as opposed to "the government who does nothing but obey its corporate masters" like what's happening right now ? it's going so well at the moment why change it ?
Sometimes. But Socialism can be carried out by charities in relation to their cause, companies/corporations in relation to providing for their employees or society in general. It's just more efficient/sustainable for governments to perform socialist policies.
It has been more ta a taboo to speak about socialism. As a teen, (I'm 79 years old) I was sent to the principal's office because I often brought other perspectives into social studies classes. I was taking advanced biology classes but was sent to a "remedial"social studies class in the same semester. I lost my job because I protested the McCarthy committee coming to my city and I was interviewed on television. I have been socially ostracised, spat upon, called antisemitic names. But I just persisted. Bernie Sanders is the closest thing to a socialist in my life that ran for President. But he was so badly treated by the Democratic party that he never really had a chance in either of his runs for the presidency. I don't know how socialist I am, but I think I am more socialist than Sanders and probably more militant too. Whatever it is, I think there is a better way than what we have now. I suspect the better way is socialism. Shocking!
@@fluorinegas6944 *WE* *WON!* Bernie Sanders ALREADY *WON!* WE got his message OUT! *THE* *GENIE* *IS* *OUT* *OF* *THE* *BOTTLE!!!* M4A!!! . TAX THE RICH!!! . TUITION FREE EDUCATION!!! . LIVING WAGE LEGISLATION!!! . GREEN NEW DEAL!!! *WE* DID IT! *THE* *GENIE* *IS* *OUT* *OF* *THE* *BOTTLE!* Not MY opinion; just LOOK at what is happening in the Streets! Bernie Sanders has *EMPOWERED* *THE* *PEOPLE!!!* WE ARE THE REVOLUTION! WE ARE THE CHANGE! www. PatrioticMillionaires .org
@Dim "The Communist Control Act (68 Stat. 775, 50 U.S.C. 841-844) is a piece of United States federal legislation, signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on 24 August 1954, which outlaws the Communist Party of the United States and criminalizes membership in, or support for the Party or "Communist-action" organizations and defines evidence to be considered by a jury in determining participation in the activities, planning, actions, objectives, or purposes of such organizations." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Control_Act_of_1954 Even though it was never enforced ("The Act has since been ruled unconstitutional in federal court but has not been ruled on in the Supreme Court and has never been enforced.") that doesn't mean that it's existence wasn't a threat to all American communists during the late fifties and early sixties. Communism and socialism have not been mainstream for a long time due. They were only somewhat mainstream for a very, very short period of time between 1900 and 1930. Popularity fell in the forties due to demonizing from political figures who saw CPUSA's existence as a threat. Once support dropped enough, Eisenhower saw an opportunity to completely criminalize the entire party. Also, if you couldn't tell, communism and socialism are inherently linked due to Americans lack of understanding of either.
@@Hazelnutz3 This is the first time that I am seeing the full speech - seeing the meme only. I just thought that this guy was another libertarian strawmanning the left. I was very confused to find out that he is based and breadpilled.
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov
When you quote someone, don't hide their name under the "Show More" fold. Or were you hoping to take credit for that statement being your own? Anyway, thanks for the great QUOTATION of Isaac Asimov! Those last 12 words really encapsulate the mindset that put Donald Trump in the White House & that has Americans acting against their own interests out of ignorance & arrogance. Trump is the king of ignorance & arrogance, so it's no wonder masses of people will defend him to the point of hating their fellow Americans and/or making him dictator. I've copied this quotation to my computer to use elsewhere.
Dim thanks for proving you have no coherent argument. You make an assertion about the Democrats (which you’re too ignorant even spell) without any evidence or argument provided. You are the epitome of American ignorance.
William Sands As an American I do agree, some Americans do not care to ask enough questions, bread, and circus appease the people these days in a more electronic way, but it's as old as western religion, you go to church, and never..ever ask too many questions.
You’re getting screwed right now. You see, right now corporations are taking bailouts one after another. You already have capitalism and socialism of a sort - these corporations capitalize their gains and socialize their losses. That is YOU the taxpayer paying for their losses. The whole point of capitalism is that corporations are allowed to fail to allow more efficient ones to prosper. The USA is stuck in an endless cycle of bailing them out repeatedly - 3 times in the last 20 years.
@@pixeled9683 in yo shit. It's based on facts and logic
7 лет назад
I am 73 years old, Poli Sci graduate from UCLA and I've learned more in this lecture than 4 years of college having read Marx and Engles among others. Thank you for a great lecture and I'm looking forward to furthering my education through you. Cheers!!
Nice to know there is one person commenting here who actually understood what was being taught, instead of throwing around the same tired name-calling and prejudices.
