ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ก.ย. 2024
- The word "socialism" is loaded with incorrect meanings. Here's a look at the root definition of words like capitalism, communism, and social democracy, and how democratic socialism fits in.
-------
act.tv is a progressive media company specializing in next generation live streaming and digital strategy. Our TH-cam channel focuses on animated explainers, livestreams from protests around the country, and original political commentary.
Main site: act.tv
Facebook: / actdottv
Twitter: / actdottv
Instagram: / actdottv
My apologies to my Nordic friends for getting the flags of your countries all mixed up :-/ I promise when I come to visit I won't actually mistake your countries for one another.
acttv you nailed Finland tho.
Here in the U.S. we have a mixed economy. Democrats want socialism. Republicans want Capitalism. I'm a democrat (the middle man) but i prefer capitalism with a gold backed currency meaning in order to end inflation & increase value of the dollar, central banks are held accountable under law.
And this is what trump trying to place in. A gold standard ---> th-cam.com/video/LdyHso5iSZI/w-d-xo.html
Don't worry, we mix ourselves up all the time.
I was wondering about something called welfare capitialism ??
We are not socialist is Nordic countries
"the downside of socialism is that it's vulnerable to corruption"
Yes because we all know governments in capitalist countries are an example pf integrity
Yea, but how much control do we give them? Do you think giving these corrupt governments more control will get rid of some corruption?
@@willtofstad8703 I see your concern, but there is no need to worry. The thing here is that it is the current corrupt government that is in favor of said corruption. When you elect progressive politicians that are in favor of changing the system, that also means you're replacing the corrupt politicians one by one. As the government gets stronger (and big corporations in turn weaker), this newfound power will also be in the hands of new politicians that actually represent our interests. Basically the ones that would take charge and change this system, are also the ones that want those in power to represent the people more than anyone else.
@@regileblindsea , that makes no sense. The progressive politicians are corrupt look at vax mandates, lockdowns, high tax, vaccine passports. these are all forceful corrupt things that progressive politicians do.
@pies_man The freerer the market, the freerer the people is bullshit. You know uncontrolled capitalism leads to a goverment and system that are just as corrupt as those of communist countries? Have fun with crony capitalism, cause it's the natural consequence of capitalism.
Remember, mixed economies are the best.
The thing Is that in a Marxist socialist country you give all control to the government they can tell u what to say, hoe much studd you Need to buy or sell, your property belongs to the state so yeah no wonder socialism gets corruption
*social democracy
**also the flags of the Nordic states are in wrong order
::facepalm:: Sorry about getting the flags all mixed up!
Bro can u pleaseeeeee tell me where he fucked up?! Cuz I don't know!
sven tabar names don’t correspond to flags.
@@sventabar5508 sweden and iceland are mixed up denmark and norway are also mixed respectively
So what you're saying is I should move to iceland.
Yo when this whole shit started to go down with the civil war part 2 I was like "... I heard Iceland is pretty nice" as a joke but now it's a valid option
No finlamd
They're not socialist tho
@The Guy With Unpopular Opinion haha, however most icelanders speak english fluently, so it would be really a nice option to move
I wouldn’t Iceland has volcanos and there active
Denmark prime minister: We are not socialist!
Liberals: Imma pretend I didn't hear that
Well, he did say: We are fare from a socialist plan economy. So the statement is kind of misused.
That is why it is calles the "Nordic model of SOCIAL DEMOCRACY"
The Free Market still rules, there is just a strong saftey net of Welfare and Social Programs.
Government owned industries is the absolute exception with it being raw matierals.
i think you mean leftists cuz liberals dont support socialism
Person: Socialism is good. You can see it by looking at the nordic countries
Person 2: NO NORDIC COUNTRIES ARE SCOIAL DEMOCRACIES
Person: Okay, we can try that
Person 2: NO THATS SOCIALISM
@Based American Hoxhaist your choice m8!
hold up... dr. dre isn’t an md?!
And neither is Dr John or Dr Hook, dumbazz.
@Tonom Amou
I KNOW it was a joke.
What I referred to went over your head.
If you didn't comprehend it, then ask me to explain it to you, dumbazz.
I’m pretty Dr Seuss has an md
Dr. Oz ftw
I'm pretty sure he did earn a doctorate. He has his PhD in hiphopanomics. That's a technical term 🧐
I live in post soviet country, and I have to say that some American are more affraid of the world socialism, then we do.
Which country? I am from Lithuania
We are we take our rights seriously they say life is better in European countries it ain’t especially during covid
Nothing about it to be afraid of, if you're working class, at least.
this video sucks. Communism is state-less - and they describe it is as Soviet regime. What a shame.
@@troykeegan9258 wut about now when thousands are dying
Bernie is actually a social democrat.
He's not a social democrat, he thinks he is but he's a demsoc not a socdem.
@@no3ironman11100 you have it mixed up.
What is important is that he's against having a country ruled by the few. One of few in the current government to dare to take that stance.
@@no3ironman11100 He called himself demsoc but his policies are socdem
@@fattahrambe Ah I see. I think I agree with you.
You confused the Swedish and Icelandic flags
And the Danish and Norwegian flags lol. Only flag that's correct is Finland
So in the end, answer was
"I don't know"
KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE!
For the good of information read this message.
I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong.
The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this:
-Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself.
So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state.
On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..)
-Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism).
For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free.
Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society.
Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify.
-Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality).
A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made.
It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period).
Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature.
These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company.
There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me!
I hope this was useful, cheers!
@@Alessandra-qk7hs Please give us some sources or books to read, thanks.
@@Faun471 I recommend this site for a first approach to socialism ecc..: www.socialism101.com
There is the voice ''basics'': it has explanations and answers to common questions.
There is also the voice ''recommended books for beginners''!
@@Alessandra-qk7hs So I should not call myself a democratic socialist but a social democrat????? Like seriously what do you call the people that fall under social democracy??
@@danielmann4159 Yes, if you support Danish, Swedish ecc.. economic system you are a social democrat.
Here a socialist consideration about socal democracy, just to clarify both positions:
- Many European nations practice an ideology known as social democracy. Social democracy is an ideology which supports "economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy", and thus it a capitalistic ideology, not a socialistic ideology. Socialism, by definition, opposes capitalism and seeks to dismantle the capitalist system. Whilst social democratic nations do well in some regards, they are only able to offer things like social security to their citizens due to the availability of cheap off-shore labour in the third world, and by high taxes on the working class. We socialists oppose outsourcing jobs to third-world nations and we oppose taxes on the general population. We believe in common ownership of enterprise, the productivity of which will be used to benefit all of society and not just CEOs. Taxes and redistributionism only attack the symptoms of inequality, not the cause.
