Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman. Video notes below. This video dealt with the concepts of socialism and liberalism in the broadest sense possible (historically and geographically). So I was concerned with enduring concepts seen through a global lens. You might have noticed that I didn't even mention the US in this video. The US didn't play a major role in the development of socialism. The most remarkable thing about it, according to my research, was actually the lack of socialism developing there. It was the major country that seemed to defy the trend when the rest of the world was somewhat turning towards socialism (around 100-140 years ago). The US has the Democratic Socialists of America now, but they are small players in both American politics and socialism abroad. From my understanding they're currently closer to Marx and Fabian socialism (having an end goal of 'complete socialism') than democratic socialism typical elsewhere, like Europe. So they, to some extent, defy the generalizations I made of democratic socialism in this video, but they still generally insist on operating in properly democratic political spaces. Categorizations are historically pretty messy within socialism (socialists often claim labels mean things that conflict with other labels that other socialists use, both in other movements and other points in time), and like I said at the end, democratic socialism means different things to different people. If you're looking for one modern authoritative statement of democratic socialist thought, the DSA is not the association to provide it. The Labour Party's updated Clause IV is a better bet (which I read in the video), and yes the Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. Tony Blair (who oversaw the change to Clause IV): 'The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.' For those who want to read more about Marx's theory of historical development, he saw it occurring through the lens of 'dialectics,' (a Hegelian idea) which is when you interpret the world through conflicting, opposite forces that resolve into a greater, more perfect whole. That's why both Hegel and Marx thought the world was becoming more perfect over time. 'Stages of the dialectic' were being passed through, and things were being resolved into greater and more perfect wholes over time. That's also why Marx's analysis was framed almost entirely through the conflict of two classes: the bourgeoisie and proletariat. He saw them as two opposites in conflict that would resolve into a greater whole: the dictatorship of the proletariat, bringing forth communism. So Marx believed dialectics provide some sort of penetrating insight into the world, even giving him insight into the inevitable future of humanity. He thought Hegel's dialectics were too mystical by being based in Spirit, and he thought he corrected that by basing his theory in matter. Both dialectics and Aristotelian essences are ideas that modern philosophers (like Russell) call 'scholastic.' They're inherently vague but nonetheless treated as precise by academics/theoreticians. That being said, I recently read an excellent biography on Marx by Jonathan Sperber, and he claimed that Marxists historically overemphasize the importance of dialectics to classical Marxism. That's something I've thought myself and I agreed with him. Marx himself rarely and usually only indirectly discussed them. I think the aspects of Marx that I covered in the video are the more important points and dialectics is the next level of detail if you're interested in understanding his underlying logic. You might have also noticed in Lenin's quotes that he used the term 'social democracy' for his style of socialism. It's a term that Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, and democratic socialists all claimed to describe their style of socialism, making it pretty meaningless in the context of socialism at the time (why I ignored it). I think there's more agreement now that it means something akin to what I described as democratic socialism here, but that in turn has led to endless fighting about whether or not there's a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. Bernie Sanders, for example, announces himself as a democratic socialist, and it leads to fighting over whether he's a democratic socialist or actually a social democrat. I think it's an unnecessary and messy distinction, and think democratic socialism covers the concept well enough. If you ask the question: 'what single term covers all socialists who vow to work within properly democratic systems?' The answer is democratic socialists. The term social democracy is too fraught to be that single term. It's been used historically in too many loose and contradictory ways. That being said, you can use 'social democrats' to describe democratic socialists and people will now generally understand you. Others say social democrat means you specifically want a mix of capitalism and welfarism, which seems like it's a line socialists further left have taken to claim that any socialists that endorse any privatization aren't actually socialists (they argue that they're correctly called social democrats). By that logic the Labour Party and Swedish Social Democrats aren't socialists. Why? Because they don't want to completely abolish private property. The same goes for Chinese, Cuban, North Korean, and Venezuelan socialists, again, because they all endorse some amount of privatization. So this paints socialism in a pretty tight box, which defies the overwhelming trend in socialism in the last 100 years or so. From there your perspectives are 1) the one I laid out in this video, which most socialists around the world more or less agree with, or 2) socialism is now a small movement (made up of those who still want 'complete socialism') with few modern political successes, who have to somehow claim that all these self-described socialists around the world (like Bernstein and those in Europe) are in fact labeling themselves incorrectly. To me this is akin to saying that the only 'true' liberals around the world are classical liberals (wanting small government), and anyone who deviates from classical liberalism isn't actually a liberal. You have to let political philosophies evolve with the times, and socialism has done that (as has liberalism). On that note, democracy wasn't consistently used as a meaningful term by socialists until democratic socialism came around. Before then, it mostly was used by socialists to indicate a claim that their policies represented the 'will of the people,' a legacy that came from Rousseau's Social Contract. For one, that alone doesn't work as a conception for democracy. Even for a basic definition of democracy, power needs to be broken up beyond just the commanding majority. Think of what can happen if a majority can do whatever it wants to a minority. The other problem is that socialists at the time didn't tend to articulate a method for proving that their policy actually represented the will of the people. They just said it. The only methods that I'm aware of to date for establishing public opinion are polls and elections, and for either to work as a gauge for public opinion, they can't be held in a context where the population is under political duress. If disagreement or criticism is punished, then you can't expect to learn what people actually think. It was democratic socialists that insisted the word 'democratic' be used meaningfully in the context of their socialism, (meaning political opposition isn't suppressed, elections are open, and freedom of criticism is secured) making them the first to consistently use the word correctly in the tradition, at least to my knowledge. Last note - some say the video became biased when it covered Lenin, apparently thinking I was too harsh on him. He is heavily propagandized in some circles and is heavily villainized in others. In such circumstances it can be hard to tell who he really was and what he was really about. For our purposes here I wanted to give a straightforward explanation of his main contribution to socialism (Marxism-Leninism). If you think the way he came off was too harsh, I'd recommend researching the period I described in the video when he set the standard for repression in the Soviet Union shortly after coming into power. It's called the 'Red Terror.' I tried to give Lenin some humane nuances but that's the man we're dealing with. He used authoritarianism to bring about socialism, making it suddenly and for the first time an official ideology for a major world power. That was his main contribution to the subject. - Ryan
Democracy used to be the brightest banner for socialists (esp those from the Soviet Union) for a long time after Marx, but was later stolen by the bourgeois to occupy the moral high ground and serve as their camouflage by twisting and narrowing its connotation to mean only electoral/parliamentary pluralism
Hey Ryan I love your video and I think this is one of the best political videos on TH-cam at the moment. *That being said I do have criticism that I think could benefit your work for yourself and us your audience.* You didn’t differentiate between “democratic socialism” (or as I think it is better put: “Fabian socialism”) and “social democracy”. I think it is tragic to conflate them as it only benefits Marxists trying sneak themselves under the umbrella of socially acceptable in order to push the Overton window towards Marxism. Although certain parties may call themselves Democratic Socialists in their party name they’re still social democrats in ideology. Social democrats as I understand are still capitalist in ideology however they want social reforms so capitalism can better for the ordinary working person. Whereas a genuine democratic (Fabian) socialist in ideology only has the one intention: to bring about totalitarian socialism through democratic means. Fabian/democratic socialism and Leninist socialism to me is like the difference between riding a bus and riding a bike to work: the bike (democratic socialism) might be slower and physically better for you than the bus (Leninist socialism), but at the end of the day you’re still going to the same place (Hell on Earth). Hopefully you hear this criticism and make a video on it. I don’t go into the same depths in my research as you do so if my understanding is wrong it would also be great if you could make a video to disprove it. Either way I think a video on the topic would be super. As I said I could be wrong. I wish I could provide sources and books on the topic that I found enlightening however I can’t remember them. Also I believe that the terms democratic socialism and social democracy were both created by the same person, but I can’t name him. If they were first coined by the same person then that person might be worth mentioning as well. If you find it irritating when audience members give you topics then I do sincerely apologise. Most importantly though, thank you for making this video. Your work is incredible as always. 😊😄😎🔥
Would you be willing to reveal your political orientation/ideology? I’m just curious. If not, no pressure. Your life is your life. Appreciate the great content though!
You are awsome, man Keep up the incredible work that you do. You have a legacy soked with greatness ahead of you, for you to create You are and will be highly appreciated by many for decades. I wish you only the best.
I have a masters degree in theology, and a PhD in psychology and I have rarely heard anyone present such complicated ideas with such clarity. You have a gift.
@@Magic4599 what? Aristotle was a materialist, too. He argued that should we should examine our material world as it stands now and base theories off of that. This was counter to Plato’s form of universal statements that could move through time. There are tons of articles and books about the similarities between Marx and Aristotle.
@@scottydo0081 Aristotle is definitely not a materialist at least not in how we think of it. He definitely believed in a God. And there was a mystical dimensions to his observations
I'm 22 years old, and am COMPLETELY clueless regarding politics. I don't have any political opinion other than "I hope we can all get along" and have felt pretty ashamed of that. This year when my country was voting for a new state minister I couldn't vote for any party since I didn't feel knowledgeable enough. Your channel has really helped me in grasping the fundamentals of politics and ethics, so that I at least can understand the different terms political representatives like to say a lot. Your channel is educating a whole generation of people around the world, thank you! :)
Think by yourself and don't listen to bloggers, all of them spread propaganda. I used to be like that, I used to listen to bloggers and repeat their words to my friends so they would think that I'm into politics more than them(I was like 14 yo lol). Nowadays though I don't trust anyone and don't believe anyone in terms of politically related information. After the start of this war everyone started to spread straight propaganda and none of my previous information channels didn't tell independent opinions. Everyone was either on Ukrainian side or on Russian side. The only independent man I know was my friend who didn't give any shit and just kept his grind. And I simply started to not give a shit either. Considering I live in Russia if I would have been following all the news since the start of the war to this day, well, I would simply become insane
A lot of political thought has gone on over many centuries to bring us to where we are now. Different improvements in technology has also influenced where we are now. If you find yourself fascinated with the actual study of politics, people can major in political science. But if you are interested in self education, the nice thing is a person can do that now using the Internet. Good luck with your learning.
First young person, thank you for the actual courage and self awareness to state your known limitations in experience. Very few people who comment in public media are willing to do that. Good luck on your quest to find and embrace understanding.
so, I belong to an underprivileged society. My caste wants to escape poverty. But, We don't have the means to. Few years ago, we all came together and started a money piggy bank, every single member would donate some money each month. As the money wasn't enough to set up a collective business but it was surely enough to cover unexpected cost of living like a surgery, a wedding, someone's tuition fee etc. We were extremely skeptical at first but after 6 years we now have enough money to provide scholarships for people who are not part of our community. What I am trying to say is, an idea of collective good only works when the collection of people feel responsible for others around them. We care for each other because we are of the same caste but now we have enough resources that we can lend a helping hand to those in need just because they are in need.
I don't know you or where you're from but thank you for being a part of a community who's trying to make others lives better. We need more people like you
This is the essense of socialism that I as a conservative can believe in. where people *willingly* pool their resources so that everyone can get a better outcome, not the government forcing people to give up their money under the guise of helping others.
i love when youtube algorithm decides to throw at you these pearls and let you discover wonderful smart people from the other side of the world. This is how I wish history and politics got explained at schools. Thanks from the bottom of my heart.
I didn’t say that we should adopt socialism just that the explanation of the subject was so much better than the one I had in my school years. But that’s also why we study history and failed systems, to learn and improve from them.
I love this introduction to writers in this context instead of the common “here’s the explanation from my perspective”. This can then be a jumping board to reading those people directly or learning more about them. It’s really refreshing to see.
DUDE!!!!!!! MARIXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE THAT WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC SCIENTIST USES THE SUBGJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!!!!! MARXIST/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST/NEO-MARXIST ARE ALL SCIENCE-DENIERS!!!!!!!!! :D :D
I never comment on TH-cam Videos but this has to be one of the most precise, well-informed and thoroughly crafted videos I have seen in a while. Finally some objective explanations instead of egotistical opinion sharing when it comes to these topics! Kudos to you
this is the most straightforward and digestible understanding of socialism i've seen yet. it really helps to explain the different ideas and manifestations instead of trying to tie it all into a single definition. thank you!
You say unbiased yet the wording used is intentionally demeaning towards those who may hold a socialist or leftist viewpoint. This video just seems like clever repu propaganda Socialim, marxism and communism are "buzz words" thrown around a lot
@@slevinchannel7589 i am leftist myself and didn’t find it demeaning. while i was disappointed by other videos on his channel that are purposefully demeaning (specifically the CRT one), i think this video did a pretty good job
I was really lazy in school and never really studied because I was so addicted to my phone & now I'm 23 and suddenly find history and how society/economy works really interesting. 🙏 Watching your videos makes me feel a tiny bit more educated and makes me really happy. I appreciate your work so much! ❤️
I didn't do well in school either, because I didn't see the point in more than half of the things I was "taught" of which I actually don't use anything to this day. It also never helped me figure out what career path suits me most, it was just an exercise in unproductivity. School subjects about society, economy also never taught me anything useful like a lot of TH-cam videos and books I've read outside of school did, history has always kinda interested me, but the way school teaches history is basically fast food history. It's worthless. And that's because public schools don't exist to teach you anything useful, the system they use was designed to produce factory drones who are smart enough to operate the machines, but lack the intelligence to think for themselves. That's why those places are so mind numbing and soul draining.
They make you memorize dates in history, that have no meaning. And gloss over the dirtiness of real history that makes it so interesting. Also schools changing history books to suit their narrative. Texas refuses to use California history books.
I truly appreciate your video essays. Your insistence and persistence to report, summarize, and or critique without a clear bias has helped me to understand political and philosophical ideas that roam and inform the society around me. It has also helped me to stay calm and find the humanity in others I engage in lengthy and intensive debates with. I appreciate you.
A New Dialectic "A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
When you mentioned Lenin's freedom from dissent, I think it would've been a little more accurate to give a brief description of democratic centralism. It's not that Lenin wanted general uniformity, he wanted uniformity towards the outside, a strict adherence to collective decisions made within the party by each member. It's also wrong that bolsheviks as a whole tried to encourage religious worship of the state. This is an opinion that was held by some important bolsheviks, like for example Maxim Gorky, but was notably opposed by Lenin and not put into practice. The oppression of religious institutions happened because those institutions were seen as upholding traditional society. Your description of democratic socialism is also completely off as what you're describing is social democracy. Wanting the government to control the means of production is a key part of democratic socialism. Those two things are not the same, not even closely. Them being so commonly conflated is a product of them only in america specifically being basically the same movement due to the nature of the american political system. And yes, definitions matter here because while language can change over time, words still mean things. Claiming modern socialists are for controlled capitalism is just not true. Only social democrats do that, which are typically not considered socialists and most socialists also tend to not want to work together with them.
Ryan, you’re one of the best orators/lecturers I’ve ever had the pleasure of listening too. Your summation skills are excellent. Thank you for these videos.
The "best performing" articles are written by persuasive people, for when an article seems unbiased all it did was to persuade you to take the writers side.
DUDE!!!!!!! MARIXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE THAT WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC SCIENTIST USES THE SUBGJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!!!!! MARXIST/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST/NEO-MARXIST ARE ALL SCIENCE-DENIERS!!!!!!!!! :D :D
@@NowioFel This is a very dumb argument you’re trying to make. Are you saying there’s no such thing as an unbiased article? If so I’m here to tell you you’re wrong. There are plenty of articles where there is simply no side to take-the writer simply tells you what happened, giving uncontested facts that both sides of the argument would agree with, and then presenting the arguments each side made in response. Word-for-word, direct quotations of what both sides has to say about it. Such an article has no “side,” and it is not biased in any way. I know it’s super cool and edgy to go around saying “I trust no one, every writer has an agenda, every article has a bias,” but it’s also the attitude of a cynical 15 year old and simply not true. Take the time to learn about and recognize different types of writing, and you will not have this problem.
@@therainman7777 fellow presumably smart human, what you are talking about is called a "report", which is different from an "article". But if we speak of the relevant medium, which would be an "(video-) essay", which is even more prone to be structured and written to persuade the reader into the authors bias. "I know it’s super cool and edgy to go around saying “I trust no one, every writer has an agenda, every article has a bias,” but it’s also the attitude of a cynical 15 year old and simply not true. Take the time to learn about and recognize different types of writing, and you will not have this problem." >> ah yes, ridicule, denigrate and infantilise, a debate tactic LOVED by a certain movement
@@therainman7777 he clearly isn't "unbiased". That little addendum at the end was about trying to put a non negative spin on "modern" socialism. The dictionary definition is the only implicitly neutral definition of the word. Ownership/control of the means of production still informs socialist thought. Universal healthcare, and the "public option" are popular among leftists for a reason. State ownership doesn't necessarily have to be formal legal titles, it's about control. Very high corporate taxes is a form of control, excessive regulations on certain industries is about control.
I think I’m becoming addicted to your presentations. Your methods and articulations and the level you present them in is extremely thoughtful and concise. You presented way that doesn’t necessarily lean, but informs all the same. These concepts and their misinterpretations have evolved to the point of rhetoric. The education you provide and the subsequent clarity is very much appreciated. Extremely well done, sir.
I’d like to think if the public school system weren’t always under attack and left to its own devices, we would have history teachers that would mimic Ryan’s ability to convey information, thus engaging with nearly all students. In lieu of standardized testing and static grading.
Thank you. I am 67 and have been interested in politics all my life, but evidently I still have things to learn. Your presentation of the roots of socialism was brilliant and added to my knowledge.