Worst channel ever, That's true but I hope you wouldn't be so incapable of nuance as to see it was Marx's solutions and not his critiques (some of them anyway) of capitalism that led him down the rabbit hole of failure. In other words, I think he identified the wounds fairly accurately but royally screwed up when attempting to apply the bandage.
It seems America needs a decade or two of full socialism, complete with gulags and millions of dead bodies, so that they too finally see how dumb of an idea it actually is (and how death is an inevitability with socialism/communism).
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov and knowledge is = truth
Meanwhile majority of successful Americans over history were highschool or middle school Educated and some how were creative and intelligent without being endoctrinated into society circles threw european type universities
@@ThePeanutButterCup13 That's what communism looks like! What do you think a communist regime looks like? Paper pushers assisted by brutal bastards who mass-murder anyone who dares contradict the paper pushers. Pol Pot always chatted cheerfully with those he was going to have executed by torture. Charming. And Chomsky defended Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouges - who murdered more than 3 million Cambodians!
@@stefanmetzeler did you know that Pol Pot was back supported by CIA (and China) against Vietnam? Or that the CIA (China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran too) did the same with Mujahideen (predecessors of Al-Qaeda) in Afghanistan against the soviets?
I dont see how anyone can be against workers controlling their own lives. Unless of course your in management and you think god sent you here to tell people what to do.
1997lordofdoom haven’t you ever heard of unions and employee owned companies? They exist under capitalism. In socialism, if you’re not born into privilege you have no chance. All attempts to create socialism have only resulted in elitism. And SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES are not socialism.
The Legendary Bob Dill Inn If workers are so anxious to be in control they can work for an employee owned firm and TAKE THE RISK too. And guess what, some of them will have to be managers or they can try and rule by committee, good luck with that chaos. Workers have the free choice to work at any company that their skill set is needed. The good workers will be in high demand and the slugs will be fired UNLESS you’re in a union and then the slug continue with the protection of the union. Now the quality of work is headed DOWNHILL. No you have a failure in the making.
@@Diego_SanCA Damn, you have a nice view of a worker, calling them a "slug". How you are so sure that when someone is underperforming a lot isn't gonna get fired by a union if the majority of people would agree that he is underperforming? And yeah, "good luck with that chaos" we are living in that chaos and it's called a government unless you are living in some authoritarian state where "king" does all decisions. You do you, but I would prefer democracy in my life, even if it's a bit underperforming. Because for an average worker it would be a much better situation. But then, suddenly, studies show that union enterprises are more productive www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf So, we don't even need to make that sacrifice, isn't it awesome? Isn't it makes sense, when the average joe, call center operator, would be more informed and more interested in being a good worker, responding to calls with responsibility and thought, if he owns it, compared if he just a wage-slave to an authoritarian CEO who probably don't even know that he exists and don't Joe have no say there, he either stays for a flat salary, which is as low as it's possible for the CEO or gets out?
Workers controlling the means of production through cooperatives is perfectly acceptable within a capitalist marketplace. Wanna convince a group of workers to start their own operation and have it completely owned by the employees, nothing is preventing you. This is achievable within the current system and would also be achievable within a more capitalistic system as well. The concern arises when outside forces use force to obtain this outcome. Its a gross violation of fundamental rights and liberties and morally is wrong. So by all means, using persuasion and cooperation, workers have every right to pursue this outcome of worker owned coops. Truth be told however, it is not an arrangement many desire. Israel with their communal farms demonstrate this fact.
“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workingmen of all countries unite!” ― Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto
One of the biggest social disaster on the 20the century was communism. Read up on the history of it and it is responsible for millions of deaths. We know it fail and it failed really badly. As Einstein said, the definition of stupidity is repeating the same thing over and over again and hoping for a different outcome. Have a look at the South American countries that went down socialism, Venezuala is a basket case. The most suppressive regims are communist countries. How many communist Americans where trying to defect to Russia during the cold war? How many Russians were trying to defect to the US during the cold war? If you are so into communism why not go to North Korea.
The competition of locals in the international IATSE tends to show a hard roe to hoe. Far as uniting the Labor,, as Marx had it then what, was a middle class of the educated not as it went with unleashed peasants revolting in St. Petersburg & Moscow. I think of the new instant translation telephones for Business Agents to coordinate wage competition demands in the different nations these days as a great possibility. It is systems and Financial Engineering to get right now as we as labor are to be trapped on a crowded planet. Mars is no escape destination as was driving to California.
