Capitalism and Socialism: Crash Course World History #33 

I'm watching it cuz my history teacher said I had to xD

Same, I just want to learn lol

Gay

yup

@@sage5361 I'm trying to find unbiased information and explanation of Socialism

The important things

Lol

@@8bitmagic ahahahahaha

this made me abnormally mad.

Because he is trying to make education fun like it should be.

But not about capitalism/socialism, it seems

Dale Redpath thats.. the joke

If you go back and view the Islam video he did, he tells you that Islam that migrated into Spain taught them that.

fynes leigh you sound like your proud to be inbred

fynes leigh you would not know that if it wasn’t for Islam. Europeans had no clue.

Underrated! You go up and up.

I am America and I do not approve your statement

@@AndrewVanLare Then you are not America!

goverment*

I caught on to that also. But that is HIS view. This does not necessarily apply to anyone else. But I think it DOES give us a hint to where his mind is at.

+Alyssa Schiffman "Too much capitalism and you have people starving in the streets with nothing being done" - no, what you have is a very small minority getting most/all the wealth, and masses of people taking any job they can find (no matter how low the pay), because they don't want to starve to death. Look at today's third world countries...look at 'the west' during the birth of modern capitalism, the Industrial Revolution (where factory owners made huge profit, while those lucky enough to work in the factory were paid next to nothing)! PLENTY OF WORK is/was being done...but the generated wealth just funneled to the rich minority. Many people say this (ie. "We need to strike a balance between the two..."), but it's very clear that one system is much MUCH more logical and fair than the other. Remember, humanity lived in tribal 'communes' for the first 90% of our species existence...we're mentally hard wired to be social and work together.

+DeathToTheDictators Tribal communes? That worked out? What a moron.

Parneli Jones "That worked out?" - lol yes, very well actually...we survived 2 ice ages and went on to invent civilization and everything. And I'M the moron?

DeathToTheDictators "We"? Tribes? How old are you? 30,000?

+DeathToTheDictators ''no, what you have is a very small minority getting most/all the wealth, and masses of people taking any job they can find (no matter how low the pay)'' true, but with all the remaining choices we have, we would have 99 % of the population working in ghoulish factories under a state that can take your life like nothing. '' Look at today's third world countries'' which suffer alot because foreign states mandate their market and force their states to regulate their market. Note: STATES. Other nations can invade you if you don't give them what they want. Third world countries are struggling for a million reasons, but their only way to becoming saved is to become democracies free of corruption. Here, the united states is a massive hypocrite, because we don't allow all nations to produce and export to whoever they please. ''the Industrial Revolution (where factory owners made huge profit, while those lucky enough to work in the factory were paid next to nothing)'' which can't be done anymore, because work has been so redefined that people can choose who they should work for and employers putting their employees in those conditions would make for bankrupcy. '' PLENTY OF WORK is/was being done...but the generated wealth just funneled to the rich minority.'' yes, because there wasn't any education or technology to speak of those days that gave people options. Those options would be scratched instantly if you lived in Soviet. ''Go back to the factory and work comrade, or we'll torture you for hours''. As for the employers not working as much: back in those days, it was naturally unfair since most of them inherited their wealth. But as of today, most of the corporate giants started very humbly and made it far. You won't see the CEO of Mcdonalds run to every single restaurant in the world to make burgers for literally everyone to generate his cash, because he simply can't. Naturally, it is wise to question their decisions to pay their workers the way do, the product they sell and whatever. Thing is, you have to actively protest, otherwise they won't go away. Take your money elsewhere and open your own hamburger joint. Expect to have to work your ass of in the beginning. ''Remember, humanity lived in tribal 'communes' for the first 90% of our species existence...we're mentally hard wired to be social and work together.'' we did. And it was a time when the chieftain ruled with an iron fist. Breaking codes resulted in excommunication or execution. The life expectancy was significantly lower and almost every other child died in childbirth. Not to mention the likelyhood of starving to death or being killed by another tribe. There are simply too many people for us to live in separated communities. Eventually, these communities would need new ways to get new goods, or die in the process.

in Soviet Russia, videos watch you!

@@ScareSans Maybe you should count the cameras watching you starting in the parking lot at WalMart in and though you shopping experience and back out again.

@@kimobrien. i rather appreciate those cameras, as they are kinda the main thing that helps solve crimes, such as abduction, when the criminal can be identified.

@@ScareSans You have a surveillance state mind. We've all heard that if your doing nothing wrong why do you object to being watched 24/7? So then who will watch the watchers? Even Stain and Hitler didn't have these capabilities. More and more aspects of our lives will be placed under these controls. Don't complain or get mad because we are watching you. We know all and any mistakes will be severely punished like stealing extra flimsy shopping bags. Walmart is already introducing the double checkout to determine if your checkout was done right the first time.

@@kimobrien. let me guess... You're also a flat earther...

Vooryjoni Spion The popes who organized the Crusades probably read the Bible. Does that mean Christianity is evil?

Marx wrote the communist manifesto almost 80 years before the Russian revolution. Marx was dead for almost 50 years when russia became communist. Hence why he has nothing to do with Stalinism. Stalin was 10 when Marx died. His theories and how people twisted them decades later to rob the masses are a distinction that needs to be made. Hence my analogy with Christianity and the crusades.

Mr. Coffee Its also worth mentioning that all theories can be twisted to allow people to seize power. For example, during the French Revolution, Robespierre twisted Enlightenment values to make himself a dictator. Yet those same values are what guided the way the US government and many other Republics in the western world were founded.

@@doggo5577 please read about MARXISM then post ur comment...and I think u know nothing about war history ....

Mr. Coffee Way to incompetently make a bogus comparison. Sure Marxism “had” good intentions, but guess what, so did the Bible. Unfortunately the only things that sprout out from the two are corrupted. Thing is, at least the Bible and religion has significantly done much more good than Marxism ever will, which I believe hasn’t done one yet. Also pathetic how it seems you all only look for the proponents for Marxism, perspectives that will only and obviously praise it, rather than study the reasons why many are against it. What good is an unrivaled belief besides indoctrination? Maybe you should do some research on countries, such as Venezuela, where some people, despite waiting overnight to be first on the breadline every week, are told they can go only after government affiliates ransack the place first. Maybe their warnings, literally saying that socialist promises are lies, might convince you. PragerU actually has a good video not of some right-wing white male talking, because I know how that may offend some of you, but interviewing residence of Venezuela. This might be your first dose of a red pill, but if you all want to continue living the lie, you do you.