Same here dear Mr. Holmberg. I am 58, and consider myself a libertarian socialist. Read considerably all my life, but still unable to express the whole issue in such a concise and intelligible fashion as this wonderful young gentleman (Ryan Chapman) did. 😍
A little late to The Party (see whut I did thur?) but I can't help but notice the part about the dictatorship of the proletariat and how Marx never "clearly articulated what that means or what that looks like" followed immediately by showing a highlighted quote that ends directly prior to exactly that: "The proletariat organized as the ruling class." A Marxist "state" is one that is organized by and with the interests of the working class as it's primary aim, "wresting, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie" and laying the groundwork for the transition from socialism (sometimes termed "early-stage communism") to communism (sometimes termed "late-stage communism" or the "second phase of communism"). It begins with the socialist organizational maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their work," and, following the withering away of the state (no need for a state to appropriate the means of production when it's already done that and there's no bourgeoisie to struggle against anymore), "From each according to their ability, to each according to their *need*. To contrast, a capitalist state is organized with the interests of capital (not capitalists specifically but the very concept of capital itself) and it's reproduction and maintenance (through organized and systemic violence) as it's exclusive aim, constantly ramping up it's repressive aggression and stripping away the rights and freedoms of the individual to counteract the ever-growing and inevitable sequence of crises resulting from capitalism's in-built contradictions that will, inevitably, lead to it's destruction. There's also some conflation between shared ownership of the means of production and collective ownership of products themselves. It's not the products themselves that are owned collectively (personal property) it's the things necessary to create the products we need ( _private_ property) that would be collectively owned and democratically operated. Nobody's going to come take your home or car or toothbrush or whatever because you didn't pay your rent or lease or fine or fee or whatever meaningless contrivance some capitalist can cook up to hide the fact that their claim to _your_ property is spurious at best and downright theft at... Well, always. It's always theft. I think the section on Lenin would have benefited from even the briefest mention of Marxism-Leninism taking one of the most agrarian, poor and underdeveloped feudalist societies on Earth and, at a time where it was under siege by what was effectively the world's strongest and most advanced military force, pushed them all the way back to Berlin, crushed the Nazi war machine, and then oversaw the protection and development of the only other superpower in the history of mankind, produced higher average levels of quality of life than it's capitalist counterparts at equal levels of development (libgen.li/ads.php?md5=f32a35c1b94844ed2e5d9c60aa9ba5fe ) and led to a wide variety of scientific advancements (especially aerospace) all while the capitalist nations that'd had centuries to develop (the majority of which was the result of literal chattel slavery and colonial exploitation) did everything in their power to sabotage and destroy that society. I think it's also telling that a similar society, though far smaller in size, managed to not only _survive_ both the economic sabotage and even direct, full-scale military invasion from the most powerful capitalist nation on Earth but, even after inflicting damn near every one of the most heinous war crimes imaginable from large-scale, civilian-targeted violence, widespread use of chemical weapons, torture, etc., successfully _pushed their shit in and threw them out on their ass._ And it certainly wasn't bourgeois electoralism that made that possible. I'd recommend for anyone who really wants to do their own research to check out "The Principles of Communism" by Friedrich Engels to start (it's practically a pamphlet and can be accessed online for free) and then move on to "Value, Price and Profit" and "Wage Labor and Capital" by Karl Marx (also free, though definitely more substantial). I'd then try to slog through Das Kapital if you can manage it but the previous works should be sufficient to provide at least a foundational knowledge of dialectical materialism and scientific socialism.
@@esoopthederp7672 Remove the ) at the end. It's considering it part of the URL. I'll edit the comment and plop a space between the end of the URL and the parentheses to (hopefully) make it do not that. Thanks for the heads-up, though. I'll have to try to remember that this is a thing TH-cam does for some reason.
I'm fascinated by how successful propaganda was at reducing communist/socialist countries to "ruthless dictatorships" completely erasing all the amazing achievements they brought. They managed to convince people that having freedom to own iphone is better then freedom to enjoy healthcare, social security, economic freedom...
@@srdjansanadrovic4434 _And_ iPhone. You can still own an iPhone, too. There's nothing we'd really be giving up. It'll just be a wePhone. ... I'll see myself out.
yeah the part about DotP was when the deceiving liberal anti-communism started to show it’s cracks. The most shocking and outright hilarious part is the fact that the guy presents himself as being well read on marxism and marx but then completely abandons and ignores historical materialism and class struggle when he starts talking about bernstein and in the end says he advocates for a proudhonian mutualist society like what the fuck is this liberal on
As someone with socialist leanings, I really appreciate the nuances and lack of overt bias in this video. Where some people go instantly to moralistic terms, you take a rationalist approach; which I admire. Edit: something something warzone in comments yadda yadda
@@tyrvinodinson9790 it has always puzzled my why self-proclaimed socialists don’t start practicing what the preach already yesterday. Register business as a coop > sign any new worker up within said coop. BANG! You have your little “workers own the means of production” structure going. See how long it lasts.
@@nokeksgiven That's like saying in the time of slavery let's compete a business that uses slaves and a business that employs free people, and since we know the former is more likely to be profitable, it's the better system. What a great argument.
This is the best description of socialism I have ever heard. Tracing it back to the roots and exploring how it evolved through the various schools of thinking is the perfect way to build a well-rounded understanding of such a complex term. Thank you so much Ryan for this incredible content!
The YT algorithm actually did good in recommending your channel to me. Very objective and well stated videos so far from what I've watched. It's a shame that more people don't take time to fully understand the terms they throw around. It's interesting to see that a lot of the more failed versions of political and economic ideologies seem to be linked to absolutism.
Any debates around capitalism, socialism and communism are pure absolutism. Policy isnt made based on how socialist or capitalist it is. Its made in response to current events and special interests. America has many socialist policies yet we are reffered to and seen as a capitalist nation. In real politics these isms are used to demonize or radicalize and nothing more. Outside of real politics its just intellectual acrobats
A New Dialectic "A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
They don't because our American, (assuming you're American), so called educational system TEACHED very little, least of all how to think analytically or in depth. And in recent decades the institutions that should teach rigorous or at least how to analyze, are completely controlled by delusional, parasitic Marxists. Mass media as well.....aka "cultural marxism".
I love speeches in which very single word is exquisitely chosen to make perfect sense. You're gifted at the craft of weaving ideas into a sort fabric of rationality.
Careful, making sense and it being morally or culturally a net-positive is not the same thing. Example: a drag queen can do a excuisitely coherent speech on how he would groom and fornicate with children in a manner that "neither causes harm nor distress"... Even if his speech is a linguistic masterpiece of perfect sense and procedere, it will never be moral nor a net-positive to any society, nor will it be not bias. And him will never be not deserving of extreme measures to keep people like him from children. So just keep in mind that the most effective, explanatory and persuasive essays are written by a linguistically trained hyper-biased writer, that managed to persuade you to take his side on x argument.
@@ragmarsegundo7866 incredibly without flaws, egregious in a positive form. Informatively informational, eloquently accurate with no mention of trans or gender roles in society as .1% should dictate culture to have the much needed attention their mother either poured in them. To point of lying. And a father who either was secretly anally endulged or non existent in the child’s formative young years
I don't like that cause it indicates propaganda. An honest speech is sloppy and somewhat repetitive cause that's how humans talk. If you have a perfectly flowing speech where every word is carefully choosen that means it's a script and therefore very likely false.
Could you do a comprehensive video for Capitalism? I feel like there is nuance in both Socialism and Capitalism that conversations these days miss. One's totally good, and the other is totally evil. You do a good job at hitting an objective tone in your videos.
@@josephcoon5809 depends on who you talk to. I was being vague because it could refer to either, because there are people who treat their preferred social theory as sacred and the other as completely terrible. Instead of understanding how they work and why they prefer one over the other, "socialism never works" or "capitalism is the source of all ill in society" etc etc... That's why I love the break down of these theories. If people understand them more, they can articulate better why they like certain things or disagree with other things.
@@zacharyclark3693 How do you understand something you don’t put into practice? A hypothesis is only as good as its interaction with reality. Words don’t prove veracity; examples do. The problem with these arguments is that it is prelude to relinquishing the application of the theory to a government with almost no oversight from those that authorized such power and responsibility to a faceless entity. It’s a great setup for, “Well, it didn’t work because they did it wrong.” or “Ot would have worked if THOSE people didn’t corrupt it.” These conversations should do ONE thing, and it isn’t to justify one’s voting habits which is nothing more than abdicating personal responsibility for proving one’s own ideas. These conversations SHOULD attract like-minded individuals to one another so they they can pool their resources and efforts to collectively build EXACTLY what they imagine so that there is no question to why it failed. And if it didn’t fail…then they have something better than words to support their arguments: reality.
Excellent, relevant and fascinating content. Appreciate all your hard work and research bringing this content to life in an engaging fashion. Keep up the good work!
I don't understand why for example the social democrats that have been in power in Sweden are referred to as democratic socialists when they obviously never adopted any of the basic ideas of socialism like abolishing private means of production and self call themselves social democrats and not democratic socialists? How I have always understood the term "democratic socialist" were (actual) socialists that wished to achieve actual socialism (no private means of production) but wished to do this through democracy instead of revolution. Democratic socialist therefore were/are actual socialist while social democrats at least in places like Sweden have just been "capitalist with a softer side", proponents of safety nets supported by a capitalist economy rather than actual socialists. Perhaps they should have picked a less confusing name and perhaps there should be more clarity on this distinction between actual socialists (democratic socialists) and proponents of capitalism that just wish to spread that wealth more evenly through taxation and social programs (social democrats). I also don't like the idea that the meaning of even clear terms just evolves over time. I don't know why people that are clearly capitalists should be called socialists and think the term has evolved to include this group that doesn't belong under that umbrella term at all. This kind of morphing of terms is irrational and makes it confusing to talk about history, when each definition of group depends on what era of history we are talking about. It would be easier if the meaning instead would stay the same and we would simply state that actual socialists don't mostly exist anymore and most of those that still call themselves socialists or democratic socialists are actually capitalists with a confusing name. We don't evolve the term "thin people" to include obese people just because of the times either, the meaning stays the same through centuries so why should we accept that nowadays mostly socialist just means a capitalist that wishes to identity a bit differently.
bernie sanders does this as well, which i always thought would just bring him into loads of red scare propaganda, but I guess he's just looking to soften the idea of socialism into some less scary term
Exactly, I also believe that the creation of communism was a deliberate attempt to discredit Marxism. Even if both ideologies have nothing to do with it each other, people are often confused about both terms. The bourgeoisie is still here, nothing has drastically changed ! They will always find ways to keep socialists happy in the short term to stay in power.
It’s really good to see you growing. You deserve it. Can’t wait to come back in a year or so when you have half a million or even a million subs. Great work bro. Love it.
The term "capitalist", meaning an owner of capital, appears earlier than the term "capitalism" and dates to the mid-17th century. "Capitalism" is derived from capital, which evolved from capitale, a late Latin word based on caput, meaning "head"-which is also the origin of "chattel" and "cattle" in the sense of movable property (only much later to refer only to livestock). Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries to refer to funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money or money carrying interest.[20]: 232 [21] By 1283, it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm and was often interchanged with other words-wealth, money, funds, goods, assets, property and so on.[20]: 233 The Hollantse (German: holländische) Mercurius uses "capitalists" in 1633 and 1654 to refer to owners of capital.[20]: 234 In French, Étienne Clavier referred to capitalistes in 1788,[22] six years before its first recorded English usage by Arthur Young in his work Travels in France (1792).[21][23] In his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), David Ricardo referred to "the capitalist" many times.[24] English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge used "capitalist" in his work Table Talk (1823).[25] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon used the term in his first work, What is Property? (1840), to refer to the owners of capital. Benjamin Disraeli used the term in his 1845 work Sybil.[21] The initial use of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense is attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labor").[20]: 237 Karl Marx frequently referred to the "capital" and to the "capitalist mode of production" in Das kapital (1867).[26][27] Marx did however not use the form capitalism, but instead used capital, capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear frequently.[27][28] In the English language, the term "capitalism" first appears, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), in 1854, in the novel The Newcomes by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, where the word meant "having ownership of capital".[29] Also according to the OED, Carl Adolph Douai, a German American socialist and abolitionist, used the term "private capitalism" in 1863.
Capital, according to Adam Smith was all of: Knowledge, Skills, Attitude, Energy, Work Ethic, Ideas and the Tools of Production. Read him in the original. He anticipated worker ownership of larger ventures, and despite his times deplored the concentration of land in so few hands (which they would lose in time to capitalist pressures). It's all there. 240 years ago.
I always thought it was the system by which people could invest in businesses or start their own, and thereby reap the financial rewards if it is successful.
@@eddyk564 it's a system that privileges those born into wealth to start business and they are the same people that shape the narrative of the system. The rest are fed the myth of equal opportunity, which isn't true so those people are told to blame themselves.
@@romanbrandle319 The system is undoubtedly imperfect -people can be born into wealth or poverty and that is unfair. However, there is every opportunity to rise up. Some Western countries have an extremely high rate of social mobility. In fact, a number of the wealthy and rich were born reasonably poor (in the US at least). There is no blame on people- it is just the reality of the situation. Some people are extremely talented and have a huge amount to offer society and some don't. Yes, there are some idiots born into wealth and never need to work, but that is a tiny minority of people.
If I could criticize one thing, it would be that I wouldn't use the term "Democratic Socialist" to describe the rise of the liberal parties in favor of social welfare in post-WWII Europe. Like you explained, their prominence was in large part due to their social stability and democratic rule within a capitalist economy. The better term would be to call these parties by how they describe themselves: "Social Democrats".
Isn't Democratic Socialist what the Communist Parties used to call themselves? Anarchists often say that the reason you can't participate in the State is that it will change you more than you will change it. Seems like a good example of that
Of course Lenin was a supposed member of the socdem party that wanted moderate reforms a month before he decided to take over power during the early months of the Russian democratic provisional government.
It wouldn’t make any difference because republicans have made socialism the big bad wolf without defining it. I noticed they refused to condemn Mussolini, Hitler and fascism because they literally are fascists now. Reagan’s “neoliberalism” has evolved into hateful, narrow minded, authoritarian, white nationalism. Just like we warned it would.
@@janeayre96 Ah yes, because stopping mass immigration in the millions and opposing fringe ideas about trans people or gender or race privelege is white nationalism. Better tell the KKK and even communists of 1920 that not being down with the gay cause or ideology means they're white nationalists now 😆
A really interesting take and explanation, although I feel like it fails to mention important points concerning Lenin's party and the post-WW2 decision to move towards liberalism: 1. Russia was still freshly out of a feudal system, with attemps to re-instate it by the White army, which was supported by volunteers and military from other countries in Europe. As such, we can draw parallel between Lenin's decision to fight anti-socialist views and the First French Republic's wariness against anti-democratic views. Both also fought against the clergy, Lenin trying to replace it himself while the First French Republic tried to replaced it with Reason, a sort of science-based set of beliefs. It is likely that it was because feudal societies base their legitimacy in the Godly right of the feudal lord, and clergy had a clear power, both political and social 2. Post WW2, Europe's decision to become more liberal was greatly influenced by the fact that the USA were the ones pouring resources to rebuild the country as they were trying to expand their sphere of influence to try to handle their political rival, the USSR. France, for example, chose to go for a socialist economy and even Great Britain to an extent (until Margaret Thatcher). There was a peak of worker's right and middle-class comfort during the Cold War which is quickly disappearing, whether by lack of need for it for propaganda purposes, by inability to do so due to weakening economies, or by lack of interest as globalization allowed for a greater pool of employees to pick from (Those are the only reasons I'm able to think of, it might be a mix of them or one I did not even think about) Otherwise, excellent in-depth analysis. Keep up the good work, I'll be looking forward to your other videos and binge-watch those already out
@@slevinchannel7589 I think that's fair, as the focus was primarily on the birth and development of socialism. Needs a sequel to cover any gaps and modern development ;)
As a philosophy-major, this is the most unbiased coverage I've seen. Please, please, please tell me you'll professionally translate this for Spanish, Chinese, and Russian speakers.
@@CStrik3r epistemological or how do we know what we know, ontological what is a being, axiological x and y axis on a graph, methodological like science. unless you want to be reduced to the absurdity of solipsism you have to take a leap of faith in order to presume certain a priori truths tautologically.
Why do Spanish, Chinese and Russian speakers need it? They have plenty of their own experience in building and experimenting with socialism to go off of.
@@MAGICatBEN Because this is one of a few American's attempted-unbiased analysis of socialism and historical communism. Most native-English resources are heavily biased in either direction or appear to be straight-up. radical hocum.
This is a wonderfully accessible video. I love seeing the threads of these philosophies laid out like this. It really helps me to see how we’ve ended up here. Your channel is a godsend
@@sameerdodger that is a pathetic argument the us gets involved when human rights start getting violated. What you actually mean is socialism always breaks down to a point that it requires violence and then other countries get involved. Let me ask a question why can you start a co-op or union business in a capitalist society but you can’t have non union non co-op business in a Marxist society? Nobody is stopped y’all until you start trying to use the force of the government against its people.
I am happy I stumbled upon this channel. This seems like a place for free thought and critical analysis of ideas while also taking from primary sources. Good job!
The summary at the end is the best I have ever heard. This whole video on socialism is the best that I have ever seen. This channel on social history is the best I have ever found.
If Socialist-TH-camr is too much for you yet to digest, fine, Youtubr Cody Johnston has countless videos with rich, poor, capitalism, incentive or other words in the name
@@madprole5361 I would definitely press upon you to educate yourself and read. What you wrote indicates you're on the very wrong side of the IQ bull curve.. You're coming off as, "if it ain't MAGA, it be is libtardism".
@@kitkatranttv3786 been a while since I watched this and he deletes negative comments, but generally speaking, he has a very strong liberal bias. He half-assed his explanation of socialism which was really a half-assed analysis on Marx and ended with confusing socdems and demsocs, which is a modern no no for moat socialists, since after ww2, socialists generally view socdems as social fascists. If you want to learn about socialism, history, and philosophy, go to socialists and philosphers. Check out Second Thought, Then & Now, and Plastic Pills for introductions to the subjects Ryan covers. There's more to socialism than Marx and more to Marxism than Marx too. He also tends to openly gloss over the important things in his videos that negate or confront him like issues of imperialism, white supremacy, classism, etc that are embedded within capitalism. He'll at best just mention them in passing and move on like it's not a big deal anymore. He also refuses to acknowledge fascism as a capitalist ideology and is misleading about what fascism is in that video. Capitalists are notoriously bad at history and philosophy, except for twisting it to their agenda. There really isn't an outside of bias, tbf, but ones biases should be known and acknowledged.
This is a great video! Really enjoyed it. There is however bias by omission on a major part with respective the Lenin’s suppression of the opposition and civil war - the bourgeoisie were fighting to destroy what the Bolshevik’s were trying to build
As someone who lived in one of the versions of Socialism (Yugoslavia) I completley agree with Ryan. Socialism/Communism implemented in Warsaw pact countries was quite different than what was in Yugoslavia (Non-Alaigned movement) and Stalin in particular hated the fact that Yugoslavia didn't wanted to become a member of Warsaw pact.
Warsaw pact was formed after Stalin's death. Yugoslavia betrayed the Cominform. While it was benefiting from Cominform, Tito and his group proudly boasted as "stalinists" but they secretly plotted against Albania and Hungary (known as the Rajk consipracy) wanting to take control over them in a big "Balkan Union" project that would become a buffer between socialist east and capitalist west. This plot failed because Cominform became aware of their plotting and when they invited yugoslav representatives to explain themselves, they just didnt show up and instead strated to cry "soviet imperialism". In 30s Tito claimed that trotskyists are basically fascists, in late 40s he was interviewed by trotskyists where he claimed that Stalin was a revisionist. He was just a political opportunist. In 1948 Tito claimed the following: “As for the first theme, the national question, I am not referring to it because of its being a problem in our country, in one form or another, today. No, the national question here has been settled, and very well settled, to the general satisfaction of all our peoples. It has been settled on the lines of Lenin's teaching." The way our country fell apart 10 years after his death, precisely on national grounds tells you how much Tito was wrong.
@@crniskadu9881 Best thing they ever did, Soviets were great at experimenting, but were shit at implementing, that's why they ultimately fell back on state capitalism.
@@Lobanjolom Today i learned that collapsing a country into a bloody civil war was a great thing. Yugoslavia was the first country to fall to capitalism (although TItoists marketed themselves as market socialists, which is nonsense). After Stalin's death, Khruschev and co did everything they could to undermine previous achievements and slander socialism, modeling themselves after Titoist policies. So no, i dont see how your logic holds true by any metric. Yugoslavia was shit and we have to live with its consequences today.