The most important point he made in this video was that the revolution didn't bring Socialism with the Soviet Union, but State Capitalism, where the State became the ruling class, instead of the Capitalists/Private Business Owners. We went from Kings and Queens ruling, to the Owning Class ruling, to the State ruling, to what we have now which is either in most countries. The State Ruling, the Owning Class(business owners) ruling, or a mix of both. Sadly within the American political spectrum, the points Wolff made in this video will never be clearly understood by most people. The right-wing of this country is so pathologically disconnected from reality, and so ignorant, they make it their goal to eternally brainwash their sheepish cult into believing communism, socialism, and nazi mean the same thing, and that they are the ideology of atheists. I used to be conservative when I was younger but education and reading history and books from the people I learned about, instead of learning about them from people I thought were honestly, lead me to be less conservative more and more over time. The conservative mindset is what ruins this country. Not necessarily conservative principles, but the conservative mindset which is basically close-minded as fuck.
Thanks for your honesty. The sad truth is that someone will always rule (with one exception, but it is certainly not worth striving for), and the best you can do is try to pick the ruler who seems most reasonable. Just because we have seen how fucked up nation-states can get, it seems that the best we can do is live under an absolute monarch, or at least under an aristocrat who's involved in the planing of his estate (different from estate tax). Anything else, and you get a short, strained period of stability followed by a mad dash to take as much as quickly as possible.
You're wrong. There was always a choice, and people chose walmart. Those stores don't exist anymore, but no ones stopping anyone from opening one. It's just that it would go out of business, so no one bothers.
Socialism is state capitalism by definition. It's economical system where government owns means and productions and provides the goods. Your utopia will never come true because it always fails for same reason. Too much power in same place.
I have learned more from this 50-minute lecture than I have in the entirety of everything I have ever heard about Capitalism or Socialism in my entire nearly 17 years of existence
Hopefully you will do some more reading. Maybe start with feudalism to understand what it was like before capitalism. And then reading about the system of American slavery to understand capitalism based on land ownership and forced labor. And from there reading about the way workers were treated in the north beginning with Sam slaters treatment of child workers all the way through Ronald Reagan’s breaking of the air traffic controller strike and with a middle focus on the strikes of the 1930s including the GM sit down strike. All attempts by workers beginning with enslaved rebels all the way through the 1980s air traffic controllers are met with propaganda and diversionary tactic’s as well as state violence using militias and/or the National Guard. The boogeyman is communism/Socialism. Before they could deny reality to millions via online bots and cult minions they simply said that the other reality (socialism) was WAY worse.
Fun Fact: He was the teacher for the Greece PM who imposed the worst austerity program in Greek history. This isn't a dig at Wolff. He's a badass. It's just sad how a student didn't take anything with him.
Yeah if that student actually listened to Wolff and took his stuff seriously Greece would have been a superpower by now, (or at least not stuck in an infinite stagnation). Austerity never works during recessions.
@@KrishnaDasLessons the problem is also the previous socialist party didn't actually enforce the tax laws properly, which meant they didn't manage to deliver on their promises and got kicked out. So the problem now is the Greek people don't trust their socialist party
The austerity program of Greece was forced by the Euopean Union after the financial crisis of 2007. The former German finanical minister Wolfgang Schäuble played a major role in this.
38:31 "Lenin would have and probably did, turn over in his grave." Nope. Lenin was never buried. He's been embalmed since his death and has traveled around lying in state since his death as a puppet, basically. The 'Ask a Mortician' RU-vid channel did a fascinating piece on Lenin after death. I highly recommend it.
This is a really outstanding presentation. I had told my brother that I was interested in Bernie Sanders agenda. His immediate response was that Bernie Sanders is a communist. I told him that wasn't true but it was hard to explain. This is so helpful at making more clear an understanding of socialism. Thank you. I will send this to my brother. I also look forward to Part 2.
Adam Cortright You can call him whatever you want. He calls himself a democratic socialist. FDR may have called himself a democratic socialist. I am not sure it really matters. Sanders is interested in the welfare of the society as a whole rather than the individual. If you have time look at his platform on his web site. Sanders would more likely be considered a progressive. As for being a member of the Democratic party he acknowledges the need to belong to one of the two parties to allow access to a means of participating.
Socialism as defined by Marx and Engels has, at the very least, the workers owning the means of production, with control of distribution and exchange democratically decided according to a rational plan based on human need, and not private profit. I just wanted to make that clear re: Bernie doesn't support that.
Adam Cortright If you go back to his agenda he does support cooperatives which is essentially what you are describing. He also is very much opposed to corporate America and all that they pursue related to profits. Note his position on climate change. Certainly it is profit of the fossil fuel industry that is the great barrier to addressing this issue. Note his position on election reform. Certainly it is the great profits of corporations and the elite that distort our democratic system. I think he is very much in line with thoughts on cooperatives and their value. You are wrong that Bernie doesn't support workers owning the means of production. Again go to his web site and see for yourself his agenda. Just go to a search engine and you will easily find his site.
rker321 We are extremely uneducated on many subjects, unfortunately. Most US school,s both public and private, are failing. Too worried about passing tests that all the other subjects fall away. Very sad.