Xoltan Your feedback is not important to john green. This video was made in 2012. He has definitely improved.

He should remaster some videos.

Now that's an idea! ^

I view the two as bearing a similar relation to that between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In as much as one is more suited to explaining the workings of the finer detail of reality, and the other as better used in defining the nature of reality on a grander scale. Socialism is, in this manner, a superior prescription as to how a system is better managed at the local level. After all the social nature of the species dictates our one to one interactions with our peers. Capitalism, however, excels at prescribing successful navigation through the greater system. Our social nature breaks down with the advent of strangers and the fewer people in the system we know the greater tendency we have to view the population as a series of pawns, predictable, and therefor manipulable in their behavior. Much like each individual violin loses its distinction in a section of strings so to do persons within their societies. It is capitalism that dictates how best the individual engage with such complexity. Therefor it is my recommendation that if we as a society are to have socialism let such a system rest in our town halls. Let our nations relinquish their hands from this responsibility. Socialism is about the responsibility of man to his fellow man not of a government to the individual. Capitalism is about the relation of a citizenry to its civilization. In this respect both systems, the high and the low, by means of mutual indebtedness, are forever bound in a state of reciprocity in their respective relations.

@Jericho Gonzales Great points well said. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter

+Deimos with communism everybody would be dirt poor instead. It isn't perfect, but it is the best we have. Economic systems has to be designed in a better way.

Pastor Bush If you don't know the difference between Socialism and Communism I have nothing to answer to you.

Deimos Socialism provide the same results. Socialdemocracy is a different thing and can indeed work.

Pastor Bush The people in power want everyone to think capitalism works, but it doesn't. I hope people will wake up before it's too late. We're today the only problem in the planet, we can't even live in peace in our own species. Fighting over liquid decomposed shit found underground and other stupid stuff.

Deimos It doesn't truly work to make the world perfect, but it makes the world better than the current alternatives.

@Leathley Capitalism does that every day - and not accidentally.

@Leathley So, grocery store workers provide nothing to society? How about delivery drivers? Mail-men? These are people often too poor to afford medical charges, and yet, coronavirus has proved their need. There is a pervasive myth of meritocracy, where people who succeed or fail do so only on their own merits. All of the data point to the contrary. Economic mobility is low in America compared to other developed nations, productivity does *not* correlate with wages, and many jobs are outright frivolous and unnecessary. Tell me: how much do you think the CEOs of airliners actually benefit their companies? What about their shareholders who divert 90+ percent of their companies' revenues to stock buybacks? Do you think they contribute orders of magnitudes more to society than your septic worker? I doubt it.

Well-said, FrasierCraft. I'll add that those who have capital beyond what is needed to survive are able to use that capital to make more money without actually working for it.

Kellie Nicholson Thank you for those kind words!

luvcheney1 Another fact is that Norway has the most efficent oil production, also considered the safest. Still Norway runned with a socialist policy.

luvcheney1 Capitalism doesn't work without a social safety net and strict regulation. Another flaw our version of capitalism has is permitting inheritances, which is just a stacked casino game and not really about skill, talent or merit.

***** Just a thought... if you can't explain yourself in your own words, then perhaps you don't really understand what you're saying. Another thought... if you aren't aware of all other theories related to the topic, then perhaps you should read more. Now I must ask... What gives you the right to say that any of the earth's resources are yours? What gives you the right to lay claim to any property once you're dead? What makes you think that anyone has the right to land ownership? Are you aware that our fore fathers discussed that the land belonged to ALL of us, so they wanted to impose a tax on all land owners as rent to be paid to those who don't own any land? The examples of capitalism failing: every country that has tanked its economy when corruption settled into the faulty system. If you really want to get into a discussion, it would take a lot longer than I have, but I'll make a few points. Rather than try to discount my ideas, why not give them thought, as this isn't about you and I, this is about creating a better system for future generations. Throughout all of history we have improved on the way we do things, so why on earth would anyone think that we have reached the point that this is the best we can do? 1. Any economic system requires participation of all members, or corruption will seep in. That is not a failure on the part of Capitalism, but of the people of the nations that employ it. The choice to watch mindless television over having a political or philosophical discussion is how the corporate world has brain-washed the masses into believing that Capitalism is the best we can do. 2. The reason the people must participate in the regulation (this could mean organizing unions or boycotting corrupt companies, etc.) of a Capitalistic society is because capitalism breeds corruption, as the main goal is profits, rather than happiness. 3. People who get caught up in the numbers game tend to become vacant souls. EX: Many wealthy people send their children away to boarding school or hire nannies for others to raise them, thinking that leaving their heirs money is more important than making them a sandwich or holding a cold compress on their forehead when they're sick. They use the excuse that it's for their children, but it's really to satisfy their own egos. Those parents fail to realize that they have neglected their children in ways that will affect their self-esteem their whole lives. 4. If we created a society that focused less on competition and more on curiosity, we would have a more balanced and more evolved civilization. Competition uses the ego to pit people against each other, while curiosity is a personal exploration that encourages out-of-the-box thinking, which leads to new inventions and improved systems. 5. If we regulated Capitalism to be more fair, there wouldn't be such a need for hand-outs and charitable organizations, as everyone would have a fair chance in the game. Poor children never get a chance to enter the game, because Capitalism requires a surplus of capital. Even the game of Monopoly gives everyone a bank to start out in the game. Poor children get nothing: no down-payment on a home, no college education, no seed money to begin a business, no Ivy League connections. They spend their lives living from paycheck-to-paycheck, unless they get lucky. Those success stories are meant to cause ridicule for anyone who doesn't make it and to insinuate that anyone who works hard can make it. That is a fallacy. 6. Inheritances should not be permitted, as once you're dead, you no longer have a vote or a say. Once you're dead your heirs should have already been blessed with your knowledge to survive on their own without a hand-out from the parents. Read up on what Thomas Paine thought about inheritances. He proposed that estates of the deceased be put into a fund to be dispersed in equal amounts among the youth of the nation at a determined age to begin their lives. Everyone would start at the same place, rather than relying on the lottery of birth. It's my opinion that this would create a more mentally healthy society. The defense of Capitalism is in itself clearly a symptom of sickness and brain-washing. 7. It is nothing more than hypocrisy to support Capitalism, but then also argue that inheritances are fair. If you don't think your brats can make it playing on a level playing field with everyone else, then perhaps you didn't do a very good job of parenting. Oh, if you think your brats deserve to be ahead of everyone else in the game, then you're just a selfish a**hole and that is a matter of character. No argument there. 8. Society is no more than a game with rules established by the participants. There is a consensus reached to define the values and then the rules are supposed to support and encourage those values. Let's be clear that unregulated Capitalism rewards cut-throat, selfish behavior. I think we can do better. 9. How can we improve? Co-operative businesses, abolish inheritances (estates go to all the youth of the nation equally), ban monopolies and ownership of all enterprise (including businesses, inventions, medical research, utilities, etc.) that was initiated with public money should remain in the hands of the public to reap any profits or to pay for use at cost, thus eliminating profits. I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to make people think. Those who claim that Capitalism is the most successful economic system in history are not thinking critically and obviously have not read much history. Let's look in the mirror and figure that out, then get on the internet and do some research - not to support your claims (as you already know that), but to learn something new. You don't know everything and until you do, you shouldn't stop listening to what others have to say.