@@crniskadu9881 When the Batista regime was overthrown they discovered that Yugoslavia had offered to sell Batista arms after the American Imperialist had stopped selling them to Batista.
I'm only 18 minutes in and this is the first video I watch on your channel and I'm already impressed. I love your format, specially how you're showing the source lines of all you sentences, which firstly shows your credibility and secondly makes it way easier to pick up a thought and continue with it, since it'll be easier to find in the source.
Why dont you jusrt go and ask a Socialist? TH-camr Second-Thought has so many videos and the videotitles are even often; for your convenience; phrased like questions.
Is it appropriate to say that orthodox Marxism only really makes sense when in contest with unregulated capitalism? It seems that once capitalist countries like America started to heavily regulate its industries, his viewpoint kind of breaks down. Not saying that every single point he wrote is now invalid because of a few bills passed, but what I gather is that Marx's idea of a communist future relied heavily on capitalism being stuck in a state of cruel conditions for the middle and lower classes.
Thank you Ryan for such a comprehensive overview. There are not many 45 minute+ educational videos that can keep me engaged throughout its entirety. You've added to my understanding of socialism immensely.
@@nenmaster5218 They have good info, but man are they annoying. I can only stomach about 15 minutes at a time with the trying to be funny and failing miserably.
I don’t know.I find the people involved in the “humanities” very serious even earnest,and the subjects in the humanities affect us all ,but but as usual all areas of study based purely on human analysis of observation are commonly flawed, so studying these perspectives as an accurate representation of the truth ,can lead to bizarre conclusions.
@@kelvinpell4571 Oversimplification. It's true for some, but I'm making decent enough money with mine and I'm happy. I know others that would say the same. Obviously STEM fields are safer, but there plenty of people underemployed with those degrees working meaningless jobs as well. A person's work ethic and ambition will carry them the farthest, but you need the piece of paper to get you there.
Ryan, this is yet another masterpiece of extremely well researched education. Wherever we lie on the political spectrum, it is essential we understand the terms and actions of how we got here, and comprehend at least the meaning of the tools are our disposal. Thank you!
A "masterpiece"? It is good drudge research giving us a basic outline. If you thought this was good, you need to set aside an evening just for reading Wikipedia Articles. But I'm glad he said one thing, towards the end, something like "the world does not exist to fit our definitions, but our definitions should be formed to fit the World". Yeah, every time I argue with anybody on the Left, there is the MEANINGLESS Ideological Arguments that are put forward, with Anarchists quoting Marx or Buchanan the same way that Evangelicals quote their Bible. So, yeah, Ryan seems to be an Intellectual before being some kind of an Radical Extremist Recruiter.
@@theBear89451 Good Morning Bear, (that's a good name for really big male Cats... I once had a 'Big Bear' and now I have a 'Honey Bear') this is what you said: "Wikipedia? Do you watch CNN too? Ryan goes to the original works, whereas Wikipedia filters through a strong pro-socialist bias." Bear, I just suggested Wikipedia as another sterile dry piece of drudge research, while the Original Commenter was treating a Paper like a 'masterpiece'. You do realize that outside of all the Political Cabals and all the plotting for Revolution, either Socialist, Fascist, Populous, Raciest, or Anarchist (as though Anarchists could ever PLAN anything), there is the Academic Community where objective and unbiased paper are the boring day to day norm, and nobody thinks to celebrate them. Next, Bear, Wikipedia is not some Monolith, but a battlefield of quarrelling Editors that enjoy erasing each other's input and substituting their own, as sort of an Institutionalized Anarchy, and so one can only rely on Wikipedia when looking up the most uncontroversial stuff. But then the rest of Google is populated with For Profit Accounts. The Universities care so much about Profits that they Firewall all their unbiased information (after all, Knowledge needs to be paid for just like everything else in Capitalism, where it's so easy to forget that we are all pretending that Democracy must somehow work despite all the Ignorance that is overwhelming Society). Yeah, I'm a bit cynical about Democracy. I have my own Channel and I have two very cynical Playlists: "Revolution from the Top" and "Democracy is a Bad Thing". I suggest ways that Humanity can survive, but what I honestly believe is that we are heading for a Civilizational Collapse where any recovery will be delayed for Centuries as the Earth will have to recover on it's own from Global Warming.
@@nostalgicgirrl6053 Good Morning, Simram, yes, I can understand, after a bit more thought, that being overzealous in complimenting Ryan is not the worst of things. Even I found by the end of my comment that some praise was in order. But it just goes to show how extremist and radicalized the Social Media has become when we begin to bestow inordinate praise for objectivity, which is, or used to be the norm, at our Universities. Then, despite what all the Right Wing Populous or Fascist Pundits are saying about how the Universities are bastions of Marxist Thought, well, I can't imagine any Professor giving top grades to students who would hand in Emotion Drive Paper full of Ideological Agenda, accept maybe in regards to the Black Studies Departments which nobody but Blacks take seriously anyway.
I don't normally watch American history youtube vlogs because the Americans always take so long with silly introductions, trying to be funny, liking the sound of their own voice, but this guy is brilliant. I really enjoyed this, no BS, straight to the point and explained in a simple and entertaining way. Well done Ryan. You are a great teacher. Keep up the fantastic work
Population can, at any time, be tested to be extremly misinformed and clueless about socialism and capitalism But this changes right-now, then spawning aptly-named videos like "more and more people lose faith in capitalism" by 'Second Thought' And of course one of his videos litearlly has the word Beginner in it, sooo maybe watch that one even before that 1. Oh, and isnrt one video literally named "Youre already a Socialis,t you just odnt knowww"?
Ryan, I must appreciate the clarity with which you explain political and economic concepts. For many years, I have been reading books on these important topics, often voluminous, and I have not been the wiser until I stumbled on your TH-cam channel. You cover massive terrains in each topic, and I had to frequently pause the recording to reflect and understand the sub-topics and terminologies, which in themselves could constitute independent topics. I was wondering whether you are considering breaking up a topic into fundamental subtopics and presenting these as short 2 to 5 minute animations. This will certainly assist many more people to grasp these important relevant issues. Thank you very much for the great job that you doing.
Don't be ridiculous !!! All that is presented here is just a capitalist's biased propaganda. Just look at China today if you want to understand what is socialism. Capitalism is great but only as a tool, never can it be treated as an ideology for that would be superstition. Democracy is the biggest problem in USA and in all those countries who wanted to copy it. USA sucks. China rocks. Good night, America !!! Good morning, China !!! May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
What he calls democratic socialism is better described as Social Democracy. Modern Democratic Socialists are anti capitalist, fight on behalf of workers, hold Marx in high esteem (and sometimes Lenin too). It was a pretty good video up until that last section.
This differs from country to country and even from party to party. Some democratic socialist are more liberal and market oriented, others are more authoritarian and Marxist. The latter are dangerous radicals, the former important part of any democratic society.
This might sound odd, though I have for some time been curious and had the want educate myself on such ideologies, but funny as it may sound a video game is what finally drove me to learn about Socialism and other types of ideologies like your other fantastic video on Fascism. Funny enough that game was Disco Elysium, a role playing game that involves both socialism and fascism within its setting.
I loved how you developed the concept through historical events-shaping revisions, which in turn influenced events and further fleshing out the the more practical concept of socialism. Great content, Ryan. 👍🏻👏🏻 Your channel deserve and need to have more follower. But such is life, bro.
An excellent material, Ryan! Very concise and on the point. It's hard to believe that there was a time when "Das Kapital" was a mandatory reading in school... Anyway, I'm somewhat glad for putting up the effort. As a recommendation for future videos: I, personally, would be truly glad to see more meditations on subjects within the realm of political psychology.
Thank you Ryan for such a comprehensive overview. There are not many 45 minute+ educational videos that can keep me engaged throughout its entirety. You've added to my understanding of socialism immensely.
The only thing we are all sure about is that Ryan has done the search thoroughly, That's why people like me and Conor do not have to do the same research again, that's why I agree with Conor that "this is currently the best channel on TH-cam right now" A big thumbs-up and thank you to Ryan!
I've noticed that the production values of these videos have slowly gone up, that's quite promising. Would be interested if more political ideas are elaborated upon in the future. Things like Conservatism, Social democracy, Libertarianism, Georgism, etc.
Ryan’s back 💯🌍 - very curious for this one. I want a solid grasp of socialism beyond just economics class. I reckon Ryan will provide such an analysis… let’s see!
1) “We must hate-hatred is the basis of communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.” - Vladimir Lenin 2) “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” - Vladimir Lenin 3) “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” - Vladimir Lenin 4) "The way to crush the bourgeoisie [middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” - Vladimir Lenin 5) “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.” -Vladimir Lenin 6) “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” - Vladimir Lenin 7) “It is necessary-secretly and urgently-to prepare the terror.” -Vladimir Lenin 8) “The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.” - Vladimir Lenin 9) “Surely you do not imagine that we shall be victorious without applying the cruelest revolutionary terror?” - Vladimir LenIn
Excellent and well thought out presentation of the roots of socialism and its evolution in modern societies. Thank you Ryan for taking the time to properly research this topic and articulating it so well!!!
I do think it's a little shortsighted to not highlight how the supposed continual increase in general welfare being used to explain away why capitalism was not harming workers is because of Imperialism. It's a very eurocentric omission. Kind of a big thing to miss as it was definitely discussed by plenty socialist thinkers. Overall great video! Of course a lot of people who watch your content are going to have a lot to say about this video. Don't take it personally. You did a great, honest, and fair job.
Very good video with great and unbiased knowledge! I have always been interested in these concepts and practices. Really appreciate your channel. I am from China and have experienced China's Soviet-style socialism and later socialism with Chinese characteristics. I have also lived in a capitalist country for decades. I have practical felt both socialism and capitalism. Unfortunately, I thought that socialism and capitalism, as socioeconomic models, are strongly governed by political system. Regardless of the ideology of the political system, these ideas of human sages are actually very valuable and should be integrated with each other. The ideology of the political system distorts the value of these ideas and even demonizes them.
I graduated with 2 degrees almost 40 years ago: political science and journalism. I worked as a journalist for 12 years, then as a carpenter, a few other odd jobs, then unaffordable retirement. My father was a national union organizer when I was young. I remembered his dinner conversations as I sought part time work, before the pandemic. I got work in the revenue department for two new resort hotels. I was hired at $18 per hour for 20 hours a week. Just what I needed. The first week I was hired, the supervisor of our small department told me the company, headquartered in Seattle, could pay me only $17 per hour. What could I do? I soon learned that, at peak season, the 2 hotels together grossed $1 million per month. Everything my father, and what Marx and Hagel said, hit hard. I had little doubt in the theories they had about class, and learned another real life lesson, the others not worth mentioning here.
@@jillpatton3432 And sometimes an industry like journalism changes fast and home building pops because of largely unregulated banking. Surprise, surprise.
From Australia, during the pandemic, I found a casual job that paid $34 per hour, later I found out business contractor get pay $45, but as a long-term full-time worker only get pay $27.
I have studied the history of socialism for 40 years and I have to say you create an excellent presentation that should be used for college level classes.
I really appreciate the totality of your channel’s subjects and analysis. I wish we all had a teacher at some point in school that approached the whole subject with clarity and context the way you do. Thank you.
@@_GrandZeno what a surprise, socialists get pissed when it’s not made out to be the greatest thing ever… almost as if it’s a human idea that’s completely fallible.
The thing about bias is that it doesn't really mean anything because everyone skews everything to their own perspective. Also, bias is a subjective lens through which we interpret information. It's influenced by our experiences, beliefs, and values. However, it doesn't invalidate our opinions. Instead, it provides us with a unique viewpoint that can foster critical thinking and dialogue. In essence, bias is what makes us human.
I forgot to mention this earlier. Socialism isn't a perfect society. It will have its limitations, and to understand those limitations, we need to compare them with the issues we face in our current capitalist economy. Believing otherwise means lacking an understanding of what socialism actually is. So anyone who tells you any differently doesn't know what they are talking about. It's just another social system, the next stage in the development of society, which will have its own problems and contradictions.
This video was incredible and so informative! My only point of confusion is that the final definition of Democratic Socialism just seems like Social Democracy. My understanding has always been that: Social Democracy = reforming capitalism to have more socialist values Democratic Socialism = ultimately achieving socialism through democratic means. Which is to say that the end goal is eventually to abolish capitalism
Your definition is correct. Democratic Socialism is still seen as a form of Reformism / Revisionism given the fact that it is not Revolutionary. So, Social Democracy could be seen as a step towards transitioning to Democratic Socialism.
@@Kitkat-986 You don’t know what you’re talking about. The “end result” is not the same for both systems. Democratic Socialism seeks to establish Socialism (worker ownership of the means of production) gradually over time. Social Democracy seeks to maintain and uphold Capitalism while smoothing out some of its rougher edges. While socdems and demsocs may look the same and will advocate for the same policies in the short term, their long-term goals are obviously different.
@@wintermint77 Neither fully embrace free market principles, so neither are good systems. The problem with social democracy is that it tends to be used as a tool for the more revolutionary socialists who come around every generation or two. Those who identify as social democrats may genuinely not intend to have a socialist revolution, but invariably, after enough time, the revolutionaries will take over and try to create another socialist dictatorship.
Oh boy, if you are still on a level of market versus more state, you have to do a lot more brain work. A lot of liberal values are applicable with socialism, I also doubt ownership over certain private stuff would just fall by the wayside, neither do markets in a sense cease to exist since people will still need cars, a roof for theirs houses, bread, what have you. Owning means of production together though means being less dependent on private companies and sometimes outrageous prices, being able to decide where you want to go with certain things in terms of company policy, through vote etc producing for self sufficiency instead of profit and so on. At least in theory. If it would work is hard to predict since we can not set up a lab in the real world and test that under current circumstances and do not @ me with general income or the likes, that is basically still capitalism with state handouts, subsidizing bad wages and working conditions. Real socialism goes much further on fundamental levels than just less versus more state and markets. Some liberals/conservatives seem to be of the opinion under socialism there would be no market anymore or the state/market relationship is a mutually exclusive one in each system. Both need each other I'd argue and even some indigenic tribes have primitive markets in their little sub spaces sort of, trading maybe weapons against food or tribe rights or jewelry or what have you. So the whole socialism = no markets anymore arugment is just plain dumb to me.
Very good video! I appreciate the coverage of Hegel, Bernstein, Saint-Simon, Owen, et. al. I do have a few critiques though. For a video attempting to summarize the entire history of socialism, it's probably unfair to nitpick too much, but really just a few points: I think the treatment of Lenin was a bit cursory, at least when compared to other sections. The part saying that Lenin positioned the Bolsheviks as a party of peace but then entered a civil war was a bit unfair. They were indeed among the few who promised to exit World War I and indeed delivered on that. The civil war was not a unilateral aggressive action on Lenin's part. There was a strong attempted counterrevolution that took place, led by the ousted leader of the Duma, loyalists to the Tsar, etc. And it was bolstered by troops from Britain and the U.S. who actually invaded Russia. Second, the mass incarceration of dissidents and the secret police are presented as characteristic of Leninism. But these were very much a continuation of the status quo rather than a novelty of Leninism. The monarchy had operated a secret police for decades prior and was well-known for its use of exile of political prisoners to Siberia (which, as several times an exile himself, Lenin did much of his writing!). Third, I did notice a lack of explanation of what a Soviet is and how this relates to and differs from Bolshevism. That said, the rest of the video is really very good. The topic of Lenin and Leninism is a very interesting one and could well demand its own video and its own coverage. The history of the Soviet Union is very interesting, from the differences between Lenin and Stalin to the role of Trotsky to the changes under Kruschev and under Brezhnev. Maybe a video for another time! One last little thing: I don't think the "idea of syndicalism" is dead. Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are still around. I don't think that, since they are not currently being implemented or practiced at wide scale, the ideas are somehow tossed out the window. The ideas are still alive and shifts in social thought could breathe more life into them in the future. Anyway, just a minor thing. Thanks for the video! I definitely enjoyed it.
Additional note: It could be the case that the NKVD and political exile were ramped up under Lenin as compared to under the Tsar. I'm not sure on this.
@@SkremoMcThrftsto The Checka was the secret police under Lenin. They were founded when terrorist attacks came close to killing Lenin and Trotsky. They were also special battalions that fought in the civil war.
@@SkremoMcThrftsto Felix Dzerzhinsky was the original head of the Checka. He was a polish communist who kept a picture of Rosa Luxemberg in his office and although he sided with Stalin he died in 1926 before Trotsky's final exile.
Incredible definition! I love how you’ve explained such complex concepts and given your own up to do definition of socialism which is not easy to find!
Understanding how most of these groups and the ideology behind them works is crucial to understanding where some actually come from. Very crucial and informative in understanding specifically the western ideology
@@oculusquest2460 you could be more accurate than this and all his videos in a 5 min video. Don't go to capitalists to learn about socialism. They always fuck it up.
@@oculusquest2460 The first three chapters are very in depth. Leninism and all other practical applications are barely glossed over and are all thrown in the political compass area of authoritariamism which is 1. too simple 2. often completely untrue. Socialist movements vastly differ. He also leaves out socialist movements outside of euroe. The last chapter (social democracy) is not analyzed in-depth in that it leaves out that these systems outsource the working class' suffering and exploitation into poorer countries so that their citizens could have a part of the bourgeoisie pie. Yes, the nordic model does that also. It started with imperialism, now it's neo-imperialism. Unequal contracts, countries are robbed of their resources, no labour protection, they are not allowed to develop, be independent in currency or negotiate on their own terms. It also fails to consider that social democracies chip away on their social services and equality continually and most extremely as soon as their abundance becomes less as we see now with russian gas. People live on what Marx called subsidiary wages in much if the US and also in much of the EU.
A someone who still finds ‘worker control of the means of production’ as a good definition of socialism in terms of description of the economic approaches of socialism, I also find your simplified ‘trimmed down’ definition of socialism to be admirable for general use in describing the collective of all socialistic concepts. Well done, I really wasn’t expecting to find a definition that extended beyond the dogmatic over application of economic, philosophical or social descriptions onto the entirety of socialism. Hoping the dictionaries catch up but there’s still so much confusion on the term that I doubt we’ll see much progress any time soon.
Man, that was fantastic Analysys!!! I listened to lots of lectures, Yale etc. But your analisys is just another level. Fresh mind, own understanding, not just academics repeting same old stories, the way they was always told. You are todays intelectual!!! Respect and Best Regards!! Inspired!! Thank You!
Your outro was great. It made the nuance between exploitation and out proforming. Most socialist talk uses the former but from what I've seen it's mostly the latter. The gap between bottom 15% of people and the top 15% of people is so fast. That's something most people who went to university do not understand. Believe me you don't want the average minimum wage worker to decide anything for an organisation.
I’ve been trying to go back and understand the philosophies which got us here and Ryan Chapman seems very adept at synthesizing these concepts to a level where they are easily understood, how they relate to each other and how they have developed over time. His statement in another video that when you try to achieve equality you by definition have to intrude on freedom is such a key point.
@@bloodmoonrising871 Freedom of association is one of them. You cannot exactly have a company of your friends and people you trust if the government enforces DIE. And the name is not ironic. Its intentional, and microsoft did it to companies it acquired and wanted to get rid of. It was the same strategy. You yank a company in enough different directions, and it will invariably be torn apart, so its just a matter of enforcing it on groups you don't like hard enough.