I'm the only member of my inner circle that has an interest in socialism. I still wouldn't consider myself a socialist, but I am willing to listen to other view points - How do you know what system is best? You study it.
bad place to learn it. Learn it from a anarchocapitalist. If you learn from a socialist you won't notice he is sayng that basicly socialism is the ideia of robing the entire nation
Probably the best economics teacher I have come across on the internet. His approach to the subject is simply the best. Appreciation from Colombo, Sri Lanka.
@@TheFartGod69 Unlike all the fools who listened to this old Marxist like he was a new messiah, I actually know all of this socialist bullshit and I've seen it FIRST HAND. I've seen communism in Eastern Europe and I see socialism every time I hop the border to France, which is one of the most insanely socialist countries on the planet where everyone is indoctrinated with Marxism. The government schools and the media spread Marxism, the entire justice system is dominated by an openly Marxist union. In short, they all know Marxism and they do their very best to implement it and the result is misery. Horrendous unemployment, especially for young people, ridiculously low salaries with exorbitant taxes, VAT etc. Yeah, sure, hand control to government, this is what it will look like. All this guy is doing is repeat the utopian beliefs that if somehow they managed to overcome all the economic and social constraints of reality, it woudl be paradise 😂
As a communist myself I use the terms socialism and communism interchangeably, because while a socialist society and a communist society are different, the ideology that brings you to either is the same. Socialist societies being ones in which the means of production and distribution are owned by the workers and communist societies being a type of socialist society that exists without classes, currency, or a state. If you describe yourself as a "socialist," that is, an advocate for socialist society, it follows that you must too be a "communist," an advocate for communist society, as communism is simply the next logical step after socialism, just as socialism is the next logical step after capitalism. It's true that many Americans need a lot more nuance in their definitions of socialism and communism but to think of them as the same or at least similar isn't entirely unfair or untrue.
+Oners82 firstly it is impossible to manage the money supply to keep it in line with economic growth by central bankers and constant tweaking causes the boom n bust cycles ... 2ndly if economy grows without printing money then the value of your currency goes up which raises the standard of living for everyone which I believe is preferable..
puneet rajput Firstly, no it isn't. Second, that is just so retarded it is unbelievable. The value of the currency goes up but there is less of it so no, standard of living does NOT go up. Standard of living improves with GDP, not by how much money is in circulation.
"Firstly, no it Isint" lol solid argument. Secondly you need to read some eco fundamental b4 you start commenting on RU-vid and calling arguments retarded. standard of living is directly linked with the value of your currency. GDP can be upped by govt borrowing, printing and spending, pretty much the opposite of what one would ideally want. You really need to read someone apart from Paul krugman if u really wanna understand how an economy works. Honest advice.
puneet rajput 1. It is not impossible because there is no logical contradiction. End of story, you are just wrong. 2. Wrong again, GDP has got NOTHING to do with amount or value of currency, the currency in whatever amount is merely a reflection of the strength of an economy. Standard of living improves when you can produce and sell shit that other people want. Supply and demand, simple. My honest advice is that you take your own advice and take an economics class. www.economicshelp.org/blog/2671/economics/factors-affecting-economic-growth/
Imagine the way the world could’ve been if the French and British had agreed to form an alliance with the Soviets... ...Hitler would’ve been stomped a bit faster at the very least.
when i was young i was told that communism was when the government owned everything and socialism was when the government controlled the whole economy i now know both are wrong
This is a very clear lecture. I believe many of the adverse comments were written by people who could not be bothered to listen to the whole presentation.
@Dim Seed was already sown in the 40's like was said in the talk, people already decided that "-isms" = bad. Not to mention that the economy wasn't as screwed up then as it is now. I'd like to have economists explain today how socialism isn't the better way to go now that the distribution of wealth is so skewed you need second or more jobs just to keep the light on. EDIT: Personally I'd prefer we moved towards a system of technocracy where the interest of the people is handled by experts. That doesn't really happen atm. experts are present, but often ignored. Surprisingly 80% of the Chinese communist party members have a engineering degree, and they're booming.
@Dim I can't believe you're saying that praying capitalists exploiting the developing parts of the world is a positive thing. Capitalists are like locusts, eating everything in their way, only to move to greener pastures, which is what we're seeing in the news all the time, what with the entertainment industry catering more and more to the Chinese market. You're kidding yourself if you think the elite has any geographical or national allegiance - they - just - want - more - money. I do agree with you, however, that capitalism is great if heavily regulated, but the fact that someone can come and buy out a vital part of the country's assets and run it into the ground (neo-liberalism) DISGUSTS me to now end, that's my take on why I'm not a huge fan, because I see the injustice it brings. And then you say millionaires and billionaires are self made. Yeah maybe through inflation they are. Numbers keep getting bigger and bigger, and in 20 years you'll say "look, selfmade trillionaires!". It's sad that you equate socialism with something horrible, like it'll force you into labor camps, wear the same clothes etc. It's more about owning the means of production for the shit that the people around you need, instead of waiting for a capitalist to come around and do it. BBC and DR (Danish Radio) were created because there was a need nobody else would fill (as we're not as big countries as the US). In unison we rise to the occasion. You see socialist stuff in the US as well. Like how communities install and run their own internet in their town.