no its a real thing he did

You probably didn't read the book

+LegoGuy87 He said democratic society, not democratic State. So he's right. The Nation is built upon a democratic foundation, the State is a Republic.

+LegoGuy87 He's referring to the social structure of the country, not the legal political system of the government. In the US, people vote for their representatives, then their representatives vote for their needs. Voting is a basic democratic principle. So while the State is indeed defined as a Republic, it is a Republic via Democratic means. He said society too, which doesn't mean State.

+loneevergreen Capitalism inevitably fails when technology runs rampant. Why? Because then it's no longer everyone taking advantage of everyone else, it's a few taking advantage of everyone else.

+LegoGuy87 It's democratic in that citizens can participate in the political process. You can run for a position. You can talk about it, and try to change someone's mind. It's like a kind of democratic republic.

+loneevergreen It's good you have Sanders. Up till now, you've only had the right and the centre. Now you can actually explore some socialist policies that are successful in Europe, Oceania and even just north of your order, or at least discuss them. Ultimately, a mixture of socialism and capitalism, aka Social Democracy, would be the best route, as it gives the people the necessary safety net in the case of financial failure in a competitive market. It also keeps a healthier workforce, which again is necessary to compete in a competitive market.

replace does coke with is bias.

@That guy Bacon at this point, we might as well change it to John Green is actually secretly Elvis, who used time travel to look younger and plastic surgery to make himself look like someone else. because he isn't biased.

@@ScareSans Of course he is biased! He describes George Washington like he's Genghis Khan and Genghis Khan like he's George Washington.

@@tylerdurden4392 to be fair, lots of stories about Khan and Washington are probably farse, or stretched out of proportion. I doubt he's biased, and if he is, he keeps it from creeping into his videos perfectly.

@@ScareSans In one of his videos he says "let's face it, all white men (or people or whatever) in the Americas (at a certain time) were racist" ...I'm paraphrasing, but it's 98% accurate and it gives NO credit to abolitionists or anything that came before efforts to fight slavery. There are also many mentions of "the Mongols" when it comes to positive things even though Genghis Khan raped so many women that many would kill themselves to avoid the serial rapist--he changed the gene pool of entire communities! Not only that, Genghis Khan was an illiterate monster that couldn't get through his teen years without killing his own brother. Even Attila the Hun would shy away from such a savage, yet American leaders were the bad guys of history?

andrew carrera Mkon

*memes

That's easy start your own business and do all the work yourself.

No it's not; you still have to sell what you create in socialism. They aren't "taking back" anything at all. It's stealing the land, building, machines, savings, etc. The owner bought them and risked a considerable amount of cash (typically life savings, considerable loans with the house as collateral) to create the business. If the business fails the owner may be ruined. Without him the jobs would not exist in the first place. The workers are trading their labor for a wage, and unlike the owner they will be paid even when the company is losing money. And the workers are free to pool their resources and take the risk of starting their own business. But they don't want to take that risk. Why should one reap the rewards without taking the risk?

Why do you assume workers can't own a business? "Without capitalists jobs would not exist" says who? Do you really think benevolent landlords and CEOs create trade and business? Do you think we'd run out of food if Monsanto let the workers own the land? Or we'd run out of oil or coal if tycoons weren't profiting off of them? "unlike the owner they will be paid even when the company is losing money" lmao, really? Is that why capitalists claim that raising the minimum wage will get people laid off? No, if they company loses money it'll cut corners wherever it can. Jeff Bezos could double all of his 340000 employees' salaries just by docking his own pay, and he'd still be in the top 1%. It's pretty clear that capitalists are hoarding as much wealth as possible. And there's very little risk for the capitalists in the modern systems because a) the amount of wealth accumulated through dynasties and inheritance ("A small loan of a million dollars), b) banks are much more willing to lend to the already wealthy for startups, and almost never to co-ops because bankers are looking for profit too, and c) capitalists have worked with the state for decades on things like NAFTA and other neoliberal trade agreements, in order to ensure they can squeeze as much value from the laborers as possible, even if it means outsourcing, slavery, and death squads, such as the child slaves in the Congo who work in mines for 2$ a day for Apple, inc.

Boi the SFRY had a free market and they were full blown COMMUNIST...

@@howtocossackdance free market does not mean capitalist

@@pretzel502 A free market is a market controlled by individuals. If other workers control the market then it is no long free.

The Crazy Cossack Hahahahaha Why you just said is dead person can be alive 🤣🤣🤣

@@pretzel502 You cannot advocate free trade unless you are a capitalist. Capitalists believe in free trade while non-Capitalists believe in fair trade. Fair-trade does not advocate free trade because if your freedom is exchanged for fairness.

Spencer Wines Agreed, and it shouldn’t be hard to achieve. International trade has prevented wars and improved the GDP of a number of countries. By interfering to prevent monopolized business and enforcing agreed upon social policies working conditions and standards of living, almost anyone can prosper in a capitalist system.

Daniel Chapman a mixed economy exactly.

Capitalism is but not Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is the system we are increasingly heading towards.

Jose Rojas I don’t follow. Can you explain.

Spencer Wines, Since the 80's there is a new form of capitalism that is increasingly taking over and that is destroying our societies, neoliberalism. People often associate the "system" we live in today with capitalism but it is more than ever a neoliberal system and it is only getting worse.

+RyHerbs Pure socialism and especially pure communism have not existed. Not even close.

+RyHerbs totally agree

+ratelslangen pure forms of those systems haven't yet existed because the societies which attempted to achieve them fell apart before they ever got there. With this in mind, and by analyzing the nature of those systems themselves, we can conclude they simply wouldn't work in the real world.