@@shoopoop21 this conservative republican creator seems to have deleted my question under this comment and that is not surprising considering the false narrative of his content and the anti woke pro fascist advertising seen in right wing grifters. Property ownership is not a real Freedom and the only association the government has ever interfered with is during the 1950s under the red scare and anyone associated with communism.
@@bloodmoonrising871 free speech, the right to earn a living, the right to life, freedom of religion, the right to not be discriminated against based on race/sex, etc.
@@Milton_Friedmanite we don't have a right to earn a living because the reality of too many Americans is what they can earn even with a full time and even a full time plus part time job does not meet the needs for a person to live. That means there is no right to life. There is no ability to exist.
Thank you for this very thorough and interesting lecture. Although I have never voted left of center I found it highly informative and rewarding to watch. I will certainly watch a few more of your videos. Greetings from Sweden
All ideologies are faith-based. When philosophy turns into ideology, it dies. Ideology is actually murdered philosophy. That's why they resist change. They have difficulty adapting to the conditions and begin to become dysfunctional. They even begin to create complex problems that cannot be completely solved. For this reason, it can be said that capitalism is the least ideology among ideologies. Perhaps it would even be a mistake to see it as an ideology, and capitalism works best in practice. But I still think that the capitalist model, which also supports social policies, is the best.
What an engaging, unbiased, and thorough account. I really enjoyed this entire video; I had a lot of clarity brought to previously muddy subjects in my mind. Thankyou.
@@thabokgwele5268 I would say it's nearly impossible because it's very difficult to determine. That's the point. I'd guess that he's possibly a bit center left as the plurality of his videos have to do with something related to left leaning policies, topics, or people. Maybe a bit libertarian aswell since another good portion of his videos has to do with freedom of speech and the individual. I might simply say he's a progressive if he's not a centrist.
From seeing that video, it’s pretty obvious that he’s not a socialist. He thinks he’s unbiased (and to be fair, he’s doing much better than most content creators) but he still regurgitates some capitalist talking points about former socialist experiments, and sometimes misrepresents some of the thinkers’ views imho.
Tbh as a socialist, I find that the video sort of failed to cover the existing dialogue that existed between social-democrats and "orthodox marxists" and later leninists. It covered the SocDem/revisionist perspective of what the "radicals" got wrong, but it hardly covered the perspective or arguments of the "radicals", which are important because the dialogue and shift existed between the two ideologies in various forms throughout the entirety of the 20th century, and is arguably still developing. I believe that there's videos out there which would explain the issue better, especially those by figures such as Hakim or SecondThought, but I can give a brief explanation as well. Orthodox Marxists and all following in their tradition (leninists, maoists, titoists, etc.) believe that all "good trends" found in capitalism and social democracy are inherently brief and short lived. The claim is that technological innovation and the economic growth derived from it, as well as various reforms passed under political pressure, can provide periods (sometimes quite long, other times brief) of improving living standards under capitalism. But that they are inherently impermanent because the primary goal of their passing is to preserve the existence and stability of capitalism, and will be rescinded whenever it is possible to do so. Furthermore, due to the nature of politics in liberalism, it makes more sense for a career politician to align their interests with wealthy backers, even if that career politician was elected based on a socialist platform. Meaning that they are often "controlled opposition", exemplified by Blair White's acceptance of Thatcher's removal of union rights and cutting of social security, which was never seriously contested by the labor party ever since. In other words, that in an election cycle between SocDems and neoliberals, neoliberals will jump ten steps to the right, and social democrats will (due to lack of goodwill or lack of capability) take only one timid step to the left, before another jump to the right. On a more generalist scale, the belief that "The goal is nothing, the movement is everything" effectively means that the movement ends up accomplishing nothing in the long run. It is also importnat to note that in foreign politics, "Radical" socialists are generally opposed to imperialism as it is generally understood as the "Economic exploitation or imposure of unequal economic treaties upon underdeveloped nations, enforced through diplomatic, economic, subversive or military means", while SocialDemocrats tend to oppose it in theory, but fall in line whenever it is done by Neoliberals (again, giving Blair White's decision to join the Iraq War as an example).
Thanks again Ryan, for this excellent lesson on Socialism; it got me delving deeper into the CPC version known as 'socialism with Chinese characteristics', which then got me looking into what the CPC now refer to as 'whole process people's democracy'. My readings did help me to accept that not only is there more than one form of democracy but that in China at least, democracy can and does take place within the context of a single party form of governance. This being so, also made it worth examining and comparing the relative efficiency of a single party democracy with that of a multi party democracy. Conclusion, 'The China Miracle' was not a miracle.
@Insert Name Here My reading of Xi Jinping's thought on 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' is that it is an 'early stage of socialism'; a stage during which capitalism is adopted and subordinate to socialism. In this way the CPC is avoiding the mistakes made by the USSR and other states that sought to completely abolish the capitalist mode of production - overnight so to speak. Xi Jinping understands and applies Marxist theory and ideas better than most if not all nation state leaders, hence he and his party will take as long as it takes to achieve their particular brand of socialism.
Even if you're following Marxist-Leninist logic (that the vanguard party alone must lead a country to socialism), the CPC has literally created a capitalist class, allowed its society to adopt capitalist consumerism, and then willingly allowed itself to be infiltrated by those capitalists.
I thought they taught me these things in school but I was wrong. Your videos make them real to me. Now they are not just ideas anymore but concerted attempts by men to solve real problems. Thank you!
@@TheCelticsAREboss What l mean is that they taught me and l thought l understood them but now l see that l didn't really get it then. It's real to me now.
@@rexadebayo3380 I don’t think really see it, its not designed to solve problems it’s disguised to appear that way, but it’s only a power grab for tyrants
Wow honestly unbiased, informative and thorough. I am left feeling much more hopeful about free thought and what egalitarianism on a large scale could look like. Props and thank you!
This video is not unbiased! That is literally impossible. It would be much more honest if he mentioned his ideological background and assumption in the introduction so the viewers understand his perspective better.
He went really soft with the history of outcomes of socialist movements. It's the kind of ideology that sounds good on paper, but ends up destroying it's supporters in a direct or indirect manner, and introducing severe poverty, for the people it (on paper) sought to replenish.
@@noisyboy7443 Of course, the top 10 poorest countries would be the full-on undeveloped countries. Logically, no governance and no social goals are worse economically, than the worst possible immaginable governance. Still that doesn't make the in-practice self destructive, and for anyone around, regimes good. What's your point?
You put it in simple terms. Digestible. Non-confrontational. A truly intelligent way to bring the idea out. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, let’s end the predatory phase of humanity and enter a new one!
This is a great introductory video! The broad concepts are articulated clearly & gives the viewer a basic background. I will be watching more! Thank you Ryan.
I how you find meaning in your work good sir. If not, I certainly do. I think a certain kind of human wants a deeply researched explanation, not noise. You excel at providing the former, and save me from wading through the latter. I hope to contribute to your patreon as soon as I am able. I don't care how long it takes to get a new video, just please keep making content.
Ryan’s back - very curious for this one. I want a solid grasp of socialism beyond just economics class. I reckon Ryan will provide such an analysis… let’s see!
I’m lucky as I was born into a Bernsteinian based set of values in Norway. But also unlucky to see those values lose out to around three decades of liberalism, and the consequences of global economic power. This societal degradation impacts most people, especially those without capital based income and home ownership - without calling this group proletariat. These strata run small businesses or work for median wage, and in our rich country they should be resilient by definition. They’re not. Policies changed drastically throughout the 90s, 00s and early 10s, eroding pension rights for everyone born after 1963. This means that individuals who still work full time, but never bought extra private insurance, will lose out in droves. Our pension fund is well known, but it’s momentum is driven by profit and ownership, not by the original intention of securing the coming wave of elderly non-workers. Norway’s “place in the world” is driving the economy, not those broader values of social security. In essence, people under 59 are cut off, unless they understood this in time to financialize themselves to safe grounds. So, we as people share the full burden of Europe and the western hegemony in every way. Only our state and corporate financial economy is safe and expanding. What is the word for that process again…? Not social democracy.
"lose out to . . . liberalism . . . societal degradation." The biggest issue with this thinking is that society has been more healthy, wealthy, and free than ever in the last 2 million years of human existence, because of liberalism. What's more striking is there is zero evidence to the contrary. The degradation still found in society is left over from pre-liberal humanity, not because of liberalism. Any amount of research from 2mya to 1600 would show this. From 1800 forward to 1900 forward, liberalism has brought billions out of poverty and brought a doubling in lifespan to pretty much every human on Earth, including a freedom unheard of in the entire animal kingdom since the dawn of time.
@@jimmyjimmy7240 Gee I love the freedom of never being able to own my own house and being arrested for mean tweets. Such a great political philosophy you got there.
@@ningen7736 you certainly have the freedom of owning your own house, just because you can't accomplish it doesn't mean you don't have the freedom; try again. And it doesn't sound like you live in America, because you can't get arrested for "mean" tweets in America. Nice try.
@@musiqtee . . . Thanks, I guess? I'm not trying to be combative, but that's not really a response. "We disagree and I'm okay with that." Not saying you have to attempt to debate my position; just an odd response, people obviously have differing opinions, no need to point it out. And most of what I said isn't "how I see it," it's a fact. In 1800 and all before, 90-95% of humanity was in abject poverty; 1950 and before, the average lifespan around the world was under 50 years old; before constitutions and republics, liberal democracy, everyone was ruled over by a form of authoritarian/dictator/monarch, etc. This isn't an opinion. 90-95% of the world before 1800-1900 was dirt poor, ruled over to the point it was legal to be killed while sitting in your home, and dying young. It's the complete opposite in a great deal of the world now. So, what exactly is worse than then? Slavery is legal no where, women around the world are mostly literate and are able to be independent, the list goes on, all statistically verifiable.
The music, the graphics, the transitions... the quality of this video's sound and visuals are incredibly nice compared to your already really good videos on your channel. Whatever you did to change it, good work!
I hadnt realized it, but subconsciously I had believed Marx's postulation that society moves to an essence of perfection. That its in an evolution into a better form. After considering Automatons taking over jobs of all workers eventually, I figured this progress of society had to lead to a system that was incompatable with profit and wage. If there comes a time when all workers are jobless from automatons, how would it be that they could pay for goods? The machine of capitalism hits a paradox of the fact that to pay the least for labor you must not pay a laborer at all but instead replace him with an automaton. But no flow from the capitalist down to the worker from a job means that the capitalist cant profit, and the consumers can no longer exist. The motive of profit becomes self defeating when the best way to maximize profit also leads to destruction of the consumer. The system breaks down. So logically with automation, eventually society cannot rely on companies who own automatons to do labor, as they will not be able to gain the goods from them. The system would need to change radically in order to keep society functioning, and if robots can do everything, then why should there be owners of the automatons rather than society at large under ownership? Robots at the base providing all the needs for humans. Either way a change would need to occur, as technological progress will clog the machine.
Change always happens inside the capitalism system and we don't always evolve, that's just not what we experienced. We had lots of discovery after industrial revolution that took many productions out of necessity and still people change their line of work. Candles are still used but not as main source of light, and instead we use light bulbs, for example, that employ lots of people in it's line of production (more than candles, actually). The capitalistic theory of price is based in supply and demand. In that line, automation raises supply, but at the same time shortens demand (as money shortens, people are less inclined to consume), so the price tends to go lower. The work force, therefore, alocates to where is best to them, either producing things themselves or in other productive jobs, that includes artistic and others. Even with our current automation, unemployment keeps a consistent percentage since the 1700s. And even by using this simplistic assumption of yours, we'll face a cyclic production event, where production will be lower (as less consumers), that will raise the price and make production goes up again.
@@raphaelaugusto895 Don't you think that maybe that steady percentage of unemployment is actually caused by the advancement of technology in a capitalist system? And maybe when the technology is good enough to replace humans in everything that the unemployment percentage will rocket? Why exactly do you think unemployment is a thing? Why is it a consistent thing in capitalism? Supply and demand is a model that takes no real world effects into account, such as worker ability to pay, what the worker needs, actual company investments and profit, etc. It's basically useless for everything outside of some niche perfect world scenarios with spherical cows and perfect vacuum. There is a cyclic boom and bust cycle. It's a real world phenomena and it ruins millions of lives. Congrats, you've thought it through.
(if i get some words wrong its because i dont speak english as my native language, and i am on a phone) the only thing i see wrong with what You have described here, the theoretical future in wich automatons replace the workers, is the reason of the owners of the factories, why would they want money? or consummers to be exact? if they can produce and self sustain themselves without the interference of workers, then they would live in a "utopia" exclucive only for them, were all of their needs are taken care of by robots, and in wich their fellow bussines men make transaction of materials betewn eachother. the only other class in here would be the R&D Department, developing luxuries only for their masters
Klaus Schwab is a capitalist, and currently the world is becoming more capitalist. Please don't be misled. 'Owning nothing' is literally how capitalism works, socialism advocates for the workers to own the means of production instead of a few billionaires.
One would think libertarianism means freedom for all and would go hand in hand with socialism, but when placed in the context of feudalism it makes more sense as to why today capitalists see capitalism as libertarian. It freed the middle class or lords from their obligation to their King but this freedom didn't trickle down further down to the serfs and peasants. Under capitalism the lords became the new kings!
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman. Video notes below.
This video dealt with the concepts of socialism and liberalism in the broadest sense possible (historically and geographically). So I was concerned with enduring concepts seen through a global lens. You might have noticed that I didn't even mention the US in this video. The US didn't play a major role in the development of socialism. The most remarkable thing about it, according to my research, was actually the lack of socialism developing there. It was the major country that seemed to defy the trend when the rest of the world was somewhat turning towards socialism (around 100-140 years ago). The US has the Democratic Socialists of America now, but they are small players in both American politics and socialism abroad. From my understanding they're currently closer to Marx and Fabian socialism (having an end goal of 'complete socialism') than democratic socialism typical elsewhere, like Europe. So they, to some extent, defy the generalizations I made of democratic socialism in this video, but they still generally insist on operating in properly democratic political spaces. Categorizations are historically pretty messy within socialism (socialists often claim labels mean things that conflict with other labels that other socialists use, both in other movements and other points in time), and like I said at the end, democratic socialism means different things to different people. If you're looking for one modern authoritative statement of democratic socialist thought, the DSA is not the association to provide it. The Labour Party's updated Clause IV is a better bet (which I read in the video), and yes the Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. Tony Blair (who oversaw the change to Clause IV): 'The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.'
For those who want to read more about Marx's theory of historical development, he saw it occurring through the lens of 'dialectics,' (a Hegelian idea) which is when you interpret the world through conflicting, opposite forces that resolve into a greater, more perfect whole. That's why both Hegel and Marx thought the world was becoming more perfect over time. 'Stages of the dialectic' were being passed through, and things were being resolved into greater and more perfect wholes over time. That's also why Marx's analysis was framed almost entirely through the conflict of two classes: the bourgeoisie and proletariat. He saw them as two opposites in conflict that would resolve into a greater whole: the dictatorship of the proletariat, bringing forth communism. So Marx believed dialectics provide some sort of penetrating insight into the world, even giving him insight into the inevitable future of humanity. He thought Hegel's dialectics were too mystical by being based in Spirit, and he thought he corrected that by basing his theory in matter. Both dialectics and Aristotelian essences are ideas that modern philosophers (like Russell) call 'scholastic.' They're inherently vague but nonetheless treated as precise by academics/theoreticians. That being said, I recently read an excellent biography on Marx by Jonathan Sperber, and he claimed that Marxists historically overemphasize the importance of dialectics to classical Marxism. That's something I've thought myself and I agreed with him. Marx himself rarely and usually only indirectly discussed them. I think the aspects of Marx that I covered in the video are the more important points and dialectics is the next level of detail if you're interested in understanding his underlying logic.
You might have also noticed in Lenin's quotes that he used the term 'social democracy' for his style of socialism. It's a term that Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, and democratic socialists all claimed to describe their style of socialism, making it pretty meaningless in the context of socialism at the time (why I ignored it). I think there's more agreement now that it means something akin to what I described as democratic socialism here, but that in turn has led to endless fighting about whether or not there's a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. Bernie Sanders, for example, announces himself as a democratic socialist, and it leads to fighting over whether he's a democratic socialist or actually a social democrat. I think it's an unnecessary and messy distinction, and think democratic socialism covers the concept well enough. If you ask the question: 'what single term covers all socialists who vow to work within properly democratic systems?' The answer is democratic socialists. The term social democracy is too fraught to be that single term. It's been used historically in too many loose and contradictory ways. That being said, you can use 'social democrats' to describe democratic socialists and people will now generally understand you.
Others say social democrat means you specifically want a mix of capitalism and welfarism, which seems like it's a line socialists further left have taken to claim that any socialists that endorse any privatization aren't actually socialists (they argue that they're correctly called social democrats). By that logic the Labour Party and Swedish Social Democrats aren't socialists. Why? Because they don't want to completely abolish private property. The same goes for Chinese, Cuban, North Korean, and Venezuelan socialists, again, because they all endorse some amount of privatization. So this paints socialism in a pretty tight box, which defies the overwhelming trend in socialism in the last 100 years or so. From there your perspectives are 1) the one I laid out in this video, which most socialists around the world more or less agree with, or 2) socialism is now a small movement (made up of those who still want 'complete socialism') with few modern political successes, who have to somehow claim that all these self-described socialists around the world (like Bernstein and those in Europe) are in fact labeling themselves incorrectly. To me this is akin to saying that the only 'true' liberals around the world are classical liberals (wanting small government), and anyone who deviates from classical liberalism isn't actually a liberal. You have to let political philosophies evolve with the times, and socialism has done that (as has liberalism).
On that note, democracy wasn't consistently used as a meaningful term by socialists until democratic socialism came around. Before then, it mostly was used by socialists to indicate a claim that their policies represented the 'will of the people,' a legacy that came from Rousseau's Social Contract. For one, that alone doesn't work as a conception for democracy. Even for a basic definition of democracy, power needs to be broken up beyond just the commanding majority. Think of what can happen if a majority can do whatever it wants to a minority. The other problem is that socialists at the time didn't tend to articulate a method for proving that their policy actually represented the will of the people. They just said it. The only methods that I'm aware of to date for establishing public opinion are polls and elections, and for either to work as a gauge for public opinion, they can't be held in a context where the population is under political duress. If disagreement or criticism is punished, then you can't expect to learn what people actually think. It was democratic socialists that insisted the word 'democratic' be used meaningfully in the context of their socialism, (meaning political opposition isn't suppressed, elections are open, and freedom of criticism is secured) making them the first to consistently use the word correctly in the tradition, at least to my knowledge.
Last note - some say the video became biased when it covered Lenin, apparently thinking I was too harsh on him. He is heavily propagandized in some circles and is heavily villainized in others. In such circumstances it can be hard to tell who he really was and what he was really about. For our purposes here I wanted to give a straightforward explanation of his main contribution to socialism (Marxism-Leninism). If you think the way he came off was too harsh, I'd recommend researching the period I described in the video when he set the standard for repression in the Soviet Union shortly after coming into power. It's called the 'Red Terror.' I tried to give Lenin some humane nuances but that's the man we're dealing with. He used authoritarianism to bring about socialism, making it suddenly and for the first time an official ideology for a major world power. That was his main contribution to the subject.