We are not social democrats. We are not Democrats. We are not Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. -
This was super clear, to the point, and even explained the differences between capitalism-democratic socialism-socialism and communism
They did get communism in particular a bit wrong though: The final stage of communism would not be governed by a state at all; rather, the workers would self-manage the economy and the rest of society, while abolishing currency and social classes. This is the most complete form of socialism. Socialism is more broad, and can, as the video described, include some market systems, but it does not have to. It simply stipulates common ownership of the means of production. This can be through an anarchist society, a democratic state, and possibly an authoritarian one, though whether that would really entail common ownership is up for debate. The one with the democratic state is democratic socialism. The video got the definitions of capitalism and social democracy mostly correct. Capitalism stipulates private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit, while social democracy is focused on the humanization of capitalism, usually through a strong welfare state. Sanders is free to self-describe as socialist, but, especially with the lack of focus on ownership of the means of production, Sanders-style “socialism” would basically be social democracy in practice.
your not wrong about the definitions, but socialism as a philosophy is older than both capitalism and communism.
Socialism is the direct response to and critique of capitalism. It was born out of the ashes of the French Revolution, which institutionalized capitalism for the first time. Arguably, capitalism had existed on much smaller scales for decades previous. But socialism was developed in western Europe after the French Revolution.
Ancient Greece used capitalist systems
I mean he said about communism “when the government dictates the price…” i immediately didn’t take the video seriously because there isn’t a government in a communist society like 🙄 I think bro is getting communism mixed up with state capitalist
Great video! Could we get a version in Spanish to share before Puerto Rico votes in the primaries?
great idea!
@@actdottv Trash ideology
@@blokcomNativeFaces lmao seems legit
This is a horrible video. The creator doesn't understand capitalism or socialism AT ALL.
Capitalism is no, or low inflation (you keep your savings, no central banks), higher wages (very low or no taxes, so you keep more money) and you can invest (very low regulations).
Socialism is high inflation (politicians printing money and stealing poor people's savings), low wages (high taxes everywhere), you can't invest (horrible regulations, you can't save enough due to inflation and high taxes).
Socialism is basically slavery, with the politicians as masters. Free enterprise (or capitalism) is you keeping the fruits of your labor and you getting richer by saving and investing.
Don't vote for more taxes for god's sake. Learn how capitalism truly works, because it's your friend, it's the protection of your property, socialism is your enemy, it's giving your stuff to politicians.
The nordic countries are WAY more capitalist than the USA, that's why they got richer. They are NOT socialists, socialists are Venezuela, Cuba, almost all South America, all of Africa. Easy to see why they are poor, they are slaves of the politicians!
@JOSEPH DEJEU That's not how it works. The problems you talk about today are due to government (socialism, like central banks), not capitalism. Capitalism protects the poor (it protects private property), not the rich. Socialism protects the rich (they can enslave you through lobbying), not the poor.
You don't want power concentration and you want to solve it by concentrating it even more (in politocians' hands). That's just ignorance.
The robber barons are a myth btw. USA's people got rich when it had a small government, not due to it.
Concentration of wealth is always due to socialism, not capitalism. Ask Venezuela, Cuba, etc. who is rich there. You are falling for the same trap.
i will still seek medical and spiritual advice from dr dre
1:27 I see what you mean here, but child labor was already dropping in the United States before there were laws on the books, and by then most child laborers were working on their parents farms.
I’m not saying these laws shouldn’t be in the books, but I am saying that they didn’t play the biggest role in ending child labor
Yeah. The same could be argued in the way of pollution and also like you said, Child Labor. If there was 0 government regulation there, it would still naturally fall as consumers decide to not buy those products. For example, don’t like Nike? Then don’t buy their products because they use child labor. Don’t like Coca Cola because they contribute to the most plastic pollution? Then also, don’t buy it. The government isn’t the only force to stop that stuff.
key word: in the us
You see, with capitalism comes economic imperialism, that means that some of the clothes you wear were made by a child in some other country.
Unfortunally capitalism is very detremental to the workers, but more so to those who can offer more competitive prices, wich are poor countries easly exploitable
Here is a great explanation of democratic socialism. Well worth watching. Takes about 4 minutes of your time..
it's not a very good explanation at all, this guy got the definitions way wrong. You'd be better off checking out Second Thought for more accurate definitions.
In basic: the way I understand and agree with “democratic socialism” being is that the government through essential services, social housing, even a ration program if needed, and a guaranteed universal basic income for everyone, takes care of it’s people\citizenry and ensures that everyone’s basic needs are met: while also having a country’s natural resources be publicly owned and harvested so that the actual country benefits from them rather then a few individuals: while at the same time there being well regulated free enterprise so that there is for lack of better words at least “civilized competition” and innovation can occur. In short; government deals with need: free enterprise deeds with want.
So what happened to individual freedom in this equation? Innovation will not occur if profit incentive will be confiscated and shared with everyone else.
+Erth Mann
(?)
Have you actually bothered to watch the video or read my entire comment before commenting yourself?
@@CommanderLVJ1 Yah, I heard your utopian wish lest through the end, It doesn't exist anywhere on the planet. First off this isn't the world I'd even want to live in. What's the guarantee that big government bureaucrats that you believe should control everything will always be honest with everyone's interest front and center? That hasn't ever happened anywhere either so dream on Klingon.
Actually I take that back, this actually does exist. What you have described fits how Indian reservations are run and managed by the US government department of Indian affairs. Ask any Indian how well that has worked out.
+Erth Mann
Where to begin...Firstly I suppose; especially considering that you have nothing good to say about it I find it very interesting that you would bother to watch a video part of which talks about actual socialism at all; regardless: if you think that throwing a little money at people in the middle of nowhere and then not either moving them to a larger community that can provide for their basic needs or otherwise not supporting them with infrastructure and essential services is socialism then I don’t think it means what you think it means...while I have no idea if this will help I will post a link to another video talking about democratic socialism:
m.th-cam.com/video/XD94UUTvMts/w-d-xo.html
Secondly; while it may not yet outright doing a little research into things such as some of the especially Northern European countries and examples such as France’s healthcare system and Finland’s education system in trying to teach their children about miss-information and how to recognize it shows that while it may not yet exist we are getting their: so the only response I can think to give when you say “it doesn’t exist” is...and? Remember; “for everything there is a first time” and that nothing exists until it does.
Finally the statement “big government” is a standard republican\con unreasoning talking point and really truly does not mean anything: what they are really saying is that they do not want a properly funded government that can hold them and their...donors\contributors\benafactors\business buddies accountable for their actions.
This is amazing. I agree that the word “socialism” has lost all mean in US political discourse. People just throw the word around, but when you ask them what they mean they speak in platitudes and sound uninformed. I’m not sure where I stand on the issue, but what I do know if that calling yourself a socialist tell me very little about your views in today’s world.
thank you!
Yeah. They sound like Bernie Sanders! Lol.
The word has a meaning. Just because imbeciles don't understand what it is doesn't mean that the word doesn't have a meaning.