+Ben Graham North Korea? That totalitarian theocratic monarchy? Hardly.

+RyHerbs Why, whats wrong with pure capitalism? What we have now is a mixed economy, and its getting crushed by debt, the fed's money mismanagement, and corruption.

+Darth Vader holy f%ck are you ignorant.

+DeathToTheDictators Yea man! You showed him! The points you just made were clearly well thought out and educated! I could clearly tell what you were trying to express and you totally proved that you know what you're talking about! Good for you Mr. Socialist!

maestro23 lol ok smart guy, let's start with point number one....how exactly is the money a 'capitalist' business owner gets from his business 'his money', when it's actually his workers that are doing all the actual work for this money? It's THEIR labor, is it not their right to get the fruits of said labor?

Puglous "The workers profit" - 'profit'? They get to not starve, hardly 'profit'. If they were getting a wage more proportionate to the income they generate for their company, THEN they'd be getting 'profit'. "and combined they only get to take home 3% of the business' revenues. That's fucking finger nail clipping" - only a fucking moron would call 12 billion 'finger nail clippings'. "why the fuck hasn't ANYONE done it!?" - there ARE many successful companies that offer decent wages, and profit sharing, employee stocks/shares, etc. Costco for one.

Puglous "Who the fuck are you say workers aren't paid proportionate to the income they generate!?" - the workers to whom i've almost exclusively referred to (ie. Mcds walmart etc workers) are NOT getting a wage proportionate to the income they generate. I never said ALL workers, you strawman piece of shit. "How could they not be paying workers proportionately to their productivity when their revenues are almost equal the money that goes to workers (97%)?" - lol name me these companies that list 'employee compensation' as 100% of their 'cost', idiot. "get rid of the rich "parasites", and you'd add a measely three fucking percent to your paycheck" - which adds approx $7,000/year to a full time walmart employee. Which is like a 50% raise. "How much additional revenue do you think Cashier #8, who ensures that you will have a 1 minute shorter wait in line when the store is busy, really brings in!" - lol considering the store can't sell ANYTHING unless there's people working the til, i'd say quite a bit.

Cory Bosma wow

Blyat

+Stannis Baratheon Sanders has followers because his policies are good. He is not bought off by corporate america like the rest of the candidates are, either.

Benjamin Ljunggren Socalism is not "good", and Rand Paul was an amazing candidate who wasn't "bought".

"Socialism is bad" Oh, I have never heard this before. Paul was my favourite republican candidate, but he is still VERY questionable on climate change policies (like basically all republicans) and he is pro-life which I can't find myself to support at all.

Benjamin Ljunggren You heard it before? From every logical person ever? And Rand is educated on climate change and knows human activities have little change on it and killing complete industries is insane.

Stannis Baratheon I've heard it from every american that still believes in the anti-communism propaganda that Reagan and others were spewing out during the cold war. The scientific consensus is that human activity has a significant impact on our climate. To not accept this is nothing but pure scientific illiteracy. But I wouldn't expect much more from a republican.

He lived true to his philosophy

Apparently Capital just materialized out of thin air and published itself under his name. without him writing a word of it. Or you don't consider writing work,

Lmao yes he did. He had several jobs.

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what is called an Ad Hominem.

Indeed, Marx sponsor was an uncle of his, the Dutch trader in tabaco, mr Philips, indeed a relative of the Philips who founded Philips Electronics. Das Kapital founded by the capitalists.

ppl < money. Capitalism in a nutshell

That's the joke

T'is is the thinking of those who worship the Federal Reserve Note.

Ya we get we are disposable but somehow for the capitalists going bankrupt is a fate worse than death. This is why he becomes to fat and needs a bailout.

Maria Catarina Bolena ok socialist

May 19th, 2006!

K Monster

Adam Soli goodness, I'm an engineer and I got like 4 history classes. Architecture program study though…

K Monster ever heard of studying

The test of life grades you much much harsher. I think you are studying for the wrong tests noobs.

Capitalism works because it rewards success. Do you honestly think a factory worker and a Doctor should be making the same amount of money?

Yes they should have the same or at least similar wage. Making money and profit from health care is immoral in my eyes anyway.

what is immoral for you? Is selling food at a profit seem immoral for you?

***** Who gets to define what is moral and what is not? You're an idiot. So if uneducated factory workers are going to get paid the same as Doctors. Do you honestly think people would push through medical school if they know they will not get anything out of it?

Yet Cuba has the 2nd most doctors per capita, while USA is 52nd.

Nope

That really struck me. He didn't really get into the core criticism of capitalism, and his emphatic pronouncement that people are better off under a capitalist system ignores a number of things like, that our economy is driven by overseas slaves, or that our standard of living has only improved as we've gotten more socialist, and democratic countries more socialist than us are generally better off. It all seems very "8th grade social studies" view of communism, that China and Stalin are the best examples of how Communism turns out. Communist uprisings in China having to be suppressed by the government should tell you all you need to know about how communist China really is.

@@captainmanacles Well... I don't think socialism is the answer.. no one but the man incharge people in his or her favour can be free to get rich.. Their should be a happy medium.. Britain is a good example of a mix of the two.

@@mrannunaki6852 In democratic socialism there is no single "man in charge". On the other hand, under capitalism the richest people in the country generally run everything. Britain is pretty right wing and has a pretty screwed up economy. A good example would be Denmark, which is pretty close to pure socialism and has the happiest population on the planet.

idk did it say it was bad? if so then yes

You mean the red scare? You sound like you like socialism...

"You sound like you like socialism" - you sound like you like unfairly funneling most wealth to a small minority

DeathToTheDictators Exactly!

DeathToTheDictators No one is funneling anything to anyone. You know everyone in the top "1 percent," is anyone who makes 150,000 or more. They already pay around half the taxes in the U.S. I think they pay more than their "fair share!" If someone is strong willed enough to go start and business and have the intelligence to do so then they deserve the benefits. If it wasn't for these wealthy CEO's there'd be way less jobs.

+Jared Langley look sir...did John Walton somehow perform the millions of man-hours it took to make his billions? No, his low paid workers did. Like i said, unfairly funnels most wealth (that's actually earned and created by the low/middle class majority) to a small (rich) minority....that's capitalism in a nutshell.

But material comfort frees one to explore these other domains.

People just capitalize on the state ... Everything is capitalism ... From your relationships to any object you are willing to trade .. That's it ... People wanna argue whether a glass of water is half empty or half full ... That's not the point ... It's value is subjective to the individual and whatever transaction is taking place.

