Capitalism Vs Socialism | What is the difference between Capitalism and Socialism? 

PLEASE SUBSCRIBE to support more educational videos like this one! Thanks in advance! :)

Personally, I think that a mixed economy of both socialism and capitalism works best. Everything is better in moderation.

Norway Sweden and Denmark, all consider themselves to be Capitalist

The Nordic countries are not socialist. They are practically the same as the US. The only difference is they get more government benefits

Norway, Sweden, and Denmark all three hate when people call them socialist

This guy is so good at going over controversial topics without getting canceled or hated on, because even the slighted bit of bias will send him down, good job!

Great video by the way. Sweden, Norway, Denmark are not socialist countries they are in the same sense as Great Britain and France they have social programs but still a capitalist economy

The difference between socialism and capitalism has to do with who owns the means of production and NOT how much government involvement there is in the economy. There are statist and libertarian versions of BOTH capitalism and socialism. In fact, some forms of socialism (like anarchism) are in favour of completely abolishing the government. What all forms of socialism have in common is that the means of production are collectively owned, which could mean either democratic control by the workers or authoritarian control by a centralized government. What all forms of capitalism have in common is that the means of production are privately owned for profit, which could happen within a free market or an authoritarian nation. Also, Norway, Sweden and Denmark are NOT socialist -- they are social democracies, which is a kind of regulated capitalism and mixed economy that is between capitalism and socialism on the spectrum.

best most unbiased video on this i've found yet. finally starting to get it!

This video deserves more attention. I feel like the more people who watch this, the less susceptible they are to being brainwashed.

Homie you did a very good job with this. I'm Sub'n and putting this in a playlist.

1:06- Factually inaccurate. I don't know why people always describe public education or public healthcare as socialist. There is a vast difference between social programs (a program paid for socially, aka by the government) and socialism (by its own definition: "the collective/social OWNERSHIP of the means of production"). It doesn't take that much effort to look up a definition. Just because they both have the word 'social' in them does not mean they are the same thing, anymore than cart and carpet are the same thing just because they both have car in them. This fundamental mistake permeates the rest of the video. For example at 2:50 it declares that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are "generally considered socialist." But they're only "generally" considered socialist by Bernie Sanders. The leader of Norway even came out and publicly stated that "Norway is not a socialist system, we are a capitalist haven with the lowest corporate taxes in all of Europe. We have some well funded social programs but that is not the same thing. And we would appreciate it if American politicians stopped calling us that." Whether this was just a lack of research because he was confident in things he'd heard from the media/politicians, or whether this was intentionally misleading, I can't say. But given the amount of genocides and famines that have happened in ACTUAL socialist countries over the last 120 years, this false definition is the equivalent of saying "Nazis are the National Socialist Workers party of Germany who followed Hitler, and also are anyone who voted for Bush in 2000." It gives the ACTUAL Nazi's an easy out by saying "oh no, I'm not like the bad ones, I'm like the ok ones."

"Socialism only works in two places: Heaven where they don't need it, and hell where they already have it" - Ronald Reagan

they should teach this in school

F**** finally an unbiased video regarding this complicated topic, well illustrated(loved the drawings) and straight to the point with both comparisons. Well done mate. Subscribed.

So many people on both 'sides' need to see this video. Everyone throws around the terms without defining what they actually mean by them, and without realising they already live under a hybrid system.

Thank you so much! So easy to understand!

I think the last point, that governments and regimes mix elements of each, is important. They do not exist in an unambiguous dichotomy - there are policies from each approach that can be useful in different situations. It's hard to group countries neatly into one category or another. And in some cases, a socialist policy can meet capitalist goals (or vice versa). For instance, entrepreneurship and competition (capitalist) can be boosted by healthy minimum wages and subsidies for small businesses (more socialist). One criticism I have is that you equate socialist with a strong government role. Many socialists, historically, were anarchists as well, believing that equality could only be achieved without the involvement of states.

I needed this to be like 15% more detailed and it would have been perfect for me to understand.