Actual socialism is authoritarian. It consists of a centralized government where the government regulates EVERYTHING (but they claim that the workers own it, haha). It's a centrally planned economy and results in almost no freedom. The government dictates who does what, sets prices and quotas. It's always horribly inefficient.
Finaly a video on the subject that isnt bissed towards capitalism
thank you!!!
I just think they were somewhat misinformed about nordic countries in the sense that these are as capitalist as the USA by having less corporate taxes and no minimum wage and having a lower gdp per capita than the USA and having a less progressive tax rate. They once were socialist and back then they were growing way less than the other EU countries.Talking about Denmark and Sweden
Portugal, Spain, France and Greece are more socialist like Bernie Sanders
@@andrecarvalho1339 Honestly!!!
@Eric Cuevas What about countries where it currently works???
@Petros Kostianis ill go with the option of voting for policies, thanks tho
Such a well made video and needs to be seen by a lot more people. Can’t believe it hasn’t even 3k views! Even some political channels with millions of subs wouldn’t be able to sum it up so well in such a short amount of time. Amazing work.
Except it's inaccurate and misleading
I find it interesting how many people see pure capitalism as a solution to anything. We all seem to agree monopolies are bad and competition is good for controlling prices and getting companies to innovate. Some may even go as far as calling monopolies uncaptialistic since in a capitalism system competition driving the market is key to the equation. But then the right doesn't seem to think we need to regulate businesses and that regulations are bad. How do we stop monopolies without regulations? Hell, even with current monopoly laws we don't stop them. One industry that is a great example is internet service providers (ISP's). There are single digit numbers of major phone service providers and home internet providers in the US. They all agree to non-competition arrangements where they don't invade on each others share of coverage in the country in most areas. They still compete in major cities but a majority of america has 2 or fewer ISP options. As a result we pay one of the highest rates per speed of internet in the developed world.
Edit: also they keep small companies from getting bigger by getting the local city councils to sell them sole rights to use the cable lines which means a new company would have to get permission to basically dig up the whole town to lay an additional set of lines. Plus the infrastructure costs of that are astronomical. Meanwhile the major companies often share lines/cell phone towers when in an area with more than 1 option.
most hard core liberals that i have talked to, do not like competition at all. i agree about monopolies, we used to have laws against them. our founders created an economy that they called free market and was based on the government being the soul creator and distributor of money, removing the need for taxing the people and assuring that, as long as the system was competently monitored, there would also be no goverment debt. this change completely when woodrow wilson opened the gates to the barbarians and allowed the federal reserve to be born. capitalism is not the free market enterprise system of our founders. it is the nation looting system of the rothschild globalists.
@@puma2378 Ok, conspiracy theorist. What's next? Holocaust denial?
Regulation of business hurts competition, because smaller less established companies are less able to absorb the cost of the regulation. This is why established companies frequently lobby Congress for increased regulation of their industry.
You just described a government-created monopoly through zoning permits. The only type of anti-trust law that should be used against monopolies are monopolies gained through fraud or coercion. Otherwise, you're basically punishing a company (and its customers) because it delivers too much value to its customers.
I don't know if pure capitalism is achievable, but striving for it is in the best interests of a society.
@@timmytimmy105 There is no science or history to support any of what you are saying. You have such a warped view of reality. We had mostly pure capitalism laissez-faire in the late 1800's. Children were working in factories with no shoes for nickels a day 18 hour days. Regulation of corporations is absolutely necessary. Plus, companies try to pay to keep small companies down. You can look it up ISP's pay towns money to not let anyone else have access to the cables. The rest of the developed world has a lot of these policies already in place. The math works out, no one has been able to disprove any of the doctors of epidemiology at yale's paper saying the bernie M4A plan payment works out. Do your own research, wealth inequality has skyrocketed due to a corrupt system since the 1970's. The working class get poorer and poorer, we can't have 45% of our country unable to buy basic things. It will tank the economy if that many people can't buy things. 78 million americans owe 81 billion in medical debts, 45 million americans owe over a trillion in student loans. These people will never be able to invest. That hurts everyone when people can't keep up with the worlds prices even working full time with a part time job. People spending 50% of income on rent in terrible living conditions. Other countries have passed us in international rankings in a lot of areas, infant mortality rate, education, rates of happiness, poverty rates, ... We really don't lead the world in much now. We need to modernize our country. Climate change is predicted to do over 100 Trillion in damage by the end of the century. The country would collapse. A true patriot would want the country to thrive by adopting proven scientific options to our problems instead of something some old guy got paid 3 million to say by a corporation.
@Michael Lochlann Because some people are sociopaths.
That's really all there is to it. There's no other reason to think that preserving competition and increasing profits for the wealthy could ever be more important than preserving human lives and increasing the happiness and well-being of society.
What the hell is even the point in existing for the bottom 99% of people? What is our purpose in life? To work for someone else's luxury, while we barely meet the basic costs of living, until we die? Absolutley not. We are free to make our own purpose, and it won't be dictated to us by the wealthy. Who cares what the overlords think? I couldn't care less.
This all sounds good... but here’s the catch. Really what socialism is all about is sounding great so the voters will vote a bunch of socialists in power then they will change the laws on the name of “what’s best for everyone” and then you no longer can vote them out😓 this exactly what happened in Venezuela
not at all what happened in venezuela, that was a violent militant overthrow of the government, there was no democracy, there wher eno checks and balances
Axiomology Official what happened to the Nordic Countries? I swear everyone just wants to point to Venezuela it makes no sense.
Correct, you are! Even the very first socialists movement in USSR was done via democratic election. After they caused the economy to collapse, they starved people an paved the way for communist authoritarianism.
The "Soviets" were formed sometime around 1905 and eventually won popular vote. Everyone thought this was awesome until the peasants learned they would eventually come for their little farms, their seeds, and their goats.
The ENVY celebrated by today's youth is vulgar and ignorant.
My mom's a refugee from the USSR so I know a little bit about how this all works.
@@michelem7786 " first socialists movement in USSR was done via democratic election" true that the first movement was done democratically, but it did not lead to socialism soo
@@magnusorn7313 It did not lead to the socialist utopia because socialism will never work. It is a toxic ideology that goes against the very grain of human nature and drives out the top producers by plundering and pillaging them.
When you continuously drive out the top 10% ("the rich"), you are left with poverty and a demotivated workforce. This should be self-evident.
Yes, they DID implement socialism and the peasants didn't want to give up their means of survival. People who backed the Soviet movement became coined "useful idiots". They help instigate a movement that immediately turn against their own self-interest.
All of this has been long known and widely accepted. This glorification of "socialism" is new and it is due to lack of education and an embittered and spoiled population who resents the fact that "the rich" exist.
The U.S. has a MORE progressive tax system than in the nordic countries. "The rich" pay a higher contribution to overall collected taxes. The top 10% of earners pay most all of the income taxes collect (70% of the total 4T collected).