Capitalism isn't all greed. People don't have to be forced to to be generous. Appealing to the consumer helps all people get the best things producing a better economy

This is the most brilliant and succinct way I've ever seen this issue worded! I think people are so saturated in their own culture that they can't or don't want to understand.

That was brilliant! dude you put my emotions into words!!

Unlike socialism, capitalism wasn't idealized by an intelectual. It was a system naturally developed by time. Communism only exists when it's enforced.

I know, right? People should keep an open mind.

I totally agree with you. I think people like to label things as "good" or "bad" because it is easier, i.e. more simple to understand things that way. Like John often states in his lessons, there is no easy answer to any problems or issues. There is always benefits and costs for every single solution or system. We have to weigh the pros and cons (cost-benefit analysis) for each individual case to make the best decisions.

+luvcheyney1 I don't think he means concrete things like stealing or lying so much as ideas and historical events. We have to acknowledge that not everything we come across can have a label slapped on it and we can go our merry ways. We need to see each side of the issue, and even then, a simple label won't cut it. Even stealing and lying should be distinguished between "bad" and "condemnable" acts. As in, we, as imperfect humans, have no right to condemn someone because of an act. Disciplinary actions can be taken, though, not saying there shouldn't be consequences for actions.

Addressing the original commenter this time: I emphatically agree. In regards to this topic, I believe in using some socialist principles to structure free markets and capitalism. I value humanity over money, and while this can't really be communicated into law, I want regulation that supports this.

luvcheney1 Because we've collectively decided that we don't want old people to die of treatable diseases. When we are old, we'll rely on our collective children to do the same for us. It's called community, and if you don't like it, go be a hermit.

You would "PAY GOOD MONEY" to hear someone read the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO? :thinking:

@@harmstrongg we live in a capitalist society dude. I dont get your problem.

@@nl7837 of course you don't lol

Google free communist manifesto audio book and you get a RU-vid video

@Air Get better lines, who doesn't have a job in this economy? Oh, right, communists.

This is a great response! I would suggest that the way to keep power decentralized is a system where one has the direct incentive to serve it's "customers, people" keeps the power in check. Free Markets do that much more efficiently than other systems. Guess which side I'm on!

Matthew Bellis your a liberal liberals are delusional and stupid free market only works if no one is greedy and have honest capitalist system LOL which Capitalism is not its about profit and greed live with that idea your liberal ideas are stupid and out of this world you will only find Free Market at your nearest yard sale

MrDICKHEAD28 Ahhh yes, the ol' wildly generalize, and insult strategy. Matthew's comment sounds way more Libertarian than liberal, but whatever.

you forgot religion.....christianity.

This statement by Gatzlocke was so well worded. Profound to say the least. It comforts me greatly to witness even a small morsel of intelligence and common sense in a world filled with foolishness and willfully blind sheep.

Well, Social Democrats aren't really Socialists. Social Democracy is a secession of Liberalism. Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet is the only Socialistic parties we have, really. Then we have Social liberal parties, which all parties in Alliansen probably falls under, and then we have two (sort of) Conservative parties, KD and SD.

Markus9705 Yeah I agree to an extent but I would not consider Miljöpartiet (The Environment party) a socialist party only Vänsterpartiet (The Left Party) fits in that category and Moderaterna (The Moderates) is mix between a social liberal party and a conservative party.

MackMaster Miljöpartiet is definitely a Socialist party. They are aginast profits in the welfare, Swedish arms exports and surveillance on the Net. Instead, they want to pay tribute to people and whistle blowers who find fault in democracy. They want that our (Swedish) foreign policy priority to conflict prevention and non-military means to create and maintain peace and promote democracy and human rights, they want free school meals, free state health care, they fight for LGBT rights, they promote animal rights and so on. Miljöpartiet describes themslef as a feminist party, and as far as I konw they are for affirmative action. I would consider them as green Socialists, mainly because they are Socialists. :P The Left Party in Sweden have quite similar opinions as the Environment Party, which personally is a bit of a problem for me; I don't know what to vote for. :(

MackMaster Moderaterna is Liberals, not Conservatives. Anyone who say that they're Conservative haven't simply read their Party Program.

Markus9705 To be against surveillance on the internet is a liberal idea, it is built upon rights of freedom. You are doing what you want with your internet without anyone blocking you or affecting our privacy. LGBT rights is also built upon a liberal grund. Being able to marry who ever you want without the state interfering for example is very liberal. My personal viewpoint is a bit socialist but some parts of liberalism such as these two that I just mentioned are crucial in a great society. Therefore I would consider Miljöpartiet social-democratic environmental party, since social-democratic parties often have a little bit more liberal influences than socialist party's. All party programs are very subjective and promote their own politics in the way they want to present it to the public. Moderaterna originates from conservative routes and writes laws that pretty often stands especially positive to descendants of the old nobility.

_"Of course, the owner bought the factory"_ Yeah, like 8 generations back.

@@elrondhubbard7059 I'm not trying to excuse the issue of generational wealth. For sure, I'd agree, most wealth is passed on and maintained, I was just trying to balance the two perspectives on the owner/worker arrangement.

​@@NS-pj8dr Sorry, that was just what my brain said after I read that sentence I quoted. I actually agree completely with your comment. I wouldn't say I'm a _Marxist_ per se, I think a lot of what he wrote doesn't exactly apply to conditions in the 21st century, but I certainly did learn a lot from reading him and it certainly influenced my thinking in regards to labour and capital.

@@elrondhubbard7059 Yeah same, I think of some it still applies but not as strictly because work and classes are a lot more multifarious now, wealth and ownership takes a lot different forms as well. I'm very pro-cooperative, bottom up grassroots democracy, especially when it threatens powerful monopolies (corporations)

@@NS-pj8dr false most wealth is made

thatisthejoke.jpeg

he was forced to share it with other people

He worked in gulags

Союз нерушимый республик свободных Сплотила навеки Великая Русь. Да здравствует созданный волей народов Единый, могучий Советский Союз! Славься, Отечество наше свободное, Дружбы, народов надежный оплот! Знамя советское, знамя народное Пусть от победы, к победе ведет! Сквозь грозы сияло нам солнце свободы, И Ленин великий нам путь озарил. Нас вырастил Сталин - на верность народу На труд и на подвиги нас вдохновил. Славься, Отечество чаше свободное, Счастья народов надежный оплот! Знамя советское, знамя народное Пусть от победы к победе ведет! Мы армию нашу растили в сраженьях, Захватчиков подлых с дороги сметем! Мы в битвах решаем судьбу поколений, Мы к славе Отчизну свою поведем! Славься, Отечество наше свободное, Славы народов надежный оплот! Знамя советское, знамя народное Пусть от победы к победе ведет!