He got it backwards socialist and communist are the same and they are the Liberals and democratic people. Repulicans are the true people that stand for freedom and capitalizim. Capitalizim is very good and it requirs people not to be lazy and work for what they get instead of taking from the working class to give to the lazy people.
Although I am a libertarian - purely in favor of true free-market capitalism, this professor is correct. Anyone advocating for more government is not inherently communistic. In fact, communism is anarchistic at the end of the day. They look forward to the end of government. I have a whole host of reasons why communism or socialism will never work, but on that point - this guy is correct.
@@stefanmetzeler You have to wonder if he would ever have said "poor Hitler", even though the argument applies there too. Hitler would have never been able to appease the German peoople after versailles without some kind of enemy to point their anger to. If you seize power over a fucking state, you better be ready to take responsibility for it too.
@@stefanmetzeler 62 million? That seems like a lot of people. Surely you have some credible source of that number and not some anti-communist quackery.
Professor says plenty of interesting things (well, for people who are completely unfamiliar with subject at least), but he is missing on oh so many points, starting from his misrepresentation of Adaam Smith, who was actually one of the first significant critics of capitalism, and on whose works (and Ricardo's) Marx builе his own economic theory, to the completely uneducated opinions on USSR, saying that it didn't transform it's economics from capitalism, which is as wrong as it can get. By the end of the 30s, all industries except food production were transormed to planned economy which means there was no longer any commodity production or profit motive, which is what is expected from socialist system. All, except some like agrarian sector where there were which consisted mainly from kolkhozes (basically agrarian cooperatives) and distribution and small commerce sectors, but even they were embedded to some degree into planing system. For example kolkhozes recieved an expected plan for some produce like grain, according to that plan they were supplied with vehicles like tractors along with specialists who can repair it, fertilizers, pesticides and stuff like that, for that they would recieve salaries, but everything they produced above plan they were fit to deal with as they like, selling it on the market or distribute it between peasants or selling it in bulk to the government (andplan was set up in such a way that most of the times they had decent portion of produce remaining). As you can see even cooperatives (which Wolf likes very much) despite being a profit enterprise to some degree, in many ways were pulled from commodity production, because they were supplied with tractors and stuff not according to how much money they could pay, but according to plan, plan not built on profits, but on use value of the products produced. And actual industries were completely rid of the commodification. Money lost one of the important roles it has in capitalism - the ability to direct the labor. As a result - full employment by the first half of the 30s. Anyone who knows even remotely about marxism knows that it's not that big of a stretch to cvall it socialism.
@18:45 Hold the phone. Thomas Hobbes wrote the Leviathan wayyyyyyy before Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations. It's really disingenuous to argue that somehow Hobbes argued against Smith's individualist arguments. Hobbes after all was arguing in favor of a strong monarchy in the feudal sense, not for a strong community in the modern sense.
He's being a bit bloody generous to Stalin! If Stalin declared that State ownership was Socialism, it was NOT because he was concerned about the morale of the general population! It was because he was a power-crazed psychopath, and it suited him very well to keep power of all business - just think of how much power that would give you! - in his own hands. And the sick thing is that in declaring, "This is Socialism," he was telling the population that everything was done for their benefit, that the workers now had the power - so when they felt they didn't have any power, they'd have to doubt themselves, or start to hate and distrust "Socialism". This is the con done on the workers of the whole world: everyone equates Socialism with State control aka totalitarianism, and so ignores a means of gaining their share of power in society. And of course Stalin inspired other arseholes who wanted to take all power for themselves: or if they didn't in the beginning, they soon did, as the sheer amount of power they'd have would corrupt pretty much anyone (who was it said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely"?). But otherwise, a brilliant lecture! beautifully clarifies how and why Socialism ISN'T what they did in the USSR.
8:04 - I'm glad Wolff mentioned that, I've heard some anarcho-communist say that Bernie was their entering point into socialism/leftist idea, but that they later realised that he's more of a reformer than revolutionary, in any case they say they are now more leftist than Bernie ever was.