In Bernie's utopia (Denmark) even the poor pay taxes. Food / groceries are taxes at 25%. Every single thing is taxed. Cars are taxed at 180%!!! It is theft by government and that is what Bernie supporters are wishing for.
We need to pull back from the oligarchy we've become and go back to capitalism with social programs.
Social programs like health care, education, police, fire, ambulance and other necessities.
I don't believe in people living for generations off what is supposed to be a safety net. But if other countries can manage to do it, why can't the United States?
Go back? The problem is that average American has no idea about it. It seems like American type of socialism might be very controlling one. I grew up in Europe and we still had more freedoms then now in USA we do have.
Yes, go back...this is as per a study from Princeton. Regardless of the party elected, most laws that have been passed since Reagan in the 1980s benefits the top 10% of the wealthiest Americans...so yeah, go back.
Health Care should be managed the same as fire & police & education, locally. Why should farmer in Nebraska pay for NYC healthcare? Let AOC, DeBlasio, Cuamo, Schumer, etc solve their own problem. They have an abundance of resources.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just happen to believe government is the worst institution to accomplish these goals. If you put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, there would be a shortage of sand in less than 4 years.
I prefer capitalism with a gold backed currency. JFK style. We're already in 23 trillion & counting. Our dollar (is devaluing way quicker than americans see) & printing our way out doesn't work. Only way to end inflation is to keep the central banks accountable & placing metals as a way to get rid of inflation.
You've mixed up Sweden's flag with Iceland's flag and also Norway's and Denmark's flag at 4:12. Just sayin'.
Oh thank god you said that, if you didn't say that I dont think anyone else would notice.
@@marijanvrancic9266 hahaha... sorry.. I wrote it before I saw how many other people had written the same thing!
Peggy91193 sorry I got a bit riled up, it’s fine
Love how he tells that Americans don't know anything about Socialism. And then doesn't know anything about Socialism or Communism is either. Places like the Soviet Union was Socialist. Love, a communist. Remember kids, down with the state.
Fuck the state
Yeah, I’m personally trying to decide between social democracy and democratic socialism but I’m very sure that whichever I fall into it’s gonna be pretty anti-authoritarian
@@seamuswagner3458 Syndicalism, Anarchy
Was it really socialist though?
@@devonwesleyhahnkurkowski840 you know anarchism never work's, and will only lead to fascism in the end,its the human conduction for people to want order
this got straight to the point i appreciate it thanks
4:10 you messed up the flags of Sweden and Iceland
Democratic Socialism is still Socialism.
...yes?
@@chenjinnn Therefore it's still unacceptable
Great video. Would be nice if more people understood these terms. Lots of people out there fighting for things they do not really know much about.
like those who listen to FOX propaganda.
@@JustLikeGreta Somewhat but more like the lying left that can’t or won’t explain their agenda but back groups like Antifa who have cause over 1 billion in damage in the U.S. unlike Bernie Sanders who explained his plan in laymen’s terms so the low iq liberal masses could understand, you know the blue/green/pink haired “i’m looking for a neutral binary gender bathroom”....people, the i’m a “they/them” not he/she person!!! The people that watch fox are pretty grounded and understand what exactly truth is, you know the non inner city people that don’t have tattoos under their eyes, on their necks or blue/green/pink hair that know it’s wrong to let trans boys compete in girls sports. But I’ll give you a few minutes to pick that one apart.
Excellent user name haha
Oh my. You are a mess.
@@KillerMcDiller k
“All you freedom loving left wing thinkers in the West! You may suddenly understand it all someday-but only when you yourselves hear “hands behind your backs there!” and step ashore on our Archipelago.”
This video is well made but inaccurate. Communism is stateless and socialism does not involve a free market for goods and services made using privately owned means of production. Also, democratic socialism is just a form of socialism and is no closer to capitalism than any other form of socialism.
Both Stalin and Mao referred to their policies as socialist.
There’s no distinction to the meaning of socialism between their version of socialism and that of Bernie Sanders. The only reason why Sanders’s version of socialism has not revealed itself as authoritarian is because it isn’t put into practice. When socialism is just an idea, you can only discuss the nice sounding parts (such as free stuff) and not mention the ugly parts (such as confiscate stuff via state violence).
Socialism is pretty rich term with really big difference between socialist ideologies. There are super authoritarian (like under Stalin and Mao), anarchist and with everything in beween. Stalinist USSR has almost nothing in common with many different socialist ideologies.
@@tefky7964 anarchist socialism in practice is limited to worker co-ops. This is something you can have, right now, in any capitalist economy. These are voluntary arrangements… perfectly fine, but this doesn’t move the needle.
Any socialism run by the state will be involuntary and will require violence to enforce. If I refuse to pay for Bernie’s socialized Medicine, he will send men with guns to kidnap me and confiscate my wealth, in a mafia style shakedown. And if I were only to protest such authoritarian measures, I would risk being denied of healthcare or whatever other social services by the state apparatus.
Now, there’s not much difference between this socialism and that of Stalin and Mao. It just a matter of it being put into practice for the similarities to be made more apparent.
@@cl5619There is no difference between not paying taxes for social healthcare and not paying any other tax in the current system you don't like. Paying taxes will always be enforced cos otherwise nobody would pay them.
4:07 there is no minimum wage in Sweden nor in Denmark
You're right, there isn't. This is because Sweden and Denmark have much stronger Unions and collective bargaining power than in the US and other countries. Effectively, the can say "Either pay us a living wage or we won't work." where as if you tried this in the US you'd likely just get fired in most states.
@@Norgra69 so you can't get fired in those countries?
@@bigchungus920 Not for demanding higher wages via union, no.
They don't need one as they are not consumed by greed. America certainly is, thanks to Ronald Effing Reagan and Milton POS Freidman.
@@JustLikeGreta They don't need one because minimum wage law is either useless (when too low) or terrible (when too high). Why do you think they don't raise the minimum wage to (for exemple), 50 dollars/h instead of just 7~15? Don't judge a policy by its intentions, but by its effects. And the minimum wages consequences are always catastrophic, if not useless.
This feels like PragerU for the left. The graphics and animation are on point. The audio could use a little work. The facts are spot on. Nicely done!
Maybe the Gravel Institute should be paying you to do some of their videos. I'll spread the word about the channel. Keep up the great work.
We have a problem here in the video at minute 2:02 because it's assume that Communism pre-date Socialism. Socialism started in 1879 in Marseille France when Union Laborer came back from the Philadelphia World Fair. They broke away from the Anarchists to form the Socialist Party. They used the Ben Franklin circle discussion model which remain in use today. In 1920, Lenin broke away and created the Communist Party. Socialists were there all along.
Really nice how you've explained this.
thanks!!!
Agreed. I am much less confused now.
@@aross5035 KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE!
For the good of information read this message.
I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong.
The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this:
-Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself.
So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state.
On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..)
-Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism).
For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free.
Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society.
Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify.
-Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality).
A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made.
It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period).
Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature.
These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company.
There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me!