Matthew Villalba - Mutis that’s communism

@@michaelwells9970 haha

@@pretzel502 Now make it E A R R A P E !

@@bobross2362 *Союз* *нерушимый* *республик* *свободных* *Сплотила* *навеки* *Великая* *Русь.* *Да* *здравствует* *созданный* *волей* *народов* *Единый, могучий* *Советский* *Союз**!* *Славься, Отечество наше свободное, Дружбы, народов надежный оплот! * Знамя советское, знамя народное Пусть от победы, к победе ведет! Сквозь грозы сияло нам солнце свободы, И Ленин великий нам путь озарил. Нас вырастил Сталин - на верность народу На труд и на подвиги нас вдохновил. Славься, Отечество чаше свободное, Счастья народов надежный оплот! Знамя советское, знамя народное Пусть от победы к победе ведет! Мы армию нашу растили в сраженьях, Захватчиков подлых с дороги сметем! Мы в битвах решаем судьбу поколений, Мы к славе Отчизну свою поведем! Славься, Отечество наше свободное, Славы народов надежный оплот! Знамя советское, знамя народное Пусть от победы к победе ведет!

Former rightful French territory am I right

I think he meant the place his finger landed on was the border of Egypt and Libya. Then again, I wasn’t paying attention.

That describes capitalism perfectly. Americans are becoming poorer every year with half the population under the poverty line, and there are billions of people in the world who live on less than 1 dollars a day.

Hello there The world isn’t capitalist though.

Most of the countries of the world are capitalist to some extent. And even those that aren't capitalist are many times negatively affected by capitalist policies which is all about maximizing profits for the wealthy.

Hello there Lol, yeah, those capitalist countries have the lowest poverty rates. It makes whoever works hard and takes financial risk richer. Capitalism has pulled more people out of hunger and poverty than anything in the history of the world.

What part of "billions of people live on a less than 2 dollars a day" don't you understand?

A.m 00000 dude me too I wanna slip this guy a Xanax

Don't worry. So did his

vidhead85 Please look up Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell. Don't just vote for Bernie because what he's saying sounds nice. Sowell and Friedman completely destroy any point Sanders makes and they are some of the most respected economist, authors, and professors ever

GawdGFX I acknowledge your point, but I'm going Bernie all the way. He HAS ideas unlike many of the candidates running and the idea of universal healthcare, tuition free schooling, mandatory paid vacation (for workers apparently) and I believe paid maternity and paternity leave is a must for new parents What he's saying doesn't just SOUND good, it IS good for the mental health and well being of our country I respectfully disagree with you, and I've heard of these individuals before

vidhead85 Free stuff means you like govt to go out and take other people`s money, and go buy shit for you. You are no different than a common thief. You just want to elect Bernie to do it for you.

Parneli Jones A common thief doesn't work a job, pay his/her texes and expect that they be used to further society A common thief doesn't think about what will benefit others, only themselves, and the things I cited above like universal healthcare, childcare, education, mandatory 2 week vacation and paid time off. sick time actually HELP peoples' mental health NO one who works should work themselves to exhaustion and a bad state of mental health. That is all I need to say

vidhead85 If you think free universal healthcare is great, that govt is giving us something and you have a right to it, you are a thief. Because in order for Govt to "give", it must TAKE. It takes from those with incomes, and gives to those without. Giving and taking money creates incentives. It rewards those who fail, and penalizes those that do not. This is a set of 2, opposite incentives, both making society as a poorer. It slows good behavior and actions, rewards failing ones. Thats like beating your kid when he does great in school, giving him a trip to Disneyland for failing. Only a fucking moron would think that makes sense.

Work

***** Those Scandinavian countries are capitalist, or have you swallowed the "democratic socialism" BS from Bernie too? The Nordic model they operate under is a capitalist economy with a welfare safety net. On the other hand, democratic socialism is where the state owns, regulates and distributes the means of production under a democratic political system... something which would be impossible in the US seeing as you guys are a REPUBLIC. It's kind of sad to see so many young Americans swallow Bernie's lies about something as destructive as democratic socialism because he spews buzzwords like "free college" and "wealth redistribution"... some things that can only be accomplished through government force might I add. All the problems Bernie talks about in the US have come about as a direct result of government interference. For example, US college fees are so high because the government created an artificial inflation on tuition by making available student loans to every citizen (might I highlight subprime loaning, which was a driving force behind the global financial crisis), which has devalued college degrees... the more there is of something the less it is worth, simple economics. There are more people going to college and getting degrees now so of course tuition is going to go up in price. College students are putting themselves in debt for a worthless piece of paper, where 20,000 other graduates will be fighting for a job opening which can only accept 1% of the applicants. Also with your China comment, China's population living in perpetual poverty halved in the first 7 years of implementing capitalism, from 1978-1975, and their average life expectancy has risen from 32 to 69 when moving from a socialist economy to capitalism. According to the world bank, China's poverty rates fell from 88% in 1981 to 6.5% in 2012... that's over 1 billion people.

+`Dear maN` Bernie drawing examples from Nordic countries while simultaneously promoting Democratic Socialism is flat out lying because they were different economic systems. Nordic countries are more on the side of social democracy which is where my biggest issue with him lies (he intentionally manipulates uneducated millennials because many can't identify that social democracy and democratic socialism are literally opposite). I'm not American either.

Democratic Kampuchea actually still exist, mind you

Lorde Icarus No it doesn't. The Kingdom of Cambodia now exists on the same landmass as Democratic Kampuchea did after it's collapse.

Adam Marks Ah yes, now dominant party and constitutional monarchy.

Please explain

+Sir William Bowlerton, Esq. You have to be brainwashed by a college professor in liberal arts while being turned down higher paying jobs because of said liberal arts degree or have your new SJW propaganda game called "Sunset" to flop miserably in order to hate capitalism*

How?

+Mladen Milosavljevic every single critique of state ownership is destroyed by the government built road next to you. Your argument is horryfying. Want to argue Capitalism and Markets? Great, atleast don't resort to illogical arguments.

+Sir William Bowlerton, Esq. Idk i was living in socialism and there ive seen starvstion... Not in capitalism... Maybe your world view is incorect.