It's no secret that things are bad in Venezuela. Rolling blackouts are causing infant deaths in hospitals where backup generators have ceased to function; the country is on pace to hit 700 percent inflation; outside of active war zones, the murder rate in Caracas is the highest in the world. For many Americans, it's a news story piped in from a faraway place. For me? It's my friends and family who are suffering at the hands of an increasingly powerful and paranoid dictatorial regime. As a kid growing up in Caracas, I remember the difficult decision my parents had to make when Hugo Chavez attempted his coup and took over shortly thereafter. My parents decided to leave behind our life in Venezuela and come to the United States - much like my mother's family fled Cuba in the 1960s when Fidel Castro took over. Though it was a hard choice, in hindsight, we were the lucky ones. Those watching from around the world, particularly in the United States, seem hesitant to put a label on Venezuela's struggle. But for me and mine, it's clear what precipitated this crisis - and we don't share the hesitance to point it out. While extenuating circumstances like drought and oil prices have certainly worsened the situation, it's clear there's a larger force behind Venezuela's woes. The force that is driving Venezuela into the ground is socialism.
So, if I understand correctly, versions of #Socialism we saw in history, e.g. East Germany, USSR was not Socialism at all, but a form of State Capitalism? What is your take on the kind of Socialism that prevailed in the former Yugoslavia? Amidst the USSR, Romania, Yugoslavia was considered to be the more "bearable" socialist countries to live up to 1989/ 1990's.
Great speech. I hope more and more people listen to this and open their minds to the real truth about socialism and not just that, I hope the people in capitalistic societies learn also about what type of system brings to them in the long run also. People need to be informed and not just be brainwashed sheep. And I have to admit, I didn't know a thing or two about it myself, and I grew up in a socialist country (now I live in capitalist one, so at least I have seen and felt both, so I am not biased). State Capitalism... that's the thing I didn't realise it existed till now. Thank you.
I heard the idea of democracy at work from this guy. It's also his opinion that we shouldn't have a UBI. (Universal basic income) I thought a UBI was a good idea until I heard the professor talk about it. I feel his ideas- and there are other people in America talking about socialism- I feel in the not too distant future we are going to inevitably get to somewhere near where professor Wolf wants us to be. Here in Ireland people are looking to socialism more and more. We have a big party here called Sinn Fein. A socialist party. The only reason they're not in power now is because of a lack of self belief. They didn't field enough candidates in our last general election. I'm sure they've learned they're lesson. They are in a power sharing government in the north and have been constantly- barring one or two hiccups- for a very long time. Sinn Fein will transform Ireland and were Ireland leads, other nations in Europe follow. Tiocfaide ár lár.
It's kind of cool what you can accomplish if you work together. In Denmark where I grew up, was right next to a beach with a lot of vacation homes, the plot of land was bought in cooperation, just a lot of people pooled their money together and bought it, then built "summerhouses". It's really cool how much we accomplish if we're not greedy and "sell out". Read more about it here: translate.google.com/translate?sl=da&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.of-fritid.dk%2Forganisation-og-historien.html (translated from Danish to English via google translate) EDIT: Btw. I had a paper route in the area, so it created jobs as well 🤣
I feel like we are already naturally moving towards a more socialist and communist way of thinking thanks to the internet. Most people now understand that if we want to move forward as a species we need to work together so some form of hybrid free market capitalist socialist communist theory way of life imho will naturally develop as it already is now. The only question or difference we can or have to see or predict or debate now is whether we will go full socialist or communist or where we will draw the line.
Just try and remember the good times... Ive been thinking about it quiet a lot of time: How internet is going to affect political mindset of people, points of view and so on and help people to achieve communism? There are models like open source code, backing applications all together like Kickstsrter, the pure internacionalism of the youtube is also quite socialist. Trying to spread the message that all the lower classes of the world must remain unite to fight together against work explotation is way more easy. Certantly the internet is going to change politics in some way or another. Cheers from Spain!
The world is absurd. It isn't even that complicated. Luxuries should be capitalist and necessities should be socialist (and if you look at successful societies the trend is the this is true, more success means more socialized necessities). AND the more important the necessity, the more socialized it should be. And to deliver this, the government is the best means. Clean water, plumbing, electricity, education, basic transportation, and healthcare should all be heavily socialized. And the reason for this isn't even a human rights issue. Society that has socialized these things performs better because it is more efficient. Socialism can streamline things which are basic more easily than capitalism. Instead of 400 water companies figuring out the best way to deliver, clean, and store water and remove waste we can just have ONE standard for the entire nation. The same can be said across the board for electricity, healthcare, transporation, education, and honestly even things like internet potentially (as long as the internet is not censored by the government)
In my view (the only one I can have, by the way), there are two fundamental questions that clearly differentiate between what is generally called capitalism and socialism, respectively: (1) what motivates individuals to create new value and (2) on what basis is personal wealth created. There are two extremes as the answers to the first question: direct material gain and direct needs satisfaction; and two extremes as the answers to the second question: property and labor. Take the two sets of answers in the stated order and you have a crude definition of the difference between capitalism and socialism. Sure there are many other differences, but they would most likely derive from the two basic ones.
hey! I want to add subtitles to this video to show my people in my country ? I believe you need to enable the video for adding subtitle. Can you do it please. Thankss
Really enjoyed this. It's been something I've been interested in for a long time but never properly knew enough about, had to keep looking up the difference between socialism and communism every few weeks because I could never get a definitive enough answer that'd stick with me. Makes me want to look into world political history a lot more.