I hope this was useful, cheers!
@@Alessandra-qk7hs wooooooow
These are not very good definitions of communism or socialism. Completely ignores that the goal of communism is statelessness, not extreme statism.
I live in Finland, but I'm originally from and grew up in New Zealand and spent some time living in Australia - The difference is like day and night. I won't ever move back to New Zealand nor Australia they way they are now.
I know this is supposed to be a brief overview, that political terminology is inherently vague and messy, and that how words are used partly determines their meaning. But the fact that people can take this seriously simply shows that Americans don't know what political words mean - not surprising in a country in which 'liberal' means left of centre and where there are people who unironically think Warren Buffet is a socialist.
There are, for instance, some democratic socialists who do support varieties of economic planning but who are not communists, unless we arbitrarily redefine both words to mean something different from their conventional meanings. The type of 'democratic socialism' you describe is what the rest of the world would just call social democracy, or even plain Social Liberalism in its less radical varieties.
I also think it's pretty high-school level stuff to regurgitate the conventional blandishments about the 'pros and cons' of ideologies, as though they are undisputed facts, under the guise of informing people about the meaning of different ideologies.
The socialist Michael Harrington, when asked why the Socialist Party had not gained support in the U.S. responded that the reason was that liberalism had gradually come to embrace most of the socialist agenda. That era of left-right compromise came to a crashing end with Reagan.
It's a 5 minute video meant for the casual observer and not Political Science majors.
@SamGurney88
This response misses the point of the video in the same way you suggest Americans misunderstand socialism. You're of course generalizing and leaning on anecdotal fallacy to make your point that Americans don't understand socialism - but a majority of Earth's humans don't understand socialism to the extent that you or I do. This video is an introductory tool and not a published, peer reviewed study. If your concern is that not enough people understand the basic tenets of Socialism, surely you'd instead celebrate this video as being easy to digest. If your ACTUAL concern is a perceived misrepresentation of socialism, then you should consider writing about it in a more factual way (but that can still be interpreted easily by the layman)
Sooo many mistakes on definitions
Right? Forcing employees to pay their wages back to the company can only be done with force, which makes it totalitarian by definition.
This videos major cap and misleads anyone who is trying to learn about socialism and what it means
This video is what happens when you give children a political science book and video editing software.
This breakdown left out a regulated free market as an alternative. It is like they wanted to leave people with the impression that we have to choose between different types of socialism or 1 type of capitalism.
Just like their are variants of socialism there are variants of capitalism.
I propose no social safety nets but regulations that helps people save for thier own future and their own safety nets. The less you make the more the employer has to contribute to that individually owned savings accounts. For example 1 for retirement, 1 for medical, 1 for unemployment, 1 for college. Those accounts will be regulated on when and how they can be used.
The most know example is turning social security from money going to the government to money going into individual accounts.
Very this. He put "democratic socialism" directly next to capitalism on the sliding scale... just no.
I find that when arguing with a capitalist the argument usually comes down to defining socialism.
The definition of ‘Socialism’ has always been contested turf- even the left doesn’t fully agree on what it fully entails, but it does have core tenants like ‘workers owing the means of production’ and ‘worker empowerment’.
Can't the workers own the means of production in a capitalistic economy if they desire to do so? They could all come together and start there own company, right?
@Sp00ky Socialist M-26-7 Why can't they? Why can't hundreds of people come together, pull their resources, and start their own company?
Thanks bro you helped me a LOTTTTT. You explained this easy that everyone can understand it.
sven tabar th-cam.com/video/FrtDZ-LOXFw/w-d-xo.html
What's so difficult to understand? Socialism takes what capitalism makes
I entirely agree with this description. I find it unbiased, clear and based on common sense.The only but I find is that it concentrates exclusively on how the wealth is produced and how it should be - more equally - distributed. The social structure of every society also has an important factor to consider: Freedom. How much and for how many. Democratic Socialists believe in a Popperian Open Society where no particular creed dominates the path education should take. Democratic Socialists are overwhelmingly secular humanists, the only philosophy that allows total freedom to develop an open mind.
To me democratic socialism has always meant community owned as in the workers are shareholders of the companies
Some of your definitions are correct and some are a bit off or really off.
Here are the actual definitions:
Capitalism: private ownership of the means of production for profit. You describe this accurately.
Social democracy: state regulation, rather than state or worker ownership, of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs. You describe this accurately.
Socialism: public ownership of the means of production (either centralized state control under Marxist-Leninist socialism or decentralized control by the workers under democratic socialism).
Communism: a classless, stateless, moneyless society in which all property is publicly-owned. This is the goal of both Marxist-Leninist socialists who use the state to reach communism and anarchists who seek to jump directly into communism. In your video, you describe Marxist-Leninism at the socialist stage, rather than communism.
Capitalist definition was correct
so is Social Democracy
but Democratic Socialism just means getting the workers to own the means of production by reform only
you also got Socialism wrong, it just means the workers should get to own the means of production, with a revolution if necessary
Communism (you also got that one wrong) means a classless, moneyless AND stateless society (meaning that China and North Korea aren't communist, and neither was the USSR)
Since im gonna get asked what they are i'll just tell in advance
China is a highly dictatorial Capitalist (with some social programs, so like a social democracy without the democracy) and they also have a LOT of fascist tendencies
North Korea is basically just a Monarchy
The USSR however did have some strong unions (Like we do in the Nordic countries too) but since most if not all companies were owned and controlled by the government and not the people, it was State Capitalism (that does mean that the USSR was left leaning unlike China and NKorea)
Very good video. I have gotten into trouble on other videos in that I understand Socialism rather differently to people from the USA who view Socialism as very authoritarian, one party and almost dictatorial system where there is no private property or any form of meritocracy or reward for individual giftedness or talent. I have lived in a system where coalitions are made sometimes with socialist partners and at other times with more conservative or Green parties. There is never a time where one party gets to rule on their own so that compromises must be made in forming a government. Many European countries are run this way. Our nearest neighbour, the UK, has a mostly 2 party system where one party, either Conservative or Labour get to rule one their own and this results in big swings in policy and taxation and shareout of income and spending. Politics is not perfect in Ireland but you do not get the wild swings in policy which happens in a 2 party system such as the UK and USA. The multilayer system in the US, with State, Municipal and county governments, seems to level out these swings somewhat.
KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE!
For the good of information read this message.
I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong.
The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this:
-Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself.
So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state.
On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..)
-Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism).
For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free.
Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society.
Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify.
-Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality).
A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made.
It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period).
Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature.
These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company.
There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me!
I hope this was useful, cheers!