- Ryan
Democracy used to be the brightest banner for socialists (esp those from the Soviet Union) for a long time after Marx, but was later stolen by the bourgeois to occupy the moral high ground and serve as their camouflage by twisting and narrowing its connotation to mean only electoral/parliamentary pluralism
Hey Ryan I love your video and I think this is one of the best political videos on TH-cam at the moment. *That being said I do have criticism that I think could benefit your work for yourself and us your audience.* You didn’t differentiate between “democratic socialism” (or as I think it is better put: “Fabian socialism”) and “social democracy”. I think it is tragic to conflate them as it only benefits Marxists trying sneak themselves under the umbrella of socially acceptable in order to push the Overton window towards Marxism.
Although certain parties may call themselves Democratic Socialists in their party name they’re still social democrats in ideology. Social democrats as I understand are still capitalist in ideology however they want social reforms so capitalism can better for the ordinary working person. Whereas a genuine democratic (Fabian) socialist in ideology only has the one intention: to bring about totalitarian socialism through democratic means. Fabian/democratic socialism and Leninist socialism to me is like the difference between riding a bus and riding a bike to work: the bike (democratic socialism) might be slower and physically better for you than the bus (Leninist socialism), but at the end of the day you’re still going to the same place (Hell on Earth).
Hopefully you hear this criticism and make a video on it. I don’t go into the same depths in my research as you do so if my understanding is wrong it would also be great if you could make a video to disprove it. Either way I think a video on the topic would be super. As I said I could be wrong. I wish I could provide sources and books on the topic that I found enlightening however I can’t remember them. Also I believe that the terms democratic socialism and social democracy were both created by the same person, but I can’t name him. If they were first coined by the same person then that person might be worth mentioning as well.
If you find it irritating when audience members give you topics then I do sincerely apologise.
Most importantly though, thank you for making this video. Your work is incredible as always. 😊😄😎🔥
Would you be willing to reveal your political orientation/ideology? I’m just curious. If not, no pressure. Your life is your life. Appreciate the great content though!
I love your work and just want to say - rather off topic - that your being rather handsome helps the lessons go down too ☺☺☺
You are awsome, man
Keep up the incredible work that you do.
You have a legacy soked with greatness ahead of you, for you to create
You are and will be highly appreciated by many for decades.
I wish you only the best.
I have a masters degree in theology, and a PhD in psychology and I have rarely heard anyone present such complicated ideas with such clarity. You have a gift.
You're basically what I want to be, I want those degrees at those levels, I just don't know if I'll ever actually go to or get there
Don't be so negative@@ForeverStapleton
@@ForeverStapleton Infinitely more useful and respectable than the weird degrees some people get today.
@@ForeverStapletondon't be so honest with others. 😢😢😂😂😂😂 BTW, NAILED IT
This is why I prefer economics.
The definition of socialism is less opinionated and more striaght forward
Explaining both Aristotle and Hegel is crucial to beginning to understand Marx. Rarely do people (or professors tbh) do this. Great video!
@@Magic4599 They built the foundations of which dialectical materialism is built upon, what are you on about?
@@fatguy6153 I'm not sure what your question is.
@@Magic4599 what? Aristotle was a materialist, too. He argued that should we should examine our material world as it stands now and base theories off of that. This was counter to Plato’s form of universal statements that could move through time. There are tons of articles and books about the similarities between Marx and Aristotle.
@@scottydo0081 Aristotle is definitely not a materialist at least not in how we think of it. He definitely believed in a God. And there was a mystical dimensions to his observations
@@MrJMB122 @Joel Bridge Thanks for mentioning the possibility of freedom from all "blood and soil " and solar panels too.
I'm 22 years old, and am COMPLETELY clueless regarding politics. I don't have any political opinion other than "I hope we can all get along" and have felt pretty ashamed of that. This year when my country was voting for a new state minister I couldn't vote for any party since I didn't feel knowledgeable enough. Your channel has really helped me in grasping the fundamentals of politics and ethics, so that I at least can understand the different terms political representatives like to say a lot. Your channel is educating a whole generation of people around the world, thank you! :)
Think by yourself and don't listen to bloggers, all of them spread propaganda. I used to be like that, I used to listen to bloggers and repeat their words to my friends so they would think that I'm into politics more than them(I was like 14 yo lol). Nowadays though I don't trust anyone and don't believe anyone in terms of politically related information. After the start of this war everyone started to spread straight propaganda and none of my previous information channels didn't tell independent opinions. Everyone was either on Ukrainian side or on Russian side. The only independent man I know was my friend who didn't give any shit and just kept his grind. And I simply started to not give a shit either. Considering I live in Russia if I would have been following all the news since the start of the war to this day, well, I would simply become insane
Blood stain
The fact you didnt vote, says more about your intellect than all the dumb people who should not vote, but still do it! 😅
A lot of political thought has gone on over many centuries to bring us to where we are now. Different improvements in technology has also influenced where we are now. If you find yourself fascinated with the actual study of politics, people can major in political science. But if you are interested in self education, the nice thing is a person can do that now using the Internet. Good luck with your learning.
First young person, thank you for the actual courage and self awareness to state your known limitations in experience. Very few people who comment in public media are willing to do that. Good luck on your quest to find and embrace understanding.
so, I belong to an underprivileged society.
My caste wants to escape poverty. But, We don't have the means to.
Few years ago, we all came together and started a money piggy bank, every single member would donate some money each month. As the money wasn't enough to set up a collective business but it was surely enough to cover unexpected cost of living like a surgery, a wedding, someone's tuition fee etc.
We were extremely skeptical at first but after 6 years we now have enough money to provide scholarships for people who are not part of our community.
What I am trying to say is, an idea of collective good only works when the collection of people feel responsible for others around them. We care for each other because we are of the same caste but now we have enough resources that we can lend a helping hand to those in need just because they are in need.
I don't know you or where you're from but thank you for being a part of a community who's trying to make others lives better. We need more people like you
@@zillakamikaze5551 thanks sir.
That's great of your people ❤
This is the essense of socialism that I as a conservative can believe in. where people *willingly* pool their resources so that everyone can get a better outcome, not the government forcing people to give up their money under the guise of helping others.
@@aaronvector4750 Collective good is moot if the collective don't believe in it
why doesn't this guy have more subs? Calm, coherent, easy to follow, no silly gemmicks. Just pure intellectual diamond
The ADHD brain like silly gimmicks and memes
@@EDunn21This is absolutely insane & dogshit
Most ppl would have no idea what many of the words mean, let alone the complex structure of those words.
A 50 minute video is within the realm of the top 1% of attention spans of internet humanity.
i love when youtube algorithm decides to throw at you these pearls and let you discover wonderful smart people from the other side of the world. This is how I wish history and politics got explained at schools. Thanks from the bottom of my heart.
Ah socialism, it’s such a good system that all it took to fall was a Pizza Hut
I didn’t say that we should adopt socialism just that the explanation of the subject was so much better than the one I had in my school years.
But that’s also why we study history and failed systems, to learn and improve from them.
@@Gamfluentackshually ☝️🤓 the IMF using shock therapy…. forcing capitalism…. Global pressure…….
@@Gamfluentyou’re the reason why we need proper education of topics such as this
1.5 minutes in I can already tell his bias. Let's see if I'm wrong by the time this ends.
I love this introduction to writers in this context instead of the common “here’s the explanation from my perspective”. This can then be a jumping board to reading those people directly or learning more about them. It’s really refreshing to see.
DUDE!!!!!!! MARIXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE THAT WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC SCIENTIST USES THE SUBGJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!!!!! MARXIST/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST/NEO-MARXIST ARE ALL SCIENCE-DENIERS!!!!!!!!! :D :D
I agree
highlighting some of the writers words this is most helpful, especially if you pick out really key passages.
Just remember communication is responsible for over 100 million people starving to death
Ah socialism, it’s such a good system that all it took to fall was a Pizza Hut
I never comment on TH-cam Videos but this has to be one of the most precise, well-informed and thoroughly crafted videos I have seen in a while. Finally some objective explanations instead of egotistical opinion sharing when it comes to these topics! Kudos to you
this is the most straightforward and digestible understanding of socialism i've seen yet. it really helps to explain the different ideas and manifestations instead of trying to tie it all into a single definition. thank you!
You say unbiased yet the wording used is intentionally demeaning towards those who may hold a socialist or leftist viewpoint.
This video just seems like clever repu propaganda
Socialim, marxism and communism are "buzz words" thrown around a lot
@@slevinchannel7589 i am leftist myself and didn’t find it demeaning. while i was disappointed by other videos on his channel that are purposefully demeaning (specifically the CRT one), i think this video did a pretty good job
@@sunny-rs3mrthe national socialist German workers were likewise lefties
It's 50mins long 😂
@@Cherry-pu4mxthe point is that it takes 50 minutes to describe and not 50 seconds or 5 minutes.
I was really lazy in school and never really studied because I was so addicted to my phone & now I'm 23 and suddenly find history and how society/economy works really interesting. 🙏 Watching your videos makes me feel a tiny bit more educated and makes me really happy. I appreciate your work so much! ❤️
Economic/Political Theory is an incredibly vast, unique, and interesting topic. This is definitely the channel to learn from 😁
Check out the Tom Woods podcast and the Mises Institute. Both are a wealth of knowledge on those subjects and convey it in an entertaining format.
I didn't do well in school either, because I didn't see the point in more than half of the things I was "taught" of which I actually don't use anything to this day. It also never helped me figure out what career path suits me most, it was just an exercise in unproductivity.
School subjects about society, economy also never taught me anything useful like a lot of TH-cam videos and books I've read outside of school did, history has always kinda interested me, but the way school teaches history is basically fast food history. It's worthless.
And that's because public schools don't exist to teach you anything useful, the system they use was designed to produce factory drones who are smart enough to operate the machines, but lack the intelligence to think for themselves. That's why those places are so mind numbing and soul draining.
They make you memorize dates in history, that have no meaning. And gloss over the dirtiness of real history that makes it so interesting. Also schools changing history books to suit their narrative. Texas refuses to use California history books.
If you're wise, you will realize that your education never ends. The internet is a wonderful place for the curious and hungry.
I truly appreciate your video essays. Your insistence and persistence to report, summarize, and or critique without a clear bias has helped me to understand political and philosophical ideas that roam and inform the society around me. It has also helped me to stay calm and find the humanity in others I engage in lengthy and intensive debates with. I appreciate you.
A New Dialectic
"A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
When you mentioned Lenin's freedom from dissent, I think it would've been a little more accurate to give a brief description of democratic centralism. It's not that Lenin wanted general uniformity, he wanted uniformity towards the outside, a strict adherence to collective decisions made within the party by each member. It's also wrong that bolsheviks as a whole tried to encourage religious worship of the state. This is an opinion that was held by some important bolsheviks, like for example Maxim Gorky, but was notably opposed by Lenin and not put into practice. The oppression of religious institutions happened because those institutions were seen as upholding traditional society. Your description of democratic socialism is also completely off as what you're describing is social democracy. Wanting the government to control the means of production is a key part of democratic socialism. Those two things are not the same, not even closely. Them being so commonly conflated is a product of them only in america specifically being basically the same movement due to the nature of the american political system. And yes, definitions matter here because while language can change over time, words still mean things. Claiming modern socialists are for controlled capitalism is just not true. Only social democrats do that, which are typically not considered socialists and most socialists also tend to not want to work together with them.
Ryan, you’re one of the best orators/lecturers I’ve ever had the pleasure of listening too. Your summation skills are excellent. Thank you for these videos.
The "best performing" articles are written by persuasive people, for when an article seems unbiased all it did was to persuade you to take the writers side.
DUDE!!!!!!! MARIXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE THAT WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC SCIENTIST USES THE SUBGJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!!!!! MARXIST/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST/NEO-MARXIST ARE ALL SCIENCE-DENIERS!!!!!!!!! :D :D
@@NowioFel This is a very dumb argument you’re trying to make. Are you saying there’s no such thing as an unbiased article? If so I’m here to tell you you’re wrong. There are plenty of articles where there is simply no side to take-the writer simply tells you what happened, giving uncontested facts that both sides of the argument would agree with, and then presenting the arguments each side made in response. Word-for-word, direct quotations of what both sides has to say about it. Such an article has no “side,” and it is not biased in any way. I know it’s super cool and edgy to go around saying “I trust no one, every writer has an agenda, every article has a bias,” but it’s also the attitude of a cynical 15 year old and simply not true. Take the time to learn about and recognize different types of writing, and you will not have this problem.
@@therainman7777 fellow presumably smart human, what you are talking about is called a "report", which is different from an "article".
But if we speak of the relevant medium, which would be an "(video-) essay", which is even more prone to be structured and written to persuade the reader into the authors bias.
"I know it’s super cool and edgy to go around saying “I trust no one, every writer has an agenda, every article has a bias,” but it’s also the attitude of a cynical 15 year old and simply not true. Take the time to learn about and recognize different types of writing, and you will not have this problem."
>> ah yes, ridicule, denigrate and infantilise, a debate tactic LOVED by a certain movement
@@therainman7777 he clearly isn't "unbiased". That little addendum at the end was about trying to put a non negative spin on "modern" socialism. The dictionary definition is the only implicitly neutral definition of the word. Ownership/control of the means of production still informs socialist thought. Universal healthcare, and the "public option" are popular among leftists for a reason. State ownership doesn't necessarily have to be formal legal titles, it's about control. Very high corporate taxes is a form of control, excessive regulations on certain industries is about control.
I think I’m becoming addicted to your presentations. Your methods and articulations and the level you present them in is extremely thoughtful and concise. You presented way that doesn’t necessarily lean, but informs all the same. These concepts and their misinterpretations have evolved to the point of rhetoric. The education you provide and the subsequent clarity is very much appreciated. Extremely well done, sir.
I’d like to think if the public school system weren’t always under attack and left to its own devices, we would have history teachers that would mimic Ryan’s ability to convey information, thus engaging with nearly all students.
In lieu of standardized testing and static grading.
I suggest swapping addictions with pornography. Slowly ween off. Careful you don't develop a complex addiction and get addicted to both!
Thank you. I am 67 and have been interested in politics all my life, but evidently I still have things to learn. Your presentation of the roots of socialism was brilliant and added to my knowledge.
Same here dear Mr. Holmberg. I am 58, and consider myself a libertarian socialist. Read considerably all my life, but still unable to express the whole issue in such a concise and intelligible fashion as this wonderful young gentleman (Ryan Chapman) did. 😍
@@abicaksiz Yes. Being humble and hungry for more knowledge is crucial. Let’s do what we can to encourage that state of mind.
@@abicaksiz libertarian socialist... oh god.
@@jonnyholmberg @abicaksiz people like you are what make me hopeful the world can change.
@@jainasimpson Thank you.
A little late to The Party (see whut I did thur?) but I can't help but notice the part about the dictatorship of the proletariat and how Marx never "clearly articulated what that means or what that looks like" followed immediately by showing a highlighted quote that ends directly prior to exactly that: "The proletariat organized as the ruling class." A Marxist "state" is one that is organized by and with the interests of the working class as it's primary aim, "wresting, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie" and laying the groundwork for the transition from socialism (sometimes termed "early-stage communism") to communism (sometimes termed "late-stage communism" or the "second phase of communism"). It begins with the socialist organizational maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their work," and, following the withering away of the state (no need for a state to appropriate the means of production when it's already done that and there's no bourgeoisie to struggle against anymore), "From each according to their ability, to each according to their *need*.
To contrast, a capitalist state is organized with the interests of capital (not capitalists specifically but the very concept of capital itself) and it's reproduction and maintenance (through organized and systemic violence) as it's exclusive aim, constantly ramping up it's repressive aggression and stripping away the rights and freedoms of the individual to counteract the ever-growing and inevitable sequence of crises resulting from capitalism's in-built contradictions that will, inevitably, lead to it's destruction.
There's also some conflation between shared ownership of the means of production and collective ownership of products themselves. It's not the products themselves that are owned collectively (personal property) it's the things necessary to create the products we need ( _private_ property) that would be collectively owned and democratically operated. Nobody's going to come take your home or car or toothbrush or whatever because you didn't pay your rent or lease or fine or fee or whatever meaningless contrivance some capitalist can cook up to hide the fact that their claim to _your_ property is spurious at best and downright theft at... Well, always. It's always theft.
I think the section on Lenin would have benefited from even the briefest mention of Marxism-Leninism taking one of the most agrarian, poor and underdeveloped feudalist societies on Earth and, at a time where it was under siege by what was effectively the world's strongest and most advanced military force, pushed them all the way back to Berlin, crushed the Nazi war machine, and then oversaw the protection and development of the only other superpower in the history of mankind, produced higher average levels of quality of life than it's capitalist counterparts at equal levels of development (libgen.li/ads.php?md5=f32a35c1b94844ed2e5d9c60aa9ba5fe ) and led to a wide variety of scientific advancements (especially aerospace) all while the capitalist nations that'd had centuries to develop (the majority of which was the result of literal chattel slavery and colonial exploitation) did everything in their power to sabotage and destroy that society.
I think it's also telling that a similar society, though far smaller in size, managed to not only _survive_ both the economic sabotage and even direct, full-scale military invasion from the most powerful capitalist nation on Earth but, even after inflicting damn near every one of the most heinous war crimes imaginable from large-scale, civilian-targeted violence, widespread use of chemical weapons, torture, etc., successfully _pushed their shit in and threw them out on their ass._ And it certainly wasn't bourgeois electoralism that made that possible.
I'd recommend for anyone who really wants to do their own research to check out "The Principles of Communism" by Friedrich Engels to start (it's practically a pamphlet and can be accessed online for free) and then move on to "Value, Price and Profit" and "Wage Labor and Capital" by Karl Marx (also free, though definitely more substantial). I'd then try to slog through Das Kapital if you can manage it but the previous works should be sufficient to provide at least a foundational knowledge of dialectical materialism and scientific socialism.
@@esoopthederp7672 Remove the ) at the end. It's considering it part of the URL. I'll edit the comment and plop a space between the end of the URL and the parentheses to (hopefully) make it do not that.
Thanks for the heads-up, though. I'll have to try to remember that this is a thing TH-cam does for some reason.
I'm fascinated by how successful propaganda was at reducing communist/socialist countries to "ruthless dictatorships" completely erasing all the amazing achievements they brought. They managed to convince people that having freedom to own iphone is better then freedom to enjoy healthcare, social security, economic freedom...
@@srdjansanadrovic4434 _And_ iPhone. You can still own an iPhone, too. There's nothing we'd really be giving up.
It'll just be a wePhone.
... I'll see myself out.
yeah the part about DotP was when the deceiving liberal anti-communism started to show it’s cracks. The most shocking and outright hilarious part is the fact that the guy presents himself as being well read on marxism and marx but then completely abandons and ignores historical materialism and class struggle when he starts talking about bernstein and in the end says he advocates for a proudhonian mutualist society like what the fuck is this liberal on
@@meatharbor I think there was a mistake in the link? it seems to link to some scam website.