I agree with capitalism but I feel like if it had free health care and education than it will be the best

Thank you for making this video. I think the topic of how socialism has affected both major and minor nations should be another video. It's an essential lesson

this video is wonderfully edited and i love the channel. however, there’s something you missed. socialism doesn’t inherently have anything do with government ownership, it’s about worker ownership. under socialism, a factory wouldn’t be run and operated by the state, it would be run and operated democratically by the workers. socialism is about fundamentally changing the relationship between the owning class by letting the workers run the business collectively instead of them controlled by a single person/small group of people. socialists can like markets, they just wouldn’t like that those markets are ruled over by CEOs, who they see as having too much power over large swaths of people. hope this comment is helpful to anyone curious about capitalism or socialism :))

Professor Dan, this is an excellent video. I like how you made the point that there are different shades of gray when looking at countries economic practices. I think an additional video you could make is the fundamental differences between Socialism and Communism. The lines can get blurry. I experienced "communism" when living in Russia for a summer in 1990 as the wall just came down. It was eye-opening to say the least. Thank you for continuing to educate all of us on really important concepts in our lives! I think it helps us be better voters!

Definitely subbing. Amazing video. Understand it better now. Thanks.

This was so helpful

Love the music background you should return it for your new videos 😃

Far Left vs Far Right essentially boils down to "Seize the means of production" vs "Seize the means of reproduction"

Oh dear, socialism is not government and capitalism is not markets. Socialism is all that pertains to worker control of production and the working class getting all the wealth it produces--including democratic worker-owned businesses and cooperatives--while capitalism is specifically a division of workers and owners. Colin Bruce Anthes is the clearest on clarifying the difference: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-FhQkEB9ucwg.html

In a capitalist society prices can be set on items the amount one pays for it what the true cost of a A product or service costs socialism they don’t care what the cost of a service or product is will just raise the tax to pay for it not being concerned with the bottom line

socialism sounds like communism

Norway, sweden and Denmark are NOT socialist, theyve gone on TV to clarify that.

Well you see one actually works the other has never worked

The best countries that promote the highest quality of life for the average citizen have incorporated elements of Capitalism and Socialism.

Thank you for this, every time I see this drawn out I can’t help but think we need to find the equilibrium. People run a business to be better than another one so people earn more. It’s simple greed we all want to be the best. Competition drives people. But then we have thing like healthcare in the U.K. that is free as it should be. There is some Privatisation which on paper should be good it allows the nhs to fund core issues instead of wider issues but cronyism won’t let this happen. So why do we keep holding ourselves back. Everyone deserves free education and healthcare that’s just for simple existence. But a normal company needs competition it’s a driver. But then there are simple things like building roads or simple infrastructure that the unemployed can be hired to do. So can we fine the happy medium of privately owned companies that also combine with governments to develop social enterprises where they employ them for work instead of just paying unemployment. Make private contract with companies where people do unskilled work to develop the country(yes this happens) where it is regulated by a communal committee that doesn’t select some crony. Neither left nor right works why is it taking us so long to come up with a hybrid system that work

Great job in explaining it, i now fully understand!! Thanks!!!!

thanks for the video, very helpful.

Tbh I just want a US government where there a more social benefits and a government that’s breaks up monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt

Socialism is not when the government influences the economy or controls certain enterprises; if it were, every single country would be socialist. Socialism is when WORKERS own the means of production, not the government (Think of worker co-ops). Like a lot of the comments mentioned, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are not socialist because enterprises are controlled by private individuals or the government and not workers.

The term “capitalism” was coined as a derisive term if not by Karl Marx himself, at least by one of his contemporaries because there's no reference to it prior to the publish of Das Capitol In 1867. That's it was never designed, but just evolved over time as humans traded goods and services. Invariably some will accumulate more wealth in capital than others, which they can convert to political power, which in turn leads to vastly more wealth capital for those at the top. In a socialist system the Capital or means of production is owned collectively or by the state. Thus one's wealth, is invariably correlated to one's political power.