In politics, the Third Way is a position akin to centrism that tries to reconcile right-wing and left-wing politics by advocating a varying synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. The Third Way was created as a serious re-evaluation of political policies within various centre-left progressive movements in response to international doubt regarding the economic viability of the state; economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized by Keynesianism and contrasted with the corresponding rise of popularity for economic liberalism and the New Right. The Third Way is promoted by some social democratic and social liberal movements. Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different from traditional conceptions of socialism. Blair said "My kind of socialism is a set of values based around notions of social justice ... Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and rightly". Blair referred to it as "social-ism" that involves politics that recognized individuals as socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen, and equal opportunity. Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition of capitalism.Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a "new capitalism". It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution of skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while rejecting income redistribution as the means to achieve this. It emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets, providing equal opportunity combined with an emphasis on personal responsibility, decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible, encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving labour supply, investment in human development, protection of social capital, and protection of the environment. The Third Way has been criticized by some conservatives and libertarians who advocate laissez-faire capitalism. It has also been heavily criticized by many social democrats, democratic socialists, anarchists and communists in particular as a betrayal of left-wing values. Specific definitions of Third Way policies may differ between Europe and America.
So true, Bernie Sanders won me over big time! some ass from my friend list STILL posted about Nazi's and Lenin blah blah blah blah.....I said to the how stupid their going to look when people who actually watched the video see's your comment, they erased it the next day!!! hahahahahahahahahahahah that was fun!
Oriana Rodriguez Anyone who looks at Bernie Sanders site www.sanders.senate.gov will see an agenda of a Democratic socialist. He is very interesting and I think appeals to much of America IF they understand socialism.
Craig Holman Socialism is STATE capitalism or very close !! State owns everything and you NOTHING . YOU CANNOT quit your job without STATE approval .It is like a modern slavery. Everyday you are going to listen how much you owe to "society " .
Did he say Amtrak at 44:00? If so Amtrak is one of the biggest examples of government failure. First, the government seized control of all the rail lines during WWII, wore out all the tracks and machinery and returned it to the companies. Then built the interstate highway system to nail the coffin lid shut on it. Then when the passenger lines struggled and eventually went under, it took control of all their assets sold ***all the rail lines*** that the once great passenger services owned to freight companies ***dooming our passenger infrastructure forever*** and formed as government funded entity "AMTRAK" that operates at a loss (leasing the same rails back from the freight companies with second priority to freight) and consumes tax money to operate. The JAR is another example of the largest railway in the world that operates at a loss and is always on the brink...last I checked Japan was desperately trying to get it back into the private sector to survive. Right here in Boston the MBTA is the most heavily used public transit system in the country and yet it is at the point of collapse in 2015 This is the first video I have seen from him, but so far this guy's belief in government companies is uninformed, and misguided to say the least. It is true that town utilities do tend to make a go of it... I know of a few...but at the state and federal levels, all public systems are generally a disaster worldwide. The reasons for this are many fold, but generally they are: 1) Government red tape and regulations only benefit 40 cents on the dollar toward the infrastructure because... 2) Government employee salaries and pensions must be added to the cost of the infrastructure over time. If there are 10 people maintaining a bridge...every 5 to ten years in it's later life a person retires, in the last 10 years there may be 30 people on salary for that same bridge or infrastructure and only 10 are actually working 3) The lowest bidder can never win to do an outsource or contract. All the math must work out to "prevailing wage" and "prevailing rate" for all work done. on, Therefore even if a contractor can do job for 1/2 price for whatever reason, this will NEVER HAPPEN. The unions have made sure of it. 4) Government employees are immune from prosecution or financial damages resulting from any failure or mistakes they make when doing their daily job or performing their duties. If a private company or contractor messes up they are liable to fix it and for damages. If a government employee screws up, the taxpayer must pay to fix it. The list goes on and on we can talk all day.
Amtrak is losing money because they deliberately set fares below cost to boost ridership (same with many mass transit systems here in the US, including the DC metro area where I live). And honestly, it's a heck of a lot cheaper and more comfortable than flying across the country if one has the time to travel that way (and yes, they've upgraded their cars to include cafe's, wifi, charging stations, and comfy sleeping rooms- I've never had to use the sleeping rooms and showers because my trips on Amtrak in college were pretty short since they were within the same state, but they're leapfrogging on the backs of European rail travel).