I wish people depicts human without hands because they are used to kill others

"Crash Course" Though I liked the information in your comment

Alleyup1994USA 2. No. The workers can run a business its called a cooperative. And lennisim is not communist due to it relying on a strict highirchy while in real communism their is no government. Hitler owned a capitalist society due to most industry belonging to private parties. And my knowlage of Mao is garbages so I won't talk about him

Alleyup1994USA Hitler also invented privatization. So much for being Socialist. Speaking seriously though, he wasn't free market, he just supported big German companies.

Labor theory of value is horribly flawed. 1. Labor isn't necessarily valuable - if a person digs and fills in a ditch repeatedly no value is added. Labor is used though. 2. Resources matter. The world ends if all the world's resources are destroyed. The entire environmentalism movement is effectively predicated on LVT being incomplete.

I take it you're an avid socialist 😂

As these two are often seen as a projected duality (like the age-old and stupid left vs right question), I'd suggest to read up on alternative strategies for social arrangement, perhaps think a bit about voluntarism and libertarianism. I highly recommend reading "the most dangerous superstition" by Larken Rose and go from there. Also "On Truth" and "Universally Preferrable Behaviour" by Stefan Molyneux, both available as free download e-books or even as an audiobook here on youtube. After reading / listening to these, look back at what you just wrote. I guarantee you that you will very much enjoy these intellectual exercises.

I agree, I support libertarian communitarianism.

of course you're right and how the balance should work is the defining question of our political discourse at the moment, theres no doubt that laissez faire capitolist economics lead to booming economies (such as in the 1920s or the early 2000s), in a way communism has not yet done yet however the profit doesn't trickle down as much as Ayn Rand and ronald reagan would have you believe. so to a certain extent we need a strong government to regulate business and use it to ensure equality through minimum wages and other social security policies. how much power to regulate and how much the state should put into these programs is what politicians and governments have argued over for a century now, and your stance defines whether you're right or left wing in the modern sense of those words, finding that balance is difficult though and no nation has found it perfectly yet so the political debate must go on

The lack of regulation is not the problem per se, the states intervening at all is. Something like the financial crisis of 2008 would never have happened if the perps hadn't known beforehand that they will be bailed out by their buddies in the political arena. So in essence, government steals ("taxes") the shit out of the general population and use that money to bail out the banks who fucked the population (and each other) as well. Yet all the protesters went to wall street and nobody occupied the lawn in front of the white house, which is mind-boggling to me. It is said that you can't make sense of anything without the context that goes around it, therefore capitalism is not a problem in itself, politics is not necessarily a problem in itself, wannabe dictatorships and the interlinks between politics and finance are the problem. Just apply the rules you would have ordinary people follow to banks and governments and see where all the problems lie...

So if the banks were reckless cos they knew their buddies in congress were gonna bail them out, then thats a problem of corrupt congressmen befriending banks, and the problem lies as is the case so often with politicians rather than politics itself.

***** i don't understand, are you saying a free market is like a mafia? Or.. Maybe you are saying whenever there is a criticization of socialism it is capitalist propaganda and not credible

Benjamin Dover It's already happening man. America has 50 states yet the central government has the true ultimate power, and ours is just a method of control. Make the people think they have real power and they'll be content. It's not good.

Benjamin Dover Socialism =/= state power, it's a stateless egalitarian society where the means of production are under the control of the workers.

Gray Beard And how do the workers come to own the corporation?

Parneli Jones Many different ways, although in socialism there are worker groups rather than corporations because there is no a State to enforce that legal privilege of corporatism. Starting one together, collectively buying it from the previous owner, through a State mandate (which is only partially socialistic since it uses a State), or a revolution to overthrow the rulers (either peaceful or violent).

What are the technological innovations that the Nordic system has brought us?

oh damn u right 🤭

He also frames it as though investing, markets, and innovation are exclusive to capitalism-

@@wagnergauer9133 It hasn't been around for long, but theoretically there isn't anything that is preventing innovation.

@@bighomie6435 theoretically if there is no innovation there is something preventing it.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE

Right below this comment was a person starting a socialist vs communist argument

Andy Su most people are idiots, don't put your faith in idiots.

always have a low expectation to achieve happiness...KINDA LIKE SOCIALISM FLAME WAR STARTED

Some Lad 2 much edge 4 me, bro

Actually, it was political reform taking up a large portion of 19th century England that brought an end to child labor. This is important because production and industrialization don't actually have anything to do with child labor being stopped. Social reform, hastened by the pains industrialization brought upon people, is what actually caused the evolution of labor laws, including child labor.

Yeah, no. Life got quite a lot worst for the average person after the industrial revolution. That's a pretty damning fact for capitalism if, under their system, automation and efficiency actually lowered people's standard of living. It may be true that before the industrial revolution it was common for children to help plant crops, gather eggs, milk cows, but after the industrial revolution it was pretty common for children to get arms and fingers ripped off, or just be killed outright by machines. "Child labor" as the horror we think of it as today didn't exist at all before the industrial revolution. The only thing that ended child labor was socialist policies, regulating businesses, labor unions. It's not like our standard of living has gotten higher and higher as we've deregulated more and more. As we've regulated more, put in more socialist policies, funding for science, free education, a safety net, progressive taxes, our society has advanced more. When we deregulated we got rivers so polluted they caught on fire, a lending crisis, monopolies, and an economy propped up by overseas slave labor.

@captainmanacles I remember my first socialist indoctrination beer...

​@Matheus Barcellos I know that automation increases production, I said that outright in my post. The problem is that the consequences of automation as you imagine it, do not happen, in practice, under a capitalist system. What ended up happening is you have this aristocracy, even when that is abolished, they still own all the land. When things started to automate, the land owners were the only ones able to build factories to increase production. They could produce more with less workers, which meant more people were out of work. They could lower wages as low as they wanted, make work as dangerous as they wanted. No one other than the land owners could save money. The more money they saved, the more absolute their control, the wider they could make the gap between themselves and the poor. This is just a fact of history. Most people worked in more dangerous conditions for less money after industrialization. It wasn't until minimum wage laws, mandated 8 hour work days, work safety laws, free education, progressive taxes, and other socialist policies, did the standard of living for most people start to rise.