The main difference between Capitalism and Socialism is that Capitalism ties the distribution of wealth at least loosely to production: hence, the more an individual contributes through his productive capabilities, the more wealth he earns. As not all persons contribute the same value to the general economy, not all earn the same rewards. Socialism, in contrast, insists upon a divorce between production and distribution: whether he contributes a little or a lot, every worker is entitled to the same share of the wealth. The problem arises in the question of how to motivate a person to devote his time to hard economic labor, when a light, easy job could net him the same profit.

Lol this was a great video but when I'm finished watching I still dont understand. I need to watch it over 50 times

Acts 4:32 All the believers were united in heart and mind. And they felt that what they owned was not their own, so they shared everything they had. Is this a type of socialism? One motivation by love and unity?

Thank you for the information bro good video its still hard for me to fully understand and make an rational opinion about it... do you know if the Netherlands is socialistic?

Love this video, fully understood the concepts

Great video

The idea of socialism is wonderful, but, due to human nature, is impossible to pull off

Absolute power absolutely corrupts

Great video. Please do one on surveillance capitalism and techno feudalism

BRO THANK YOU SO MUCH I FINALLY GET IT

Great video that is very informative! Good work!

There’s no way for these two systems to exist entirely independently from one another, and there is no pure form of either one anyway. Capitalism is an affront to the sensibilities of materialism. Socialism enforces the idea of living for future elsewhere as both desirous and also ridiculous. The appeal of capitalism is the challenges it paced, paved, and placed upon individuals. You get a sense of who you are, you’re truly one-of-kind, but also not really. Socialism is by far more comforting, which can also become excessive and smothering. Really, we should look at these two as defining the nature of industry, and not economy. A socialist country specializes in manufacturing, and in general factories, in a very large and broad sense. A capitalist country specializes in making the socialist economy meaningful, which is also partially an euphemism. The reason I say socialism is comforting is that the very idea that you will always have something, and that you won’t face the capitalist roller coaster of which a fall from graces could destroy a person. Capitalism creates cliff like scenarios, where as a socialism may seem like a perpetual fog. A fog is oddly comforting although it makes it difficult to see, and a cliff is exhilarating, but if your health should fail you for example, you may plummet to your end as loss after loss after loss can pummel you, or the realization that most of your life will have to live in the balance between stability and instability, requiring continued investments of your money to provide you with various protection. A third world country is a misnomer. We should instead translate this into a kind of industry. They are resource countries.

This is quite a mischaracterisation of socialism. Socialism is more about public ownership that state ownership, coloration over competition. Depending who controls the state state ownership can be capitalism or socialism. Mind you the biggest issue I have with this video is presenting socialism and capitalism as a dichotomy as if they are mutual exclusive or the only two options - this is a fallacy.

Nailed it!

I think we need a good mix of both. Too much capitalism creates monopolies and drives the gap between the rich and the poor to be larger, and too much socialism is just too much of the government in control for my liking... people who swing too far on either side scare me tbh. I think we need to model ourselves after Europe more, or even Canada, well here in the US anyway. Theres really younger people out here that want straight up communism and I don't understand that at all.

You could add that true socialist countries were the USSR and communist China (that still is a socialist or communist country adapting more or less market economy). Socialism in the Soviet Union resulted in hunger, death of tens of million people, poor economy that eventually led to the county collapse. Sweden has been reducing taxes that were the major reason for economy stagnation in 1970s and 1980s.

Keep the good work! Thanks

You be conflating Capitalism with Markets and Socialism with Planned economies. Also if you're going to be discussing Socialism talking about Marxist theory is required.

Good Video

just wanted to send thanks! keep it up

Thank you very much for that!