@@Alessandra-qk7hs Tu parli unicamente delle definizioni che Marx ed Engels danno di socialismo e comunismo, come se questi termini li avessero inventati loro, tralasciando completamente tutte le altre scuole di pensiero. Esistono anche forme di socialismo e comunismo non marxiste, come ad esempio il socialismo riformista di Turati o quello liberale di Rosselli (che personalmente ammiro molto), o anche il comunismo anarchico di Carlo Cafiero, ispirato dalle idee di Bakunin. Non si può ridurre tutto al marxismo, che è solo una fra le tante ideologie socialcomuniste sorte nel corso della storia.
how do people disagree with democratic socialism tho 😃
Imagine not having free Healthcare
This post was made by Canada
I should make a video on this as it seems only people who have no idea about what Democratic Socialism is are making such videos.
Man thank god for this video, everyone else goes off on tangents when explaining this topic,
too bad this channel doesn't know what they're talking about
Onyx Cotton Alright then what can you refer me to that can help me understand what Democratic Socialism is?
I’ve heard the term thrown around but when people explain what it means it’s always muddled in personal opinion. Or that’s what it sounds like for the most part. It also seems like there isn’t an agreeable definition of it.
@@Snackyyz KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE!
For the good of information read this message.
I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong.
The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this:
-Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself.
So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state.
On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..)
-Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism).
For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free.
Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society.
Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify.
-Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality).
A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made.
It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period).
Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature.
These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company.
There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me!
I hope this was useful, cheers!
Fully conscious of what we were doing, we subordinated all our thoughts to this end; we adapted all our interests and measures to it. Out of this arose the ideology of National Socialism. In itself it represents the conquest of individualism - not in the sense of curtailing individual faculties or paralyzing individual initiative, but in the sense of setting the interest of the community above the liberty and the initiative of the individual. The interests of the community became the regulating and, if necessary, the commanding factor.
Speech from Adolf Hitler January 30, 1941. My New Order
All these political "isms" mean nothing if people continue to get screwed while the people who are doing the screwing continue to benefit at the expense of those getting screwed, irrespective of political "ism", including democracy (even though democracy does not end with an "ism").
Well done! Thank you
There is a distinctive not mentioned that has to do with personal responsibility and personal initiative. The Democratic candidates seem to have one common theme - the government is your savior and it has to take care of you, you can't take care of yourself. While there is a small segment of our society that might fall into that category, the vast majority can take care of themselves. In that regard, one of the Nordic countries uses a model for healthcare where the local geographies run the local healthcare system. The community contributes to the system. The local board hires the medical staff and provides the facilities. Compare that to a system of central control in DC, as we have seen modeled for education, etc with large bureaucracies remote from the people affected and controlling the lives of those people who have little control over this important part of their lives. Socialism is viewed as the big remote insensitive bureaucracy controlled by a dysfunctional legislative body whose funding varies according to political whims. The Founding Fathers were quite sensitive to this dilemma. They incorporated the concept of limited federal government with the state being responsible for all not specifically Constitutionally mandated to be the responsibility of the federal government. As such there is no Constitutional mandate for a federal bureaucracy to control health care or education. Another important aspect of this discussion is the control of expenses. The federal government for many administrations and Congresses has failed to limit expenses to receipts. The current running deficit is $24.3 trillion with $1 trillion+ being added each year and forecast to continue for years to come. In a rational world when an entity is already going in debt significantly with no plan to stop going into debt, taking on additional expenditures is not an option. The projected additional expenses for MFA and free uni range from $60 trillion to $90+ trillion. To put those numbers in perspective, the TOTAL net worth of the USA personal and non-profit organization is estimated to be $107 trillion. This accounts for cars, real estate, bank accounts, investments, etc. The net worth of the top 10% is estimate at $75 trillion. Leaving the discussion of socialist/communist concept of wealth distribution aside, consider if you want to borrow money on a house valued at $500,000. Can you borrow $1,000,000 using it as collateral? Most banks will not give a mortgage for twice the value of the home. In fact, the usual limitation is 80% of appraised value. Two issues - one is should the country take on any new debt before they properly balance the budget? The other is should the debt be allowed to disproportionately high in relation to the actual value of the country and GDP?
bfc31013 Bernie 2020
How is minimum wage and Medicare for all not socialist? Government dictating price of labour and owning the production of healthcare?
4:41 that graph is TOTALLY WRONG
As a German I can tell you that social democracy is good (that’s our system) but be warned about democratic socialism!!!
Ist fast das gleiche aber egal. Die SPD vertritt auch die Werte vom demokratischen Sozialismus. Willi Brandt war ein bekennender demokratischer Sozialist.
@@victord9814 As a Capitalist my self I do think Capitalism is a good thing however when it get out of the reach of anyone able to make sure they don't do something unethical then things go down hill. It only really works as long as we can make sure everyone is being ethical in how they treat there employees. Plus not all forms of socialism is bad everyway for example the Nordic country's seem to be making it work. But I do have to say I think that what they have there probably won't work everyway and if it works or not comes down to if a country can afford to do it, VERY good decision making and a very tiny bit a luck and it always has to be social democracy.
This video is quite accurate. I've always said that even Sanders and AOC even are just about democratic socialists. Yet the stupid righties and tea baggers and Trumpers call Obama a commie lol.
Oh and they call Biden a Marxist (Marco Rubio)
@@solomio6393 They even called Mitt Romney a communist lol, you can’t make this shit up
@@programking655 They habe basically become far right religious nutcases.
If the powers at hand are corrupt it defeats the purpose of everything
Source(s):
*Dude trust me*
Mountain Months 😂😂😂
Here, I'll give you a source: th-cam.com/video/_ulc8U_9KNE/w-d-xo.html
@@dashripkin Thank you.
Great! But when you said Democratic Socialism is between Socialism and capitalism, you never explained how. In what way is it between?
The basic idea is that the outcome of greater citizen participation in governance would be a more just balance between property interests and human rights.
Social democracy is a compromise between socialism and capitalism. Democratic socialism is worker-owned means of production decided democratically and can be done by worker coops, worker self-management, democratic control of economic institutions and democratic organizations which distribute resources (such as democratically elected governments or via direct democracy at local levels). Market economies may or may not exist in democratic socialism but capitalism or private ownership of the means of production would be minimized via democratic means.
@@greenbrickbox3392 Why workers "own the means of production" if they didn't risk the capital nor provide the creativity or ideas that launch a particular business or industry?
@@TyehimbaJahsi I mean they do provide the creativity and ideas to keep the company running and they spend the majority of their waking hours working at the company creating profit. Why shouldn't they have some ownership over what they create?
It is using our taxes to provide a strong safety net and provide things like education, healthcare and military, and libraries and roads....because yes...those are social programs and some of them are already in place and have worked well...oh and Social Security...and it was formed by our only Democratic Socialist president...the one that most people think was the best president we have ever had...FDR...
The traditional definition of socialism is government control of the means of production. Communism is a brand of socialism, that differs mostly because of a dictatorial system. This video is pretty inaccurate. Socialism is not a balance between capitalism and communism, it's the economic system of a communist system as described by Karl Marx. Bernie Sanders says he doesn't want to take over the grocery stores, that may be true, but his social policies for medicare and healthcare do include controlling the means of production for those services. That's what makes his policies socialist. What he seems to be proposing is a mixed economy.