​@Matheus Barcellos The aristocracy/land owners/bosses didn't need the state to maintain their privileges ie. owning the land, machines (= the means of production) while the workers don't. So it's not necessarly corporativism. Automation does make people unemployed thus there are less workers, you seem to agree on that. But if i understand well, you say that it's actually good for the workers since they will each have more wealth/their wages increase because not only there's more wealth (thanks to production being faster and cheaper) but also there are less people to divide the wealth with, right ? But a true capitalist whose first goal is profit would keep the wealth to themself (either for consumtion or (more likely) for investment in more machines to have even less wages to distribute etc) so i think automation is a virtious cycle for the capitalist's profit (and a vicious cycle for the worker's employment and wages). (in response to your 4th paragraph) Automation can indeed be a good thing for workers when demand (of employers) > offer (of workers selling their labor) but that's only for a certain category of workers : the qualified ones whose labor can't be replaced by machines anyway and for who the capitalist compete by proposing the higher wages and best working conditions, as you said, and in that particular case, they can't follow their capitalist's goal i referred to earlier (which is profit) because this is qualified labour that capitalists need, that can't be replaced and that could be taken by their opponenent. That's why, in reality, we encourage young people to follow stem majors or medicine, less at risk to be replaced. But for the unqualified jobs the demand (of employers) < offer (of workers selling their labour), there's little demand since automation is a threath for workers and capitalist can play on that by making them compete endlessly and (leaving the theorical discourse here for bit) this is what is happening in our reality with big corporations buying cheap labour in third world countries. as for minimum wage and minorities, i don't understand the link between race and labour service cost, you can be black with a high labour cost and white with a low labour cost. Maybe that was a shortcut to say minorities in america are poorer thus have to propose cheaper labour service ? which is indeed true. But a minimum wage would not change this fact. If without minimum wage, Jason would cost 100$ and Joe 300$, with a minimum wage of let's say 200$, Jason would now cost 200$ and Joe still 300$. Jason still costs less than Joe. And if we actually get to the bigger picture does it really matter ? Cause we have Jason who costs 200$ in america but with capitalist globalization and the run for profit in our modern world there's still a Kevin who only costs 50$ in China ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Carmelo Quijano - Wow, that is exactly the right question. Well done.

democratic socialism?

@@aniqahtalks314 yes and no. Percentage. Is 80% capitalism with 20% socialism sufficient or to much. We have social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. WIC for the impoverished. With the reality of super viruses, what works? What we thought was sufficient is a complete failure. Now the Fed is writing checks and printing money like mad... Proving our system is broke and incapable of preparing our protecting the populace. We already predicated a super viruses years and years ago and despite warnings, leadership out it's head in the ground hoping nothing would happen and pronounced what was happening in China was a hoax, it will disappear like magic, etc. Back to the original question: what it's the optimum capitalism to socialism percentage to optimize our society.

Carmelo Quijano - I don’t think it can be answered based on percentages. We have to consider our values and priorities and see what works best to meet them. It may be that the profit motive in healthcare causes behavior in that industry to thwart our goals; so we should at least mix in some socialism (well more socialism; the NIH does a ton of basic research already). For automobile manufacturing, the profit motive seems to be working. Socialist and capitalist industries will still need guardrails. It’s just not a black or white thing.

@@marktomasetti8642 true. Percentages with respect to socialism programs/total income. Income or the generation of wealth is via capitalism (i.e. generating capital for investment). Socialist programs are supposed to be and investment into society resulting in greater capital. If I need to be able to detect the potential for a novel virus, then I may have a National health care system with a structure to do that.

You can actually slow down the video

Lmao this is fast to you? Where are you from a swamp in Mississippi

...they’re joking..

world history is far easier

+Ben Salis we just want a separate series like the one he did for US History but about European/ UK History

+Ishwariya Gopal Seeing how the channel is based for education, especially to help high school students in the US, I see it unlikely that they do a UK history, however it would be amazing if they did

+Rubik's Cube I mean, they are doing philosophy and games soooo

+Ishwariya Gopal Philosophy is a class in some American high schools but you're right

HKBoy123 You are wrong, working 30-50 years in HK can only buy you a cage which can barely fit in a bed and a desk. (Living in HK too)

Capitalism is doing whatever maximizes profit. If exploiting poor people, keeping them strategically impoverished, polluting and destroying the environment, breaking laws, etc. makes money, it will be done.

Puglous First of all, your comment doesn't actually make sense. I suspect you typed something wrong. Second, I never said it was a form of government. It is however, an economic game with a set of rules backed by government force. The prescription for success in capitalism is "maximize profits, consequences be damned".

Puglous Totally wrong. Businesses themselves are merely operators in the capitalist economy. Its pointless to blame them directly, one has to look at the broader system. Capitalism *does* force people to submit to labor through a "gun to the head" scenario. You either find a way to sell yourself as a laborer or create a product, or to get to starve to death. This is particularly hanus given the fact that much of the labor within the economy is unnecessary for survival and is totally disconnected from human health or social functionality, and even more so because large amounts of the current labor force could be automated.

Puglous Honestly it is so obvious you are an ideologue who doesn't want to listen to reason, and you seem to follow practically every comment I make on the subject, each response more time-wasting than the last. You don't seem capable of looking at things from a systems perspective. If I create a game in which you have to work or you die, then that is coercion. Its not businesses themselves, its the overall fucking system. The fucking system is coercive in nature. There are endless alternatives... but thats a long and complex subject that I doubt you are ready to handle.

+David Williams state planned and executed social welfare is in fact socialist. Its revisionist to claim otherwise. Or ignorant.

Nomovies If it's state owned and operated then yes I would agree that is socialist. But the incentives of the welfare state work requirements etc vary widely. Also how the government provides the public goods can vary widely as well. In the US in K-12 we fund schools and in American Universities we fund students. American k-12 schools badly need of improvement. But American Universities are world class. Both are owned by the state so both could be consider "socialist" but the structure of how they provide the goods is competely different.

Even if you count all of the teachers and health care workers policemen and government workers as socialist they still are a minority of the workforce and it's the taxpayers that pays their salary.

+David Williams So you are now saying you agree that social welfare is socialist? I feel like you are saying something totally different now. American Universities are world class... if were only counting the ones that are world class. For every world class American university we have 1,000+ colleges and universities that are a total waste of time. The problem with K-12 isn't that its socialist... or... too socialist. The problems with K-12 come from Washington and ill intentioned politicians.

i am saying that the market economy capitalism provides for the welfare state aka socialism. I am saying that before wealth can be redistributed through socialism it must be created through capitalism. The countries that are less free market or that are exclusively socialist are poorer and have less money to devote to health education or welfare.