Understanding political economic ideologies! 1- Capitalism A system where there is private ownership of business, not regulated by governments, there is class difference as the owner can make profit and give workers their allocated wages. During economic breakdown unemployment is a problem as the state wasn’t regulating the workers. Capitalism promotes competition which is a source to boost economy. 2- Socialism A system where the government owns most of business and services (nationalisation) ; the people elect their ruler by democratic elections to regulate the service and distribute the money to people, but there is concession for private ownership but they come under conditions of high taxation. The government is responsible for the employment of people and the individual are paid according to the contributions made. The revenue generated by state is given for the welfare of people like free healthcare and education system etc. Basic rights like freedom of religion and expression are promised. 3- communism A system where the people own most of the services, it’s a classless society where everyone is paid equally regardless of contributions made, the central government gives people the necessity, only the ones they need. This leads to corruption by the ruling power, which is why Orwell was against it. There is no system of democratic elections likewise no freedom of religion and expression. 4- fascism It is defined as a government structure where one dictator has complete control of the entire country, state, or territory. Anyone who opposes this dictator is suppressed and individual rights are often oppressed. A fascist government might also be called totalitarian. This ideology leads to nationalism where people might opt for ethnic cleansing of minorities like in India. However, There is concession for ownership of private property like businesses as long as they are beneficial to the state.

I think you presented the "income" slide the opposite in your employment graph. Employment should go up under Capitalism, and should go down in Socialism. Unless you mislabeled employment from *unemployment*. Which you have supported in your audio.

The best explanation I've seen. Thank you

The Government already does both on each side. However bits from each for different scenarios would work best.

IMO, the government should not have absolute control over the markets, so capitalism is better.

Capitalism: Focuses on private individual ownership of the means of production, business growth, and more job opportunities. Socialism: Focuses on social or state ownership over the means of production, the government employs citizens, and social programs for the poor and needy. Wealth is distributed amongst those who work hard and those who don't One system rewards hard work, and the other undermines hard work and rewards laziness. Well, in a nutshell.

This was very informative thank you

Norway, Sweeden and Denmark are all capitalist countries with some socialist tendencies, but socialism is achieved when means of production are collectively owned which is not the case in any of those.

The Nordic model is social democracy, which operates under a capitalist framework, albeit regulated. Capitalism is the only system compatible with individual liberty, though it does not guarantee it.

I've been looking for videos related to the difference between capitalism and socialism to show my middle school students. I can confidently say, as someone who has been studying political economy since 2015, whenever I see these videos it is quite obvious that nobody who makes them has ever studied capitalism OR socialism.

I'm lucky my country have best of both, thanks to the leaders whom had driven this very company to this extent... I'm glad

Really helpful!

THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUU

It blows my mind that the most successful economic systems (western Europe and North America) are looking to become more like the known socialist economies of China, Vietnam, Cuba...North Korea who haven't been anywhere near as prosperous 🤔

The Prime Minster of Denmark went on US TV to make clear that they have a capitalist free market economy. He further made clear that they have large welfare programs that are only afforded by a robust free market economy. Marx gave socialism it's defining characteristic; public ownership of the means of production. If it doesn't have it, it ain't socialism.

The Nordic countries should not be confused as “pure” socialist countries though as they’re absolutely not.

Imagine being a socialist using capitalist made product

Unbias, clear and concise. Nicely done!

Nothing wrong with free education and healthcare, those are the building blocks to a healthy society, capitalists version of this, where only the rich get to fully benefit from education and health care is no better than the dark ages where only the nobility got to enjoy life on the back of the working class.

very helpful!

This gentleman seems to be confused about socialism..he seems to be describing communism.

In Ireland we have a mix of socialism and capitalism (I think it’s called democratic socialism if I’m wrong tell me) it was going great up until 2007 before that the time of wealth was called “the Celtic tiger” (don’t ask me why I honestly don’t know lol) but up until 2008 there was a recession not because of socialism it’s because the banks kept printing money. Because of my Taoiseach at the time and the party in Charge which was labour btw kept on printing and printing until the euro in Ireland became nothing. But the EU gave us money BUT today every Irish worker is paying about €7000-9000 in tax to pay back the EU. (No wonder England left) I wish the EU would cut that price down and also no wonder why France wanna leave also Ireland has socialist parties but a lot of people think socialism doesn’t work but it does work here BUT there is also capitalism. I am NOT saying Ireland is soooo wealthy we were but if my government wasn’t so stupid we would’ve been fine 😂 socialism can work and it still does for us BUT having a balance of capitalism and socialism is A LOT better than just one or the other. Is there poverty here of course there is we have a horrendous homelessness problem because of housing is so expensive here(thanks to my shite Taoiseach Leo Varadkar lol Ireland isn’t all wealthy it used to be but not anymore