2:26 democratic socialism - social ownership of major industries minus authoritarianism and Soviet-style planned economies vs. 4:00 social democracy - capitalist systems with strong social safety nets
Democratic Socialism is still Socialism
What you're explaining is social democracy, not democratic socialism. It might sound like an immature criticism but they are two very different things. Democratic socialism calls for complete socialization of the means of production while also running in a completely democratic system. You can't apply democracy to the workplace without socializing the workplace as well. Social democracy is capitalism with a few minor reforms.
Why would I work for a wage when I can lay in a net
eating minute noodles and living in a tiny appartment is not the ideal life
Because you want to be a productive member of society if you are healthy and able.
Have you ever laid in a net, its not that sweet.
Because presumably u like things. Like iphones or nice shoes and like to go out every now and then. A person in the net can only maybe eat and live.
@@debshipman4697 there's always going to be that percentage of people looking for a handout. Morals and principles don't matter.
I don't mean any hate, but this really missed the mark on actually what the definitions of these words. The conclusion that you have received that hey, "socialism is really up for a relative interpretation" only fuels to the right-wing confusion that is going on.
Firstly,
seized
Lenin later referred to the lower state as socialism, and the upper state as communism.
And going to the actual definition of democratic socialism, Engels literally defines it in clear terms saying, "“democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate ... not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society” (Engels).
A lot of the methods used was really weird to descrive democratic socialism, because a lot of what you talked about was defining socialism as market socialism, which completly ignores marxist-leninst theory.
And no, communim isn't authoritarian by definition, and it isn't about distributing resources, thats a right wing talking point. Communism has a lot in common with anarchy, but only the Marxist-Leninist believes that you cannot just create an Anarchy from revolution, so you need a transition in the form of socialism.
Furthermore, a lot of what you talked about in defining democratic socialism really has a lot in common with libertarian socialism, and the distinction you made fades.
This was just meant as a critique so that you can help correctly represent the broader left,
Keep up the amazing work
Really good! 😃Thanks!
thanks!!!!
Are you joking, this leftist video is absurd. THis is nothing more than the garbage you get from public education. Read a book! May I recommend "economics in one Lesson" by Hazzlit. You can get it free on line.
@Mark leftist? Lol. And one other thing: How exactly is private education any better? Betsy Devos has tried empowering charters/private and look how we’ve turned out. Nothing good
As an Indian I can say Democratic Socialism sounds good
"Conservatives use socialism as a slur to criticize ideas they don't like." That in itself is a slur.
Socialism for dummies: equal opportunities for everyone but not outcomes
Nope.
Thanks for making such a good content I really appreciate
All the policies of socialism has lead to trynay. Time and time again. Equal pay? People who work harder gain the same as someone who freeloads whilst working. I can keep listing them but it's pathetic how you try to defend socialist democracy
Communism has no government, what you discribed was a form of socialism, we have never had communism on the earth
Democratic socialism - somebody here needs to explain how it differs from just plain old ordinary socialism.
Same exact thing, as far as I'm concerned.
It’s easy to understand. I recommend “Fredric Bastiat’s” writings, it’s a clear concept.
0:40 "unfortunately most Americans don't know what socialism is"
AND APPARENTLY YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER.
You talking about the video? Cause if so then yeah I agree
i’m so confused i’m doing research on politics but everything seems to be so bias and i’m so confused...wht would u say is socialism and why did he get wrong in the video? i’m not judging u i jus really want to learn
Alejandra Torres because you have to mention the cons as well as the pros
Inquisitor Maddox oh okay i will be sure to do that :) but i jus need to know if anything in this video is false bf i go to the cons i don’t want to be putting down false info
Alejandra Torres the biggest con of Socialism is that it doesn’t last long and is not good for a society who wants to last long and although it is useful in certain situations for say successful rebels after a revolution or rebellion but if they want their people to last for as long as possible socialism or communism will not be a good choice unless you wish to brain wash people like in the book 1985 Edit: sorry the book 1984
socialized healthcare failed in most Nordic countries and they are moving back to private health
It worked in France and UK
Well, in that case, why did it work perfectly in the Soviet Union?
@@amanosolavery3561 free healthcare is Russia is really bad, the same in Colombia where I live
www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF124/CF124.chap5.html
@@christianpaeznegron I'm from Russia myself, so hi.
Nevertheless, the deplorable state of free medicine in Russia and the CIS countries is a consequence of the planned deprivation of its budget - the government basically put a big and fat dick on it and is quite happy with the situation. We can hardly expect otherwise from the capitalist elite.
@Ba Nana I see your point. I live in the UK and over the past 2 months I’ve seen how many people are just living off the government without doing anything. It’s disgusting and despite what other sources say it’s mostly just lazy assholes.
Look up second thought on TH-cam
I feel the video started with a promise to describe Democratic socialism, and ended by saying "the definition is up to you" 😂😂😂 which is ironic, coz no one really knows what this is.
But ultimately socialism has some fundamental flaws, we all agree that a monopoly is a bad idea , so why gave the govt , monopoly over means of production. The govt is not some moral authority that will always act in the best interests of citizens, its run by people, and people who want power are absolutely greedy.
Politicians will promise heaven on earth to get that power, pay themselves well and do each other favors.
Secondly, an economy is extremely complex, to take away the power and reward of free thinkers wanting to solve a problem will cripple any economy even America. I don't think a centralised authority can innovate fast enough to satisfy consumer needs.
Third, socialism will always lead to crippling bureaucracy, every decision will take months to get approved and the politicians debate , argue, lobby, whine and pretend to care, all while earning sitting allowances for each meeting. Nothing will get done first enough.
The place of government is not to baby its citizens, but to create an environment, the fosters fair play, not equality, to uphold the rule of law, to ensure that individuals do not get out of hand in their pursuit of success.
PS. If the USA is serious about getting the economy on it's feet and reducing inequality, they have to get free market production back in the country, there are few jobs , because businesses were forced to go to China for its cheaper labour. Get cost of doing business down and the middle class will thrive again, increase govt influence, and redtape, and businesses will flee.
Thank you this was very helpful for my understanding!
thanks!!!
No no no don’t let them brainwash you
@@woodyweber769 What's wrong with it? What if we practiced what's in the video. What would be the flaws? I would really like to understand how this would do more harm than our current system of capitalism.
Nah the most miss used word is fascism
Fascism is evil, that's what it is.
@@erikchepkyy5912 nazism is evil not fascism
@@carolusrex6467 Oh no, don't even start, this is the craziest shit I've ever heard. Don't try to defend Fascism, just don't. You Fascists already lost.
@@erikchepkyy5912Got a better idea?
@@carolusrex6467 Yeah. Anything but that and Communism.
