Yeah, there’s just waves of people that think anything capitalist and/or American is just bad. Or they wanna daydream their ideal socialist world with no idea how it would actually work in practice. Just leftist things I guess…..
this is some clown times. Only way it exist is with government bailouts.
Those cause the crisis lmao, capitalism cannot exist with a government
@OLG this is some clown times works just fine. Keep up the cope. Good job on having no actual input bud. I am saying THIS entire video is some clown times. Just like your comment is clown time. Maybe learn some proper reading comprehension before trying to correct grammar. How about stick to adventure time vids? This is not your lane.
@@olg.__ you had two weeks to come up with something. This is just sad
I would argue that less government involvement in the economy would lessen the boom/bust. The most regulated industries see the hardest busts
Depends which regulations you are talking about i guess. If its Workers rights, unions or fair trade then that doesn't really affect the boom or bust
Completely false
@@hk78901 lol good counter argument
The airline industry is one of the most safest and simultaneously regulated industry in America. It’s one of the most steady private sector. The airlines only ever get effected when people physically can not fly, ie COVID
@@arawn1061 Lol, what is a worker right? Most of the nonsense mandated by govt is counterproductive.
“It’s not a bug it’s a feature.” 💀
Where was the USSR well they were forced to disband there socialists status by the west, because we feared it.
Blah Hahahaha. The people living under it had no part in it? Just a bunch of content citizens living their best lives? GTFOH
@@jaybrown8807 where did I make that comment saying the people were happy, we have another quick to bite not knowing what he's biting.
@@jaybrown8807 honestly bud sounds like you're still scared of it😂😂 enjoy being exploited youre entire life by people who only view you as a money machine.
@@migchoi2136 well maybe the reason we feared it in the west was because we saw how unhappy the people were. We didn't want gulags and starvation over here as well.
The problem with most of the arguments is that they blame capitalism for things not of its fault. Imperialism and Slavery is just normal human condition, it’s the base line that existed long before capitalism. Capitalism did not invent them per se. It’s another question on whether it will eventually devolves into it by design or left unchecked for too long, or it simply makes the evil more efficient.
Capitalist countries respond to crisis by making money of the crisis which usually is awful and exploitative.
Capitalism is good, and can be better ❤
Whoever this guy is you can tell he's completely clueless.
Agreed 🤝
He's a liberal, liberals are naturally clueless.
Well it depends, by socialist nowadays that could mean the UK, some Nordic countries etc - not communism. Socialism just means running a country through providing the public with necessities through higher tax mainly. Some socialist countries such as the UK has responded to crises such as covid terribly but that’s solely down to an incompetent government. If you look at other socialist countries such as Sweden and Norway, they handled covid very well in terms of economy, thus making this point destiny makes as not the truth. I would say crises management is really just whether the incumbent government is competent or not.
If Chernobyl happened in the USA, none of us would not have radiation poisoning right now.
😂 Destiny logic
but a nuclear powerplant meltdown did happen.
What
Three mile island???
@@berdwatcher5125 actually more then one lol that still doesn't change the fact that they handled it better then the ussr
One thing that capitalist countries do better than socialist contries is..
Me: Steal money from people
@@masanity2k i lived in a socialist country (yugoslavia) , life couldnt get any better there, i saw only one homeless person there, and everyone had a house, money, job
Capitalism steals money from people and it has been proven
@@Wotah6That’s just anecdotal evidence, and the quality of basic necessities all across the USSR was extremely poor, from housing, to healthcare, to food.
@@Wotah6USSR socialism kills people and it has been proven
@@jacksonray3596 tell me definition of socialism and communism, dont google it
@@Wotah6 Socialism is when the means of production/distribution of goods and services are controlled by the government/public, and communism is when sharing and stuff
We can inovate due to capitalism
yes, before capitalism, innovation was non-existent
@@hugo6360 it was existent but slow af, capitalism gave too much insentive to innovate
Capitalism does not encourage innovation. It encourages profitability. How come the clothes you're wearing wear out in only a couple years? That's weird. Before capitalism clothes used to be constructed to last a long time. Huh. How come we're still using gas powered cars even though electric cars are better for the environment and we've known about them for a hundred years? How come more solar panels aren't developed? Not very innovative.
@@muzzle_4717 Yeah thats why the USSR was the first to send a man into space... Also the reason why the USSR is the first to send satelites in space...
@@paul.g5828The USSR was the first to
Send a satellite into space
The first to send earth bacteria into space
The first to send a mammal into space
The first to send a man to space
And the first to send a woman into space.
It's also super convienent that every cycle ends with the rich even richer, the poor even poorer, and more of the middle class falling into poverty. Super awesome feature.
What is the feature of socialist countries? To Dissolved, leaving an oligarchy and tons of poor people.
Yes, capitalism responded to widespread homelessness throughout the world real well….
It did
@@ExPwner sure mr adams
@@Xsqber1234yeah it did
@@ExPwnerSkidrow
As an Portuguese Im feeling the consequences of socialism in our life's, most ppl still oblivious, but there's no denial my country is at edge of falling of an cliff
What the fuck are ypu going on about? How is workers owning the means of production gonna have consequences of our life???
You are not in a socialist country, smart guy.
@@a70770 50 years governed by socialist party, yes we are, not like china or Cuba, but definitely i am.
@@luisantos1996what Socialism? Your main party is the Social Democratic Party, which is centre left
@@perfectlyfine1675 In 50 years governed 2/3 by socialists some of those times in colligation with communist party and extreme left, social democrats are still very socialist even the creator and many inside of the party recognize it as center left just slightly to the right of the socialists. Right in my country gets easily associated with extreme right from the media, gets associated with our previous dictator that was an ultra nacionalist.
I used to think that destiny is a socialist based on his other leftist stance 😅
I I'm very republican but he seems to align more with old democrat. He has a lot of good points. I disagree with a lot of others and think some points are very good. It's weird but it's a good weird.
@@thelimabeanexp yeah same man
Government intervention leads to larger boom and bust cycles