As someone with socialist leanings, I really appreciate the nuances and lack of overt bias in this video. Where some people go instantly to moralistic terms, you take a rationalist approach; which I admire.
Edit: something something warzone in comments yadda yadda
National Socialist leanings ...
@@barry2521 🙄
He litteraly said its government ownership, which is fundamentally WRONG.
Socialism is the workers owning the means of production
@@tyrvinodinson9790 it has always puzzled my why self-proclaimed socialists don’t start practicing what the preach already yesterday. Register business as a coop > sign any new worker up within said coop. BANG! You have your little “workers own the means of production” structure going. See how long it lasts.
@@nokeksgiven That's like saying in the time of slavery let's compete a business that uses slaves and a business that employs free people, and since we know the former is more likely to be profitable, it's the better system.
What a great argument.
This is the best description of socialism I have ever heard. Tracing it back to the roots and exploring how it evolved through the various schools of thinking is the perfect way to build a well-rounded understanding of such a complex term. Thank you so much Ryan for this incredible content!
The best kind of socialism is National \o
It's quite simple really socialism=more government, less freedom.
@@-Swamp_Donkey-na, best kind of socialism is no socialism.
@@BiffTannen-lo3gf You definitely didn't see the video.
@@mrcocoloco7200 no i did not.
The YT algorithm actually did good in recommending your channel to me. Very objective and well stated videos so far from what I've watched. It's a shame that more people don't take time to fully understand the terms they throw around. It's interesting to see that a lot of the more failed versions of political and economic ideologies seem to be linked to absolutism.
Any debates around capitalism, socialism and communism are pure absolutism. Policy isnt made based on how socialist or capitalist it is. Its made in response to current events and special interests. America has many socialist policies yet we are reffered to and seen as a capitalist nation.
In real politics these isms are used to demonize or radicalize and nothing more. Outside of real politics its just intellectual acrobats
@@progrockmorelikefrogc0ck157 Whats is "many socialist policies" in America? You mean USA?
A New Dialectic
"A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
Same
They don't because our American, (assuming you're American), so called educational system TEACHED very little, least of all how to think analytically or in depth. And in recent decades the institutions that should teach rigorous or at least how to analyze, are completely controlled by delusional, parasitic Marxists. Mass media as well.....aka "cultural marxism".
What a great video! You have illuminated much. Clearly and with precision. And without bias or a cajoling tone.
I love speeches in which very single word is exquisitely chosen to make perfect sense. You're gifted at the craft of weaving ideas into a sort fabric of rationality.
Careful, making sense and it being morally or culturally a net-positive is not the same thing.
Example: a drag queen can do a excuisitely coherent speech on how he would groom and fornicate with children in a manner that "neither causes harm nor distress"...
Even if his speech is a linguistic masterpiece of perfect sense and procedere, it will never be moral nor a net-positive to any society, nor will it be not bias. And him will never be not deserving of extreme measures to keep people like him from children.
So just keep in mind that the most effective, explanatory and persuasive essays are written by a linguistically trained hyper-biased writer, that managed to persuade you to take his side on x argument.
Flawless delivery of a well-organized, eloquent discourse without bias and full of fact. Kudos!
@@ragmarsegundo7866 too many descriptive words boss.
@@ragmarsegundo7866 incredibly without flaws, egregious in a positive form. Informatively informational, eloquently accurate with no mention of trans or gender roles in society as .1% should dictate culture to have the much needed attention their mother either poured in them. To point of lying. And a father who either was secretly anally endulged or non existent in the child’s formative young years
I don't like that cause it indicates propaganda.
An honest speech is sloppy and somewhat repetitive cause that's how humans talk. If you have a perfectly flowing speech where every word is carefully choosen that means it's a script and therefore very likely false.
Could you do a comprehensive video for Capitalism? I feel like there is nuance in both Socialism and Capitalism that conversations these days miss. One's totally good, and the other is totally evil. You do a good job at hitting an objective tone in your videos.
I agree with a video on capitalism.
also how about distributivism? is it related to syndicalism or more agrarian?
What is evil about the one?
@@josephcoon5809 depends on who you talk to. I was being vague because it could refer to either, because there are people who treat their preferred social theory as sacred and the other as completely terrible. Instead of understanding how they work and why they prefer one over the other, "socialism never works" or "capitalism is the source of all ill in society" etc etc... That's why I love the break down of these theories. If people understand them more, they can articulate better why they like certain things or disagree with other things.
@@zacharyclark3693 How do you understand something you don’t put into practice?
A hypothesis is only as good as its interaction with reality. Words don’t prove veracity; examples do.
The problem with these arguments is that it is prelude to relinquishing the application of the theory to a government with almost no oversight from those that authorized such power and responsibility to a faceless entity.
It’s a great setup for, “Well, it didn’t work because they did it wrong.” or “Ot would have worked if THOSE people didn’t corrupt it.”
These conversations should do ONE thing, and it isn’t to justify one’s voting habits which is nothing more than abdicating personal responsibility for proving one’s own ideas. These conversations SHOULD attract like-minded individuals to one another so they they can pool their resources and efforts to collectively build EXACTLY what they imagine so that there is no question to why it failed.
And if it didn’t fail…then they have something better than words to support their arguments: reality.
Excellent, relevant and fascinating content. Appreciate all your hard work and research bringing this content to life in an engaging fashion. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for your donation! I'm committed to making these videos full-time, so more will be coming.
I have never seen this type of flair on a comment. What is it?
@@realryanchapman Great video.
@@LostAkkadian It's caused by the donation of 50 USdollars$
@@realryanchapman
This video does not represent Modern, Refined Socialism. C'mon, go to the Source, binge a Socialist-TH-camr: 'Second Thought'.
I don't understand why for example the social democrats that have been in power in Sweden are referred to as democratic socialists when they obviously never adopted any of the basic ideas of socialism like abolishing private means of production and self call themselves social democrats and not democratic socialists? How I have always understood the term "democratic socialist" were (actual) socialists that wished to achieve actual socialism (no private means of production) but wished to do this through democracy instead of revolution. Democratic socialist therefore were/are actual socialist while social democrats at least in places like Sweden have just been "capitalist with a softer side", proponents of safety nets supported by a capitalist economy rather than actual socialists. Perhaps they should have picked a less confusing name and perhaps there should be more clarity on this distinction between actual socialists (democratic socialists) and proponents of capitalism that just wish to spread that wealth more evenly through taxation and social programs (social democrats).
I also don't like the idea that the meaning of even clear terms just evolves over time. I don't know why people that are clearly capitalists should be called socialists and think the term has evolved to include this group that doesn't belong under that umbrella term at all. This kind of morphing of terms is irrational and makes it confusing to talk about history, when each definition of group depends on what era of history we are talking about. It would be easier if the meaning instead would stay the same and we would simply state that actual socialists don't mostly exist anymore and most of those that still call themselves socialists or democratic socialists are actually capitalists with a confusing name. We don't evolve the term "thin people" to include obese people just because of the times either, the meaning stays the same through centuries so why should we accept that nowadays mostly socialist just means a capitalist that wishes to identity a bit differently.
bernie sanders does this as well, which i always thought would just bring him into loads of red scare propaganda, but I guess he's just looking to soften the idea of socialism into some less scary term
Exactly, I also believe that the creation of communism was a deliberate attempt to discredit Marxism. Even if both ideologies have nothing to do with it each other, people are often confused about both terms. The bourgeoisie is still here, nothing has drastically changed ! They will always find ways to keep socialists happy in the short term to stay in power.
Because Marx was correct in denouncing it and Lenin correct in calling it utopian
It’s really good to see you growing. You deserve it. Can’t wait to come back in a year or so when you have half a million or even a million subs. Great work bro. Love it.
The term "capitalist", meaning an owner of capital, appears earlier than the term "capitalism" and dates to the mid-17th century. "Capitalism" is derived from capital, which evolved from capitale, a late Latin word based on caput, meaning "head"-which is also the origin of "chattel" and "cattle" in the sense of movable property (only much later to refer only to livestock). Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries to refer to funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money or money carrying interest.[20]: 232 [21] By 1283, it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm and was often interchanged with other words-wealth, money, funds, goods, assets, property and so on.[20]: 233
The Hollantse (German: holländische) Mercurius uses "capitalists" in 1633 and 1654 to refer to owners of capital.[20]: 234 In French, Étienne Clavier referred to capitalistes in 1788,[22] six years before its first recorded English usage by Arthur Young in his work Travels in France (1792).[21][23] In his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), David Ricardo referred to "the capitalist" many times.[24] English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge used "capitalist" in his work Table Talk (1823).[25] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon used the term in his first work, What is Property? (1840), to refer to the owners of capital. Benjamin Disraeli used the term in his 1845 work Sybil.[21]
The initial use of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense is attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labor").[20]: 237 Karl Marx frequently referred to the "capital" and to the "capitalist mode of production" in Das kapital (1867).[26][27] Marx did however not use the form capitalism, but instead used capital, capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear frequently.[27][28]
In the English language, the term "capitalism" first appears, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), in 1854, in the novel The Newcomes by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, where the word meant "having ownership of capital".[29] Also according to the OED, Carl Adolph Douai, a German American socialist and abolitionist, used the term "private capitalism" in 1863.
i like Proudhon's 1861 description , because in 2022 that is most definitely the case .
Capital, according to Adam Smith was all of: Knowledge, Skills, Attitude, Energy, Work Ethic, Ideas and the Tools of Production. Read him in the original. He anticipated worker ownership of larger ventures, and despite his times deplored the concentration of land in so few hands (which they would lose in time to capitalist pressures). It's all there. 240 years ago.
I always thought it was the system by which people could invest in businesses or start their own, and thereby reap the financial rewards if it is successful.
@@eddyk564 it's a system that privileges those born into wealth to start business and they are the same people that shape the narrative of the system. The rest are fed the myth of equal opportunity, which isn't true so those people are told to blame themselves.
@@romanbrandle319 The system is undoubtedly imperfect -people can be born into wealth or poverty and that is unfair. However, there is every opportunity to rise up. Some Western countries have an extremely high rate of social mobility. In fact, a number of the wealthy and rich were born reasonably poor (in the US at least). There is no blame on people- it is just the reality of the situation. Some people are extremely talented and have a huge amount to offer society and some don't. Yes, there are some idiots born into wealth and never need to work, but that is a tiny minority of people.
If I could criticize one thing, it would be that I wouldn't use the term "Democratic Socialist" to describe the rise of the liberal parties in favor of social welfare in post-WWII Europe. Like you explained, their prominence was in large part due to their social stability and democratic rule within a capitalist economy. The better term would be to call these parties by how they describe themselves: "Social Democrats".
I’m a Social Nationalist
Isn't Democratic Socialist what the Communist Parties used to call themselves?
Anarchists often say that the reason you can't participate in the State is that it will change you more than you will change it. Seems like a good example of that
Of course Lenin was a supposed member of the socdem party that wanted moderate reforms a month before he decided to take over power during the early months of the Russian democratic provisional government.
It wouldn’t make any difference because republicans have made socialism the big bad wolf without defining it. I noticed they refused to condemn Mussolini, Hitler and fascism because they literally are fascists now. Reagan’s “neoliberalism” has evolved into hateful, narrow minded, authoritarian, white nationalism. Just like we warned it would.
@@janeayre96 Ah yes, because stopping mass immigration in the millions and opposing fringe ideas about trans people or gender or race privelege is white nationalism.
Better tell the KKK and even communists of 1920 that not being down with the gay cause or ideology means they're white nationalists now 😆
A really interesting take and explanation, although I feel like it fails to mention important points concerning Lenin's party and the post-WW2 decision to move towards liberalism:
1. Russia was still freshly out of a feudal system, with attemps to re-instate it by the White army, which was supported by volunteers and military from other countries in Europe.
As such, we can draw parallel between Lenin's decision to fight anti-socialist views and the First French Republic's wariness against anti-democratic views. Both also fought against the clergy,
Lenin trying to replace it himself while the First French Republic tried to replaced it with Reason, a sort of science-based set of beliefs.
It is likely that it was because feudal societies base their legitimacy in the Godly right of the feudal lord, and clergy had a clear power, both political and social
2. Post WW2, Europe's decision to become more liberal was greatly influenced by the fact that the USA were the ones pouring resources to rebuild the country as they were trying to expand their
sphere of influence to try to handle their political rival, the USSR. France, for example, chose to go for a socialist economy and even Great Britain to an extent (until Margaret Thatcher).
There was a peak of worker's right and middle-class comfort during the Cold War which is quickly disappearing, whether by lack of need for it for propaganda purposes, by inability to do so due
to weakening economies, or by lack of interest as globalization allowed for a greater pool of employees to pick from (Those are the only reasons I'm able to think of, it might be a mix of them or
one I did not even think about)
Otherwise, excellent in-depth analysis. Keep up the good work, I'll be looking forward to your other videos and binge-watch those already out
Well done, Ryan. Good to see a young person doing the kind of critical thinking and deep research you present. Gives me hope.
...This video does not represent Modern, Refined Socialism. C'mon, go to the Source, binge a Socialist-TH-camr: 'Second Thought'.
@@slevinchannel7589 I think that's fair, as the focus was primarily on the birth and development of socialism. Needs a sequel to cover any gaps and modern development ;)
As a philosophy-major, this is the most unbiased coverage I've seen. Please, please, please tell me you'll professionally translate this for Spanish, Chinese, and Russian speakers.
make sure you learn the 5 basic philosophical assumptions most philosophy majors never learn them
@@GODHATESADOPTION what are these 5 assumptions? Tried looking them up but not much came up
@@CStrik3r epistemological or how do we know what we know, ontological what is a being, axiological x and y axis on a graph, methodological like science. unless you want to be reduced to the absurdity of solipsism you have to take a leap of faith in order to presume certain a priori truths tautologically.
Why do Spanish, Chinese and Russian speakers need it? They have plenty of their own experience in building and experimenting with socialism to go off of.
@@MAGICatBEN Because this is one of a few American's attempted-unbiased analysis of socialism and historical communism. Most native-English resources are heavily biased in either direction or appear to be straight-up. radical hocum.
This is a wonderfully accessible video. I love seeing the threads of these philosophies laid out like this. It really helps me to see how we’ve ended up here. Your channel is a godsend
Yes
Can you elaborate I’m genuinely curious. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried?
@@stuckinthemud4352 because it hasn't been fully implemented without the US intervening.
@@sameerdodger that is a pathetic argument the us gets involved when human rights start getting violated. What you actually mean is socialism always breaks down to a point that it requires violence and then other countries get involved. Let me ask a question why can you start a co-op or union business in a capitalist society but you can’t have non union non co-op business in a Marxist society? Nobody is stopped y’all until you start trying to use the force of the government against its people.
@@stuckinthemud435299% of the time its because its not actually socialism or another country(US) interferes with it to stop it
I am happy I stumbled upon this channel. This seems like a place for free thought and critical analysis of ideas while also taking from primary sources. Good job!
The summary at the end is the best I have ever heard. This whole video on socialism is the best that I have ever seen. This channel on social history is the best I have ever found.
If Socialist-TH-camr is too much for you yet to digest, fine, Youtubr Cody Johnston has countless videos
with rich, poor, capitalism, incentive or other words in the name
Your ability to be thorough and unbiased like this is exactly is why I support you on Patreon each month. Amazing work! Thank you!
Thanks Shauna! Both for your comments on here and Patreon support.
There's absolutely nothing unbiased about this or his other videos. Confused yt liberal ramblings.
@@madprole5361 I would definitely press upon you to educate yourself and read. What you wrote indicates you're on the very wrong side of the IQ bull curve.. You're coming off as, "if it ain't MAGA, it be is libtardism".
@@madprole5361 im curious as to how you see the video to be biased? im watching it rn so i wanna hear ur thoughts
@@kitkatranttv3786 been a while since I watched this and he deletes negative comments, but generally speaking, he has a very strong liberal bias. He half-assed his explanation of socialism which was really a half-assed analysis on Marx and ended with confusing socdems and demsocs, which is a modern no no for moat socialists, since after ww2, socialists generally view socdems as social fascists. If you want to learn about socialism, history, and philosophy, go to socialists and philosphers. Check out Second Thought, Then & Now, and Plastic Pills for introductions to the subjects Ryan covers. There's more to socialism than Marx and more to Marxism than Marx too. He also tends to openly gloss over the important things in his videos that negate or confront him like issues of imperialism, white supremacy, classism, etc that are embedded within capitalism. He'll at best just mention them in passing and move on like it's not a big deal anymore. He also refuses to acknowledge fascism as a capitalist ideology and is misleading about what fascism is in that video. Capitalists are notoriously bad at history and philosophy, except for twisting it to their agenda. There really isn't an outside of bias, tbf, but ones biases should be known and acknowledged.
Your speaking and teaching abilities are exceptional, and your ability to summarize complex ideas is impressive. Thanks for this one : )
This is a great video! Really enjoyed it. There is however bias by omission on a major part with respective the Lenin’s suppression of the opposition and civil war - the bourgeoisie were fighting to destroy what the Bolshevik’s were trying to build
this was unbelievably good, thank you so much for summarising and simplifying the definitions and history of socialism!
As someone who lived in one of the versions of Socialism (Yugoslavia) I completley agree with Ryan. Socialism/Communism implemented in Warsaw pact countries was quite different than what was in Yugoslavia (Non-Alaigned movement) and Stalin in particular hated the fact that Yugoslavia didn't wanted to become a member of Warsaw pact.
Warsaw pact was formed after Stalin's death. Yugoslavia betrayed the Cominform.
While it was benefiting from Cominform, Tito and his group proudly boasted as "stalinists" but they secretly plotted against Albania and Hungary (known as the Rajk consipracy) wanting to take control over them in a big "Balkan Union" project that would become a buffer between socialist east and capitalist west. This plot failed because Cominform became aware of their plotting and when they invited yugoslav representatives to explain themselves, they just didnt show up and instead strated to cry "soviet imperialism". In 30s Tito claimed that trotskyists are basically fascists, in late 40s he was interviewed by trotskyists where he claimed that Stalin was a revisionist. He was just a political opportunist.
In 1948 Tito claimed the following: “As for the first theme, the national question, I am not referring to it because of its being a problem in our country, in one form or another, today. No, the national question here has been settled, and very well settled, to the general satisfaction of all our peoples. It has been settled on the lines of Lenin's teaching." The way our country fell apart 10 years after his death, precisely on national grounds tells you how much Tito was wrong.
@@crniskadu9881 Best thing they ever did, Soviets were great at experimenting, but were shit at implementing, that's why they ultimately fell back on state capitalism.
@@Lobanjolom Today i learned that collapsing a country into a bloody civil war was a great thing. Yugoslavia was the first country to fall to capitalism (although TItoists marketed themselves as market socialists, which is nonsense). After Stalin's death, Khruschev and co did everything they could to undermine previous achievements and slander socialism, modeling themselves after Titoist policies. So no, i dont see how your logic holds true by any metric. Yugoslavia was shit and we have to live with its consequences today.