As the video correctly points out, most, if not all, societies on the planet have mixed economies, with a state sector and a non-state sector. The non-state sector is almost invariably dominated by capitalist enterprises, It is fair describe almost every country in the world as having some version of a state-capitalist system with the main variable the relative size of the two components. That includes both Russia and China.
It's a shame anarchist communism wasn't mentioned here among all the other socio-economic systems.
Does socialism work? A classroom experiment
Most intelligent people realise that socialism could never work. Here is why, in the simplest fashion
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama’s socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich; a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.
As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the third test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, all failed and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that.
www.thecommentator.com/article/646/does_socialism_work_a_classroom_experiment
So it's like socialism, but not really which is like communism but not really?
I'm somewhat a democratic socialist personally it's like socialism but delete a couple aspects to stay as far away from authoritarian styles as possible, it's like socialism but erase some stuff that could possibly open up a hole communism to take over if that even makes sense
Bernie for President!!!!
What bernie said in that video only happens in capitalism😂
Nordic Countries are not Socialist. The Danish Prime Minister for starters flat out stated that Denmark is not Socialist. Rather, Denmark is a Market Economy even though one could say its a Welfare state. Also, Child Labor is not necessarily a bad thing. I worked for a food shelf when I was 12 years old. I knew people who grew up working on farms and they turned out well. Child Labor teaches children the value of hard work and to appreciate making a contribution to society. Ironically, when FDR made child labor laws, Shirley Temple was a huge child star. Hence, Shirley Temple did child labor being she was a child actress. Well before the time of the Great Depression, child labor actually sorted itself out without regulation. Because the standards of living went up due to an increase of prosperity, child labor became less necessary. Too much regulation can be a bad thing as its expensive to maintain the more regulation exists and eventually can hurt an economy. Hong Kong and the Cayman Islands have minimal regulations and are doing extremely well as a result. From my experience and I say this with all due respect: Those who defend the nonsense of Democratic Socialism generally are not well-studied on Economics or they speak as if they have not seriously studied Economics.
The Nordic countries don't even have minimum wage.
Ah no Democratic socialism is a type of socialism. Social democratic is an in-between.
Communism is a stateless society or extreme limited state which is worker controlled.
Well Leninism and stain were calling themselves socialist but they are closer to imperialist then they sociality controlled by workers. the soviet were more like imperialist then a society control by workers.
tiglath pileser the soviet union seized property for the state instead of for the proletariat
Please please make videos like this for other subjects as well.. Like economy,geography, psychology related topics
I don't entirely agree with your definition of what Social Democracy means. Social Democracy is not so much about the placement of profit or capital gained through trade or other means like taxation, along a political spectrum. It is more about fairer distribution of resources through equitable identification and allocation. Moreover, that level of distribution and the means by which it is metered out, will then be decided by the voting majority in any Socially Democratic society. The great thing about Social Democracy is that, unlike First Past the Post style of governance systems. Social Democracy demands more accountability from governments by the Citizenry and governing Coalition partners within a governing agreement. That way, governments in power have to demonstrate their right to govern through "openness" and transparency surrounding aspirations, policies and legislation.
A social democracy is not I repeat not democratic socialism
good, the video never said they are the same
Hi! I’m a student from a small town that is extremely conservative. Due to quarantine, I have tried to expand my knowledge about politics by viewing information from both parties and making my own decision on the matter. I have a lot of views that lean towards the left, but I currently do not support a particular party. I had a question about one particular topic. Do democratic socialists think education should be a constant price across the board? I definitely think that secondary education is extremely overpriced, but not all colleges are the same. There is a large difference in quality between random universities that popped up out of the blue and well established schools that have been educating for years right? I’m just looking for some opinions on the matter. I’m not looking for a fight 🙂. Good day.
I believe democratic socialists believe it should be free or that it should be affordable. There’s a country in Europe that pays 18 euros a semester for all the classes they need.
hey, democratic socialists (same as social democrats) believe that all education should be free for all students (paid by taxes)
If Burnie doesn't believe in government control of the means of production, how does the worker gain control over the means of production? Government is just a group given authority so any economic control outside the free market is government control and authoritarian by nature.
The rich are the one's taking all the risk@Michael Lochlann. They put up the money and the idea and are entitled to the profit of their success and the bankruptcy of their falure. That incentive is what grows the economy and Socialism offers nothing to replace it. The CEO of a true free market system, lawfully separated from being influenced and influencing government, is not the master of the universe but a slave to his profits. He must answer to the consumer or face falure and the consumer is anyone with a need for something.
@Michael Lochlann until some other company in some other country starts to capture your market share (since your prices have gone up to cover higher wages) and your sales go down and now there is a lot less money to be shared by the workers (lower than what you made before) and a lot of your fellow workers need to be laid off due to lower demand for your products. Unless you can impose your socialist utopia on the ENTIRE world, it can never work.
To be honest, I don't understand why people like to play with terminology. What is described in this video is Capitalism with some social and other programs. Why should it be called Democratic Socialism?
Let's see the definition:
Capitalism is an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.[1][2][3][4] Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system, and competitive markets. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism ).
What should be excluded from those characteristics to make Democratic Socialism out of Capitalism? What should be added?
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management,[10] as well as the political theories and movements associated with them.[11] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism )
I think that described in this video Democratic Socialism is much closer to Capitalism. So, maybe we should use term Democratic Capitalism. What do you think?
Well, this video describes a multitude of different things. The reason it’s democratic socialism and not democratic capitalism is because socialism is still the base system. The only difference between socialism and democratic socialism is that it is not authoritarian and the government doesn’t determine the price of services and goods. Hence the name DEMOCRATIC socialism. It’s socialism that works in the framework of democracy. It wouldn’t make sense to call it democratic capitalism as the economic system is still mainly socialist. I could see the argument being made for social democracy, but social capitalism still sounds a bit like an oxymoron and I think describing a highly regulated capitalist system with social policies as capitalist is a bit far fetched. I reckon the name “social democracy” fits better because people will vote on policies and everyone has the right to basic necessities and equal opportunities, but it still allows people to excel in the are they so choose if they want to make a little extra money. What do you think?
Thanks! Let's talk about Economic and Social systems separately. Social system can by Democracy in both cases, even direct democracy or mixed one. I don't see any contradictions. The problem comes with Economy of those systems and first of all with types of ownership. Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative ownership, or citizen ownership of equity. How about private? There is not place for that one in Socialism, but modern Capitalism has all types of ownership, including all social ones. That is why I think a term "Democratic Capitalism" fits better. Also, I could consider a term "Social Democratic Capitalism". This one looks like Golden mean. How's that to you?
@tiglath pileser ,
That is so not true! Learn more about modern capitalism.
@tiglath pileser,
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-op_City,_Bronx
@tiglath pileser,
One???!!! You don't know anything about modern capitalism. Read about coops and public companies (closed ones). Read about capitalism in Israel and their Kibbutz. Read about all kind of communities in different capitalist countries.