There is a concept called surplus value, I will explain it to you. It is Value created by the unpaid labor of wage workers, over and above the value of their labor power, and appropriated without compensation by the capitalist. Surplus value is a specific expression of the capitalist form of exploitation, in which the surplus product takes the form of surplus value. The production and appropriation of surplus value constitute the essence of the fundamental economic law of capitalism. In reality, surplus value is manifested as profit. In their boundless desire to increase the production of surplus value, the capitalists intensify the exploitation of wage workers in various ways. There are two forms of surplus value- relative surplus value and absolute surplus value, each of which is associated with a method of intensifying the exploitation of the workers. Absolute surplus value is the result of lengthening the workday beyond the necessary labor-time or the time in which the worker can reproduce the value of his labor power. The actual length of the workday depends on the relation of class forces. Motivated by an avid desire to increase surplus value, the capitalists do their utmost to prolong the workday. However, as its level of organization improves, the working class, through stubborn struggle, gains legislation limiting the workday. Absolute surplus value also increases as a result of increasing the intensity of labor, even if the length of the workday remains the same or is shortened. The development of capitalism is characterized by a persistent increase in the rate of surplus value, which is the relationship between the total mass of surplus value and variable capital, or between surplus labor-time and necessary labor-time. This relationship is expressed as a percentage in the formula sʹ = s/v, in which s’ is the rate of surplus value, s is the mass of surplus value, and v is the variable capital. There is a functional connection between the mass and rate of surplus value. If the rate of surplus value reflects the degree of exploitation of the working class, the mass of surplus value reflects the absolute magnitude (s) of surplus value and equals the value of the variable capital (v) advanced, multiplied by the rate of surplus value (sʹ). Marx observed that “the rate of surplus value is therefore an exact expression for the degree of exploitation of labor power by capital, or of the worker by the capitalist”.

There are only three ways to get people to submit to work, voluntarily, through trade, and through coercion. Every country uses a mix of all three. Socialism uses more coercion (slavery). Capitalism uses more trade.

Mostly capitalism some socialism>All capitalism > All socialism

I only clicked this to fact check myself- and would like to applaud you for your creativity and this channel concept

very good video. thank you

omg no bs 20min video!!!! good job

Capatilaism best

Socialism and Fascism are not the same

We need a nice mix of both. Only issue is that its very bloody difficult to keep them balanced. If you fuck any of them up all the money goes to the rich and privileged.

Very informative, for that I say vielen Dank =)

If you go to the Unification Observatory in South Korea, you'll know why socialism shouldn't happen. From S.Korea

Thank you for the great video 👍🏽

there should be a term to refer to the mix of capitalism and socialism. I think that would clarify and help others understand things a lot more. If there already is a term referring to the definition, plz let me know?

Why does not the "free market and competition lead to the highest quality product" and point by point 1) Cartel - a criminal conspiracy of industrialists who have agreed not to compete with each other, but to set certain prices so that everyone earns from the market 2) The fact that there will be competition does not mean that there will be an increase in the quality of goods. Everyone can take and start baking bread, but why will his bread be of high quality? Peter and John will bake bread "as it turns out" because there is no education and the necessary knowledge. And if another one comes who will make the bread better, then the antimonopoly service will crush him and say - your share will be no more than 30% in the entire market. And where is the increase in product quality? 3) How many times have you met people in companies to whom you could complain about the shortcomings of this company? Yes, no one needs it in vaunted capitalism. If you don't like something, YOU should do something to solve it.

Fun fact: the United States is a mix of both socialism and capitalism on the economic spectrum. We are also socially liberal.

This fails to mention anyone can become rich in a capitalist society and no one can be rich in a socialist society. I would rather control my own life and business instead of the Government doing it.

One of the finest video with explanation. Thanks man ❤️

Thank you !!