Warsaw Parc was founded in 1955 in response to Join, West Germany to NATO. and Stalin was dead 2 years ago. Read the basic history of idiots
@@crniskadu9881 When the Batista regime was overthrown they discovered that Yugoslavia had offered to sell Batista arms after the American Imperialist had stopped selling them to Batista.
I'm only 18 minutes in and this is the first video I watch on your channel and I'm already impressed. I love your format, specially how you're showing the source lines of all you sentences, which firstly shows your credibility and secondly makes it way easier to pick up a thought and continue with it, since it'll be easier to find in the source.
Why dont you jusrt go and ask a Socialist?
TH-camr Second-Thought has so many videos and the videotitles are even often; for your convenience; phrased like questions.
@slevinchannel7589 thanks for the recommendation. I already know and like that channel.
@@hosampb5593 Hmm, then its TIME for something less politlcal: Try 'Zee Frank'
Is it appropriate to say that orthodox Marxism only really makes sense when in contest with unregulated capitalism?
It seems that once capitalist countries like America started to heavily regulate its industries, his viewpoint kind of breaks down.
Not saying that every single point he wrote is now invalid because of a few bills passed, but what I gather is that Marx's idea of a communist future relied heavily on capitalism being stuck in a state of cruel conditions for the middle and lower classes.
Thank you Ryan for such a comprehensive overview. There are not many 45 minute+ educational videos that can keep me engaged throughout its entirety. You've added to my understanding of socialism immensely.
Then i have just the video-essays for you, friend: All videos with 'Poor' and 'System' in the name
by TH-camr Some More News.
@@nenmaster5218 They have good info, but man are they annoying. I can only stomach about 15 minutes at a time with the trying to be funny and failing miserably.
It's a channel that can remind people history and the humanities are serious disciplines, not just ideological flexing points
I don’t know.I find the people involved in the “humanities” very serious even earnest,and the subjects in the humanities affect us all ,but but as usual all areas of study based purely on human analysis of observation are commonly flawed, so studying these perspectives as an accurate representation of the truth ,can lead to bizarre conclusions.
The humanities are ideologically biased, and emotionally driven.
The most important part of a humanities degree is learning the phrase "Do you want fries with that?"
@@kelvinpell4571 Oversimplification. It's true for some, but I'm making decent enough money with mine and I'm happy. I know others that would say the same. Obviously STEM fields are safer, but there plenty of people underemployed with those degrees working meaningless jobs as well. A person's work ethic and ambition will carry them the farthest, but you need the piece of paper to get you there.
Ryan, this is yet another masterpiece of extremely well researched education. Wherever we lie on the political spectrum, it is essential we understand the terms and actions of how we got here, and comprehend at least the meaning of the tools are our disposal. Thank you!
A "masterpiece"? It is good drudge research giving us a basic outline. If you thought this was good, you need to set aside an evening just for reading Wikipedia Articles. But I'm glad he said one thing, towards the end, something like "the world does not exist to fit our definitions, but our definitions should be formed to fit the World". Yeah, every time I argue with anybody on the Left, there is the MEANINGLESS Ideological Arguments that are put forward, with Anarchists quoting Marx or Buchanan the same way that Evangelicals quote their Bible. So, yeah, Ryan seems to be an Intellectual before being some kind of an Radical Extremist Recruiter.
@@leovolont while you’re right in some sense, I’m sure the above commenter was complimenting all the work that Ryan put into making this video.
@@leovolont Wikipedia? Do you watch CNN too? Ryan goes to the original works, whereas Wikipedia filters through a strong pro-socialist bias.
@@theBear89451 Good Morning Bear, (that's a good name for really big male Cats... I once had a 'Big Bear' and now I have a 'Honey Bear') this is what you said: "Wikipedia? Do you watch CNN too? Ryan goes to the original works, whereas Wikipedia filters through a strong pro-socialist bias."
Bear, I just suggested Wikipedia as another sterile dry piece of drudge research, while the Original Commenter was treating a Paper like a 'masterpiece'. You do realize that outside of all the Political Cabals and all the plotting for Revolution, either Socialist, Fascist, Populous, Raciest, or Anarchist (as though Anarchists could ever PLAN anything), there is the Academic Community where objective and unbiased paper are the boring day to day norm, and nobody thinks to celebrate them.
Next, Bear, Wikipedia is not some Monolith, but a battlefield of quarrelling Editors that enjoy erasing each other's input and substituting their own, as sort of an Institutionalized Anarchy, and so one can only rely on Wikipedia when looking up the most uncontroversial stuff. But then the rest of Google is populated with For Profit Accounts. The Universities care so much about Profits that they Firewall all their unbiased information (after all, Knowledge needs to be paid for just like everything else in Capitalism, where it's so easy to forget that we are all pretending that Democracy must somehow work despite all the Ignorance that is overwhelming Society).
Yeah, I'm a bit cynical about Democracy. I have my own Channel and I have two very cynical Playlists: "Revolution from the Top" and "Democracy is a Bad Thing". I suggest ways that Humanity can survive, but what I honestly believe is that we are heading for a Civilizational Collapse where any recovery will be delayed for Centuries as the Earth will have to recover on it's own from Global Warming.
@@nostalgicgirrl6053 Good Morning, Simram, yes, I can understand, after a bit more thought, that being overzealous in complimenting Ryan is not the worst of things. Even I found by the end of my comment that some praise was in order. But it just goes to show how extremist and radicalized the Social Media has become when we begin to bestow inordinate praise for objectivity, which is, or used to be the norm, at our Universities. Then, despite what all the Right Wing Populous or Fascist Pundits are saying about how the Universities are bastions of Marxist Thought, well, I can't imagine any Professor giving top grades to students who would hand in Emotion Drive Paper full of Ideological Agenda, accept maybe in regards to the Black Studies Departments which nobody but Blacks take seriously anyway.
Incredibly well researched and presented in a painstakingly unbiased way. Amazing as always Ryan!
👍👍
@@TheFirstGroover
This video does not represent Modern Socialism: C'mon, go to the Source, binge a Socialist-TH-camr: 'Second Thought'.
@@nenmaster5218 infact doesn't want to rappresent bu rather explain the evolution and the roots behind this political philosophy.
@@nenmaster5218 I will check btw, thanks
@@TheFirstGroover :)
I don't normally watch American history youtube vlogs because the Americans always take so long with silly introductions, trying to be funny, liking the sound of their own voice, but this guy is brilliant.
I really enjoyed this, no BS, straight to the point and explained in a simple and entertaining way. Well done Ryan. You are a great teacher. Keep up the fantastic work
Population can, at any time, be tested to be extremly misinformed and clueless about socialism and capitalism
But this changes right-now, then spawning aptly-named videos like "more and more people lose faith in capitalism" by 'Second Thought'
And of course one of his videos litearlly has the word Beginner in it, sooo maybe watch that one
even before that 1. Oh, and isnrt one video literally named "Youre already a Socialis,t you just odnt knowww"?
As an American I know exactly what you mean, I have to skip through the video lots of times, it's very aggravating
Pffff get over yourself 🙄
Americans doing extra unnecessary talking? No way never lol
Best example geography now
Ryan, I must appreciate the clarity with which you explain political and economic concepts. For many years, I have been reading books on these important topics, often voluminous, and I have not been the wiser until I stumbled on your TH-cam channel. You cover massive terrains in each topic, and I had to frequently pause the recording to reflect and understand the sub-topics and terminologies, which in themselves could constitute independent topics. I was wondering whether you are considering breaking up a topic into fundamental subtopics and presenting these as short 2 to 5 minute animations. This will certainly assist many more people to grasp these important relevant issues. Thank you very much for the great job that you doing.
Don't be ridiculous !!! All that is presented here is just a capitalist's biased propaganda. Just look at China today if you want to understand what is socialism. Capitalism is great but only as a tool, never can it be treated as an ideology for that would be superstition. Democracy is the biggest problem in USA and in all those countries who wanted to copy it. USA sucks. China rocks. Good night, America !!! Good morning, China !!!
May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
What he calls democratic socialism is better described as Social Democracy. Modern Democratic Socialists are anti capitalist, fight on behalf of workers, hold Marx in high esteem (and sometimes Lenin too). It was a pretty good video up until that last section.
This differs from country to country and even from party to party. Some democratic socialist are more liberal and market oriented, others are more authoritarian and Marxist. The latter are dangerous radicals, the former important part of any democratic society.
yes
"democratic socialists" advocate for poverty and authoritarianism but okay
This might sound odd, though I have for some time been curious and had the want educate myself on such ideologies, but funny as it may sound a video game is what finally drove me to learn about Socialism and other types of ideologies like your other fantastic video on Fascism. Funny enough that game was Disco Elysium, a role playing game that involves both socialism and fascism within its setting.
I loved how you developed the concept through historical events-shaping revisions, which in turn influenced events and further fleshing out the the more practical concept of socialism. Great content, Ryan. 👍🏻👏🏻 Your channel deserve and need to have more follower. But such is life, bro.
Of all the political analysts I have found on this venue, I find your attitude of calm objectivity married with thorough research to be the best.
I really like your use of the ambient music throughout this video. It really adds to the immersion and tone.
If videos like this were on the front page of TH-cam for everyone, the world would be a much smarter place 👍
Even if they were, most people wouldn't watch them anyway.
And more aware of the dangers. :)
I'm out of words. Thank you for your work. Subscribed and will happily contribute financially to your channel as soon as I have funds to spare.
An excellent material, Ryan! Very concise and on the point. It's hard to believe that there was a time when "Das Kapital" was a mandatory reading in school... Anyway, I'm somewhat glad for putting up the effort.
As a recommendation for future videos: I, personally, would be truly glad to see more meditations on subjects within the realm of political psychology.
It was for me.
Though I did grow up in USSR. That might affect it.
Thank you Ryan for such a comprehensive overview. There are not many 45 minute+ educational videos that can keep me engaged throughout its entirety. You've added to my understanding of socialism immensely.
The only thing we are all sure about is that Ryan has done the search thoroughly, That's why people like me and Conor do not have to do the same research again, that's why I agree with Conor that "this is currently the best channel on TH-cam right now"
A big thumbs-up and thank you to Ryan!
I heartily agree!
He hasn't though... A lot of the history he presented was badly over simplified or outright misleading such as the section on bolsheviks.
Outstanding research work and tutorials! Flowing and not long-winded due to your prepareness and clearly exemplifying excellence!
Young Man, you do a very comprehensive and easy to understand presentation! KEEP IT UP !
I've noticed that the production values of these videos have slowly gone up, that's quite promising.
Would be interested if more political ideas are elaborated upon in the future. Things like Conservatism, Social democracy, Libertarianism, Georgism, etc.
Ryan’s back 💯🌍 - very curious for this one. I want a solid grasp of socialism beyond just economics class. I reckon Ryan will provide such an analysis… let’s see!
Absolutely didn't expect to see you here
Was it to your liking?
Never know Mr Spherical had big brain
Spherical? What are you doing here? Shouldn't you be worrying about the reichtangle invasion?
1) “We must hate-hatred is the basis of communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.” - Vladimir Lenin
2) “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” - Vladimir Lenin
3) “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” - Vladimir Lenin
4) "The way to crush the bourgeoisie [middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” - Vladimir Lenin
5) “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”
-Vladimir Lenin
6) “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” - Vladimir Lenin
7) “It is necessary-secretly and urgently-to prepare the terror.” -Vladimir Lenin
8) “The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”
- Vladimir Lenin
9) “Surely you do not imagine that we shall be victorious without applying the cruelest revolutionary terror?”
- Vladimir LenIn
Excellent and well thought out presentation of the roots of socialism and its evolution in modern societies. Thank you Ryan for taking the time to properly research this topic and articulating it so well!!!
I do think it's a little shortsighted to not highlight how the supposed continual increase in general welfare being used to explain away why capitalism was not harming workers is because of Imperialism. It's a very eurocentric omission. Kind of a big thing to miss as it was definitely discussed by plenty socialist thinkers.
Overall great video! Of course a lot of people who watch your content are going to have a lot to say about this video. Don't take it personally. You did a great, honest, and fair job.
omg yess thanks for that explanation
Very good video with great and unbiased knowledge! I have always been interested in these concepts and practices. Really appreciate your channel. I am from China and have experienced China's Soviet-style socialism and later socialism with Chinese characteristics. I have also lived in a capitalist country for decades. I have practical felt both socialism and capitalism. Unfortunately, I thought that socialism and capitalism, as socioeconomic models, are strongly governed by political system. Regardless of the ideology of the political system, these ideas of human sages are actually very valuable and should be integrated with each other. The ideology of the political system distorts the value of these ideas and even demonizes them.
chinas quite capitalistic tho..
we prolly need a mix out of those systems, especially more direct democracy, transparency... n less corrupiton
china is not socialist it is capitalistic it becomes more capitalistic everyday
I graduated with 2 degrees almost 40 years ago: political science and journalism. I worked as a journalist for 12 years, then as a carpenter, a few other odd jobs, then unaffordable retirement.
My father was a national union organizer when I was young. I remembered his dinner conversations as I sought part time work, before the pandemic. I got work in the revenue department for two new resort hotels. I was hired at $18 per hour for 20 hours a week. Just what I needed.
The first week I was hired, the supervisor of our small department told me the company, headquartered in Seattle, could pay me only $17 per hour. What could I do?
I soon learned that, at peak season, the 2 hotels together grossed $1 million per month. Everything my father, and what Marx and Hagel said, hit hard. I had little doubt in the theories they had about class, and learned another real life lesson, the others not worth mentioning here.
You sound like living in the unchecked capitalism society...
Yeah, I volunteer as a tutor through our library and I'm always telling kids to research degrees to see forecasted demand and potential salary ranges.
@@jillpatton3432 And sometimes an industry like journalism changes fast and home building pops because of largely unregulated banking. Surprise, surprise.
Supply & demand…100 of other employees getting paid as well…idk I need more context but if you are good and being underpaid…go somewhere else
From Australia, during the pandemic, I found a casual job that paid $34 per hour, later I found out business contractor get pay $45, but as a long-term full-time worker only get pay $27.
I have studied the history of socialism for 40 years and I have to say you create an excellent presentation that should be used for college level classes.
I really appreciate the totality of your channel’s subjects and analysis. I wish we all had a teacher at some point in school that approached the whole subject with clarity and context the way you do. Thank you.
I have to applaud you on how well you structured this video. Informative, non biased and historical.
it was biased
@@lostintranslation1957 guess so
@@_GrandZeno what a surprise, socialists get pissed when it’s not made out to be the greatest thing ever… almost as if it’s a human idea that’s completely fallible.
The thing about bias is that it doesn't really mean anything because everyone skews everything to their own perspective.
Also, bias is a subjective lens through which we interpret information. It's influenced by our experiences, beliefs, and values. However, it doesn't invalidate our opinions. Instead, it provides us with a unique viewpoint that can foster critical thinking and dialogue. In essence, bias is what makes us human.
I forgot to mention this earlier. Socialism isn't a perfect society. It will have its limitations, and to understand those limitations, we need to compare them with the issues we face in our current capitalist economy. Believing otherwise means lacking an understanding of what socialism actually is. So anyone who tells you any differently doesn't know what they are talking about. It's just another social system, the next stage in the development of society, which will have its own problems and contradictions.
This video was incredible and so informative! My only point of confusion is that the final definition of Democratic Socialism just seems like Social Democracy. My understanding has always been that:
Social Democracy = reforming capitalism to have more socialist values
Democratic Socialism = ultimately achieving socialism through democratic means. Which is to say that the end goal is eventually to abolish capitalism
Your definition is correct. Democratic Socialism is still seen as a form of Reformism / Revisionism given the fact that it is not Revolutionary. So, Social Democracy could be seen as a step towards transitioning to Democratic Socialism.
They are the same thing in practice. The intentions may be different, but the end result will be more state power and less individual liberty.
@@Kitkat-986 You don’t know what you’re talking about. The “end result” is not the same for both systems.
Democratic Socialism seeks to establish Socialism (worker ownership of the means of production) gradually over time.
Social Democracy seeks to maintain and uphold Capitalism while smoothing out some of its rougher edges.
While socdems and demsocs may look the same and will advocate for the same policies in the short term, their long-term goals are obviously different.
@@wintermint77 Neither fully embrace free market principles, so neither are good systems. The problem with social democracy is that it tends to be used as a tool for the more revolutionary socialists who come around every generation or two. Those who identify as social democrats may genuinely not intend to have a socialist revolution, but invariably, after enough time, the revolutionaries will take over and try to create another socialist dictatorship.
Oh boy, if you are still on a level of market versus more state, you have to do a lot more brain work. A lot of liberal values are applicable with socialism, I also doubt ownership over certain private stuff would just fall by the wayside, neither do markets in a sense cease to exist since people will still need cars, a roof for theirs houses, bread, what have you. Owning means of production together though means being less dependent on private companies and sometimes outrageous prices, being able to decide where you want to go with certain things in terms of company policy, through vote etc producing for self sufficiency instead of profit and so on. At least in theory. If it would work is hard to predict since we can not set up a lab in the real world and test that under current circumstances and do not @ me with general income or the likes, that is basically still capitalism with state handouts, subsidizing bad wages and working conditions. Real socialism goes much further on fundamental levels than just less versus more state and markets. Some liberals/conservatives seem to be of the opinion under socialism there would be no market anymore or the state/market relationship is a mutually exclusive one in each system. Both need each other I'd argue and even some indigenic tribes have primitive markets in their little sub spaces sort of, trading maybe weapons against food or tribe rights or jewelry or what have you. So the whole socialism = no markets anymore arugment is just plain dumb to me.
Very good video! I appreciate the coverage of Hegel, Bernstein, Saint-Simon, Owen, et. al. I do have a few critiques though. For a video attempting to summarize the entire history of socialism, it's probably unfair to nitpick too much, but really just a few points:
I think the treatment of Lenin was a bit cursory, at least when compared to other sections. The part saying that Lenin positioned the Bolsheviks as a party of peace but then entered a civil war was a bit unfair. They were indeed among the few who promised to exit World War I and indeed delivered on that. The civil war was not a unilateral aggressive action on Lenin's part. There was a strong attempted counterrevolution that took place, led by the ousted leader of the Duma, loyalists to the Tsar, etc. And it was bolstered by troops from Britain and the U.S. who actually invaded Russia.
Second, the mass incarceration of dissidents and the secret police are presented as characteristic of Leninism. But these were very much a continuation of the status quo rather than a novelty of Leninism. The monarchy had operated a secret police for decades prior and was well-known for its use of exile of political prisoners to Siberia (which, as several times an exile himself, Lenin did much of his writing!).
Third, I did notice a lack of explanation of what a Soviet is and how this relates to and differs from Bolshevism.
That said, the rest of the video is really very good. The topic of Lenin and Leninism is a very interesting one and could well demand its own video and its own coverage. The history of the Soviet Union is very interesting, from the differences between Lenin and Stalin to the role of Trotsky to the changes under Kruschev and under Brezhnev. Maybe a video for another time!
One last little thing: I don't think the "idea of syndicalism" is dead. Anarchism and anarcho-syndicalism are still around. I don't think that, since they are not currently being implemented or practiced at wide scale, the ideas are somehow tossed out the window. The ideas are still alive and shifts in social thought could breathe more life into them in the future. Anyway, just a minor thing.
Thanks for the video! I definitely enjoyed it.
Additional note: It could be the case that the NKVD and political exile were ramped up under Lenin as compared to under the Tsar. I'm not sure on this.
@@SkremoMcThrftsto The Checka was the secret police under Lenin. They were founded when terrorist attacks came close to killing Lenin and Trotsky. They were also special battalions that fought in the civil war.
@@kimobrien. Good to know. Thanks. Hard to keep all of these organizations and names straight.
@@SkremoMcThrftsto Felix Dzerzhinsky was the original head of the Checka. He was a polish communist who kept a picture of Rosa Luxemberg in his office and although he sided with Stalin he died in 1926 before Trotsky's final exile.
I was looking for a comment like this, thank you!
Incredible definition! I love how you’ve explained such complex concepts and given your own up to do definition of socialism which is not easy to find!
Most under appreciated channel. Here’s hoping you’re channel blows up soon.
Understanding how most of these groups and the ideology behind them works is crucial to understanding where some actually come from. Very crucial and informative in understanding specifically the western ideology
Grateful to have your thoughtful voice on TH-cam. Really impressive, helpful and apolitical breakdown of socialism.
Nothing apolitical about this liberal interpretation and over simplification.
@@madprole5361 OMG?!?!?! SIMPLIFICATION IN A 50 MINUTE VIDEO ON A VERY COMPLEX TOPIC?!?!?!
@@oculusquest2460 you could be more accurate than this and all his videos in a 5 min video. Don't go to capitalists to learn about socialism. They always fuck it up.
@@oculusquest2460 He shouldn't claim its an "In depth analysis" lol.
@@oculusquest2460 The first three chapters are very in depth. Leninism and all other practical applications are barely glossed over and are all thrown in the political compass area of authoritariamism which is 1. too simple 2. often completely untrue. Socialist movements vastly differ. He also leaves out socialist movements outside of euroe.
The last chapter (social democracy) is not analyzed in-depth in that it leaves out that these systems outsource the working class' suffering and exploitation into poorer countries so that their citizens could have a part of the bourgeoisie pie.
Yes, the nordic model does that also. It started with imperialism, now it's neo-imperialism. Unequal contracts, countries are robbed of their resources, no labour protection, they are not allowed to develop, be independent in currency or negotiate on their own terms.
It also fails to consider that social democracies chip away on their social services and equality continually and most extremely as soon as their abundance becomes less as we see now with russian gas.
People live on what Marx called subsidiary wages in much if the US and also in much of the EU.
Thank you for the education that we have all waited so long for.
This was so incredible and I REALLY appreciate the transparency in source material. Thank you so much.
A someone who still finds ‘worker control of the means of production’ as a good definition of socialism in terms of description of the economic approaches of socialism, I also find your simplified ‘trimmed down’ definition of socialism to be admirable for general use in describing the collective of all socialistic concepts.
Well done, I really wasn’t expecting to find a definition that extended beyond the dogmatic over application of economic, philosophical or social descriptions onto the entirety of socialism. Hoping the dictionaries catch up but there’s still so much confusion on the term that I doubt we’ll see much progress any time soon.
Man, that was fantastic Analysys!!! I listened to lots of lectures, Yale etc. But your analisys is just another level. Fresh mind, own understanding, not just academics repeting same old stories, the way they was always told. You are todays intelectual!!! Respect and Best Regards!! Inspired!! Thank You!
Your outro was great. It made the nuance between exploitation and out proforming. Most socialist talk uses the former but from what I've seen it's mostly the latter. The gap between bottom 15% of people and the top 15% of people is so fast. That's something most people who went to university do not understand. Believe me you don't want the average minimum wage worker to decide anything for an organisation.
I’ve been trying to go back and understand the philosophies which got us here and Ryan Chapman seems very adept at synthesizing these concepts to a level where they are easily understood, how they relate to each other and how they have developed over time. His statement in another video that when you try to achieve equality you by definition have to intrude on freedom is such a key point.
and which intrusions of freedoms are you concerned about?
@@bloodmoonrising871 Freedom of association is one of them. You cannot exactly have a company of your friends and people you trust if the government enforces DIE.
And the name is not ironic. Its intentional, and microsoft did it to companies it acquired and wanted to get rid of. It was the same strategy. You yank a company in enough different directions, and it will invariably be torn apart, so its just a matter of enforcing it on groups you don't like hard enough.
@@shoopoop21 this conservative republican creator seems to have deleted my question under this comment and that is not surprising considering the false narrative of his content and the anti woke pro fascist advertising seen in right wing grifters. Property ownership is not a real Freedom and the only association the government has ever interfered with is during the 1950s under the red scare and anyone associated with communism.
@@bloodmoonrising871 free speech, the right to earn a living, the right to life, freedom of religion, the right to not be discriminated against based on race/sex, etc.
@@Milton_Friedmanite we don't have a right to earn a living because the reality of too many Americans is what they can earn even with a full time and even a full time plus part time job does not meet the needs for a person to live. That means there is no right to life. There is no ability to exist.
Your format is pretty awesome and made me instantly subscribe.
Thank you for this very thorough and interesting lecture. Although I have never voted left of center I found it highly informative and rewarding to watch. I will certainly watch a few more of your videos. Greetings from Sweden
All ideologies are faith-based. When philosophy turns into ideology, it dies. Ideology is actually murdered philosophy. That's why they resist change. They have difficulty adapting to the conditions and begin to become dysfunctional. They even begin to create complex problems that cannot be completely solved. For this reason, it can be said that capitalism is the least ideology among ideologies. Perhaps it would even be a mistake to see it as an ideology, and capitalism works best in practice. But I still think that the capitalist model, which also supports social policies, is the best.
What an engaging, unbiased, and thorough account. I really enjoyed this entire video; I had a lot of clarity brought to previously muddy subjects in my mind. Thankyou.
Unbiased? The man is practically Marxist
Ryan Chapman is by far my most favorite creator. It's nearly impossible to tell his bias. The only thing I wish was that he'd upload more often.
His all video is a anticommunist bias.
It takes time to read all those books, summarize it and prepare a script for it.
"nearly impossible" means still possible, right? so where would you say his bias leans?
@@thabokgwele5268 I would say it's nearly impossible because it's very difficult to determine. That's the point. I'd guess that he's possibly a bit center left as the plurality of his videos have to do with something related to left leaning policies, topics, or people. Maybe a bit libertarian aswell since another good portion of his videos has to do with freedom of speech and the individual. I might simply say he's a progressive if he's not a centrist.
From seeing that video, it’s pretty obvious that he’s not a socialist. He thinks he’s unbiased (and to be fair, he’s doing much better than most content creators) but he still regurgitates some capitalist talking points about former socialist experiments, and sometimes misrepresents some of the thinkers’ views imho.
Tbh as a socialist, I find that the video sort of failed to cover the existing dialogue that existed between social-democrats and "orthodox marxists" and later leninists. It covered the SocDem/revisionist perspective of what the "radicals" got wrong, but it hardly covered the perspective or arguments of the "radicals", which are important because the dialogue and shift existed between the two ideologies in various forms throughout the entirety of the 20th century, and is arguably still developing.
I believe that there's videos out there which would explain the issue better, especially those by figures such as Hakim or SecondThought, but I can give a brief explanation as well.
Orthodox Marxists and all following in their tradition (leninists, maoists, titoists, etc.) believe that all "good trends" found in capitalism and social democracy are inherently brief and short lived.
The claim is that technological innovation and the economic growth derived from it, as well as various reforms passed under political pressure, can provide periods (sometimes quite long, other times brief) of improving living standards under capitalism. But that they are inherently impermanent because the primary goal of their passing is to preserve the existence and stability of capitalism, and will be rescinded whenever it is possible to do so.
Furthermore, due to the nature of politics in liberalism, it makes more sense for a career politician to align their interests with wealthy backers, even if that career politician was elected based on a socialist platform. Meaning that they are often "controlled opposition", exemplified by Blair White's acceptance of Thatcher's removal of union rights and cutting of social security, which was never seriously contested by the labor party ever since.
In other words, that in an election cycle between SocDems and neoliberals, neoliberals will jump ten steps to the right, and social democrats will (due to lack of goodwill or lack of capability) take only one timid step to the left, before another jump to the right.
On a more generalist scale, the belief that "The goal is nothing, the movement is everything" effectively means that the movement ends up accomplishing nothing in the long run.
It is also importnat to note that in foreign politics, "Radical" socialists are generally opposed to imperialism as it is generally understood as the "Economic exploitation or imposure of unequal economic treaties upon underdeveloped nations, enforced through diplomatic, economic, subversive or military means", while SocialDemocrats tend to oppose it in theory, but fall in line whenever it is done by Neoliberals (again, giving Blair White's decision to join the Iraq War as an example).
Even though I am a capitalist, I appreciate this kind of videos so I can learn more about other types of ideologies.
Thanks again Ryan, for this excellent lesson on Socialism; it got me delving deeper into the CPC version known as 'socialism with Chinese characteristics', which then got me looking into what the CPC now refer to as 'whole process people's democracy'. My readings did help me to accept that not only is there more than one form of democracy but that in China at least, democracy can and does take place within the context of a single party form of governance. This being so, also made it worth examining and comparing the relative efficiency of a single party democracy with that of a multi party democracy. Conclusion, 'The China Miracle' was not a miracle.
@Insert Name Here My reading of Xi Jinping's thought on 'socialism with Chinese characteristics' is that it is an 'early stage of socialism'; a stage during which capitalism is adopted and subordinate to socialism. In this way the CPC is avoiding the mistakes made by the USSR and other states that sought to completely abolish the capitalist mode of production - overnight so to speak. Xi Jinping understands and applies Marxist theory and ideas better than most if not all nation state leaders, hence he and his party will take as long as it takes to achieve their particular brand of socialism.
@@robertseaborne5758 its not actually subordinate tho, the CPC is full of billionaires and their friends
Even if you're following Marxist-Leninist logic (that the vanguard party alone must lead a country to socialism), the CPC has literally created a capitalist class, allowed its society to adopt capitalist consumerism, and then willingly allowed itself to be infiltrated by those capitalists.
@@krystalneko4094 OK, but are they running the show as they do in the US for example? How come Jack Mai was recently brought in line?
I thought they taught me these things in school but I was wrong. Your videos make them real to me. Now they are not just ideas anymore but concerted attempts by men to solve real problems. Thank you!
Nice joke, man! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Lol they do teach this in school. What makes you think it doesn’t get taught?
@@TheCelticsAREboss What l mean is that they taught me and l thought l understood them but now l see that l didn't really get it then. It's real to me now.
@@rexadebayo3380 I don’t think really see it, its not designed to solve problems it’s disguised to appear that way, but it’s only a power grab for tyrants
@@TheCelticsAREboss No they don't
Wow honestly unbiased, informative and thorough. I am left feeling much more hopeful about free thought and what egalitarianism on a large scale could look like. Props and thank you!
It's essentially been the same message with different specifics
th-cam.com/video/lgrpwwN8zM0/w-d-xo.html
This video is not unbiased! That is literally impossible. It would be much more honest if he mentioned his ideological background and assumption in the introduction so the viewers understand his perspective better.
He went really soft with the history of outcomes of socialist movements. It's the kind of ideology that sounds good on paper, but ends up destroying it's supporters in a direct or indirect manner, and introducing severe poverty, for the people it (on paper) sought to replenish.
@@xypleth funny enough, the top 10 most poor countrys of the world are not socialists...
@@noisyboy7443 Of course, the top 10 poorest countries would be the full-on undeveloped countries. Logically, no governance and no social goals are worse economically, than the worst possible immaginable governance. Still that doesn't make the in-practice self destructive, and for anyone around, regimes good. What's your point?
I love the clarity and simplicity with which u explained each complicated idea. Thank you !
You put it in simple terms. Digestible. Non-confrontational. A truly intelligent way to bring the idea out.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, let’s end the predatory phase of humanity and enter a new one!
This is a great introductory video! The broad concepts are articulated clearly & gives the viewer a basic background. I will be watching more! Thank you Ryan.
I how you find meaning in your work good sir. If not, I certainly do. I think a certain kind of human wants a deeply researched explanation, not noise. You excel at providing the former, and save me from wading through the latter.
I hope to contribute to your patreon as soon as I am able.
I don't care how long it takes to get a new video, just please keep making content.
Ryan’s back - very curious for this one. I want a solid grasp of socialism beyond just economics class. I reckon Ryan will provide such an analysis… let’s see!
I’m lucky as I was born into a Bernsteinian based set of values in Norway. But also unlucky to see those values lose out to around three decades of liberalism, and the consequences of global economic power. This societal degradation impacts most people, especially those without capital based income and home ownership - without calling this group proletariat. These strata run small businesses or work for median wage, and in our rich country they should be resilient by definition. They’re not. Policies changed drastically throughout the 90s, 00s and early 10s, eroding pension rights for everyone born after 1963. This means that individuals who still work full time, but never bought extra private insurance, will lose out in droves. Our pension fund is well known, but it’s momentum is driven by profit and ownership, not by the original intention of securing the coming wave of elderly non-workers. Norway’s “place in the world” is driving the economy, not those broader values of social security. In essence, people under 59 are cut off, unless they understood this in time to financialize themselves to safe grounds. So, we as people share the full burden of Europe and the western hegemony in every way. Only our state and corporate financial economy is safe and expanding. What is the word for that process again…? Not social democracy.
"lose out to . . . liberalism . . . societal degradation." The biggest issue with this thinking is that society has been more healthy, wealthy, and free than ever in the last 2 million years of human existence, because of liberalism. What's more striking is there is zero evidence to the contrary. The degradation still found in society is left over from pre-liberal humanity, not because of liberalism. Any amount of research from 2mya to 1600 would show this. From 1800 forward to 1900 forward, liberalism has brought billions out of poverty and brought a doubling in lifespan to pretty much every human on Earth, including a freedom unheard of in the entire animal kingdom since the dawn of time.
@@jimmyjimmy7240 Gee I love the freedom of never being able to own my own house and being arrested for mean tweets.
Such a great political philosophy you got there.
@@jimmyjimmy7240 Good that you are fine! Otherwise, we don’t see things the same, and I respect your rights to your opinion.
@@ningen7736 you certainly have the freedom of owning your own house, just because you can't accomplish it doesn't mean you don't have the freedom; try again. And it doesn't sound like you live in America, because you can't get arrested for "mean" tweets in America.
Nice try.
@@musiqtee . . . Thanks, I guess? I'm not trying to be combative, but that's not really a response. "We disagree and I'm okay with that." Not saying you have to attempt to debate my position; just an odd response, people obviously have differing opinions, no need to point it out. And most of what I said isn't "how I see it," it's a fact. In 1800 and all before, 90-95% of humanity was in abject poverty; 1950 and before, the average lifespan around the world was under 50 years old; before constitutions and republics, liberal democracy, everyone was ruled over by a form of authoritarian/dictator/monarch, etc. This isn't an opinion. 90-95% of the world before 1800-1900 was dirt poor, ruled over to the point it was legal to be killed while sitting in your home, and dying young. It's the complete opposite in a great deal of the world now. So, what exactly is worse than then? Slavery is legal no where, women around the world are mostly literate and are able to be independent, the list goes on, all statistically verifiable.
The music, the graphics, the transitions... the quality of this video's sound and visuals are incredibly nice compared to your already really good videos on your channel. Whatever you did to change it, good work!
I hadnt realized it, but subconsciously I had believed Marx's postulation that society moves to an essence of perfection. That its in an evolution into a better form.
After considering Automatons taking over jobs of all workers eventually, I figured this progress of society had to lead to a system that was incompatable with profit and wage.
If there comes a time when all workers are jobless from automatons, how would it be that they could pay for goods? The machine of capitalism hits a paradox of the fact that to pay the least for labor you must not pay a laborer at all but instead replace him with an automaton. But no flow from the capitalist down to the worker from a job means that the capitalist cant profit, and the consumers can no longer exist.
The motive of profit becomes self defeating when the best way to maximize profit also leads to destruction of the consumer. The system breaks down.
So logically with automation, eventually society cannot rely on companies who own automatons to do labor, as they will not be able to gain the goods from them. The system would need to change radically in order to keep society functioning, and if robots can do everything, then why should there be owners of the automatons rather than society at large under ownership? Robots at the base providing all the needs for humans.
Either way a change would need to occur, as technological progress will clog the machine.
Im gonna use this as a quote for my project thanks bro, who should I quote mr. Changcooler?
@@PinkTea.x3 Write random youtube guy.
Change always happens inside the capitalism system and we don't always evolve, that's just not what we experienced. We had lots of discovery after industrial revolution that took many productions out of necessity and still people change their line of work. Candles are still used but not as main source of light, and instead we use light bulbs, for example, that employ lots of people in it's line of production (more than candles, actually). The capitalistic theory of price is based in supply and demand. In that line, automation raises supply, but at the same time shortens demand (as money shortens, people are less inclined to consume), so the price tends to go lower. The work force, therefore, alocates to where is best to them, either producing things themselves or in other productive jobs, that includes artistic and others. Even with our current automation, unemployment keeps a consistent percentage since the 1700s. And even by using this simplistic assumption of yours, we'll face a cyclic production event, where production will be lower (as less consumers), that will raise the price and make production goes up again.
@@raphaelaugusto895 Don't you think that maybe that steady percentage of unemployment is actually caused by the advancement of technology in a capitalist system? And maybe when the technology is good enough to replace humans in everything that the unemployment percentage will rocket?
Why exactly do you think unemployment is a thing? Why is it a consistent thing in capitalism?
Supply and demand is a model that takes no real world effects into account, such as worker ability to pay, what the worker needs, actual company investments and profit, etc. It's basically useless for everything outside of some niche perfect world scenarios with spherical cows and perfect vacuum.
There is a cyclic boom and bust cycle. It's a real world phenomena and it ruins millions of lives. Congrats, you've thought it through.
(if i get some words wrong its because i dont speak english as my native language, and i am on a phone) the only thing i see wrong with what You have described here, the theoretical future in wich automatons replace the workers, is the reason of the owners of the factories, why would they want money? or consummers to be exact? if they can produce and self sustain themselves without the interference of workers, then they would live in a "utopia" exclucive only for them, were all of their needs are taken care of by robots, and in wich their fellow bussines men make transaction of materials betewn eachother. the only other class in here would be the R&D Department, developing luxuries only for their masters
Excellent video! Thank you Ryan. Klaus Schwab kept coming to my mind watching your video with his mantra "you'll own nothing and be happy.".
Klaus Schwab is a capitalist, and currently the world is becoming more capitalist. Please don't be misled. 'Owning nothing' is literally how capitalism works, socialism advocates for the workers to own the means of production instead of a few billionaires.
One would think libertarianism means freedom for all and would go hand in hand with socialism, but when placed in the context of feudalism it makes more sense as to why today capitalists see capitalism as libertarian. It freed the middle class or lords from their obligation to their King but this freedom didn't trickle down further down to the serfs and peasants. Under capitalism the lords became the new kings!