@@lindsayschutz I ride the Amtrak North eastern corridor all the time. It is the only break even section of service in the usa however unless they own the easements which they do not...they will never make money. If they have to operate at a loss to boost ridership then like the T in Boston they are a failed business model,...which is my point
@@certaindeed Amtrak isn't designed to make a profit. It's designed to provide a service at a price that people can afford and access relatively easily. Sure, private passenger train service is nice and profitable, but it's also incredibly expensive and they don't cover as much territory as Amtrak does.
@@lindsayschutz the JAR was the most advanced and most heavily relied on train system in the world and they had to privatize to become feasible. Right here in Boston the T was the only break even public railway in the nation through the 90 s..but now they are going under and falling apart even being propped up by tax subsidies because they now have to pay the pensions. You catching on yet?
there is something I don't understand here and need someone to explain to me; if the government is supposed to represent the workers, and the government controls the means of production, won't it mean that in that society the workers would be in control of the means of production? (not saying that was the case in the USSR)
Joe Blowfish Yeah, sorry, this video isn't here for you to repeat your views back to you over and over ad nauseum. I'm sure you can find plenty of the propaganda you're looking for somewhere on RU-vid, keep on trying buddy.
on the off chance someone sees this, does this mean worker co-ops are the definition of socialist? that this whole socialism thing is just about making every business a co-op?
Worker co-ops aren't necessarily the definition of socialism, but that's pretty close! The general definition of socialism is when the workers own the means of production they use. That is, they own the tools, the land, and the capital. This can take the form of worker co-ops but there are other possibilities
If you read on the Richness of Nations, in the beginning, Adam Smith makes it quite clear that the "invisible hand" only works with a government that regulates. This point is often completely missed by capitalists.
I want to let you know brazilian experience, since we have been governed by socialists for 13 years. In the beginning, Lula kept austerity in public finance in order to get the confidence of investors. It worked well. Next, they started moving to the left. They lowered interest rates and gave incentives to credit and consumption. We had a boom and now the bubble bursted. In the last year, GDP decreased about 4% and it is going down another 4% this year. Brazil ranks very badly in the rank of economic freedom. They did nothing to change it, since they hate capitalism. But they love power. So, we have the biggest scandal of corruption in the history of world - Petrobras (brazilian oil company) had contract with big construction firms, that financed the project of power of the socialists. In other words, the socialists protected those companies from competition with foreign companies (in the name of "national interest") while those companies deviated billions of dollars to finance the permanence in power of the socialists and also their luxuries (yes, they love the comforts of capitalism!). Socialists are big liers and do everything to keep in power. OK, you may say as all politicians do. That is way politicians should have the lesser power possible in their hands! And that is the opposite of socialist ideology.
+Rafael Pepino there is nothing socialist about what they did, and Petrobras is a state-owned company, not socialist, btw. The problem is centralized power. It doesn't matter if you have capitalists or you have socialists in power, either way, the system is going to be very corrupt. What we need to do is get rid of governments and corporations, only then we will get rid of corruption. Actual real socialism can't function WITH a government.
Nelson Guedes What you call real socialism seems to be anarchy. In socialism (marxist), the means of production are owned by the state. As everybody knows, it does not work. Thus, so called socialists do everything to interfere in free markets - regulations, protectionism, taxation, etc. They increase the size of governments and the corollary is more corruption. Looks like you want less government and less economic freedom - a utopian communist state… I recommend you read Fukuyama books on the origins of political order.
You mean the guy who admitted to using the UK’s NHS and though UBI was needed for the survival of capitalism because he himself admitted that the most Americans are unable to have the same buying power as the rulling elite.
The fundamental question is even if you divorce socialism from the state, how do you reorganize society in such a way that the workers are the greatest beneficiaries while removing the hierarchies that actually make that possible? It seems naive to think that just because the state is removed from the equation, there will be no more parties that benefit more than others
I think half the people commenting didn't watch the video.. or perhaps didn't follow his reasoning.. I'd rather believe that than believe people are THIS narrow minded. The lecture was brilliant.
Remember when Thomas Hobbes used to disagree with Adam Smith about Capitalism? Me either, since Hobbes died in 1679 and Adam Smith wasn't born until 1723. OK, but do you remember how Adam Smith wrote in defense of capitalism after Capitalism didn't deliver the equality it promised during the French Revolution ("liberty, equality, fraternity" being the campaign platform of Capitalism established at the Storming of the Bastille)? Me, either, since Adam Smith died within a year of the Storming of the Bastille. When you have a bunch of people who already want to believe you, you can pretty much tell them anything and they'll buy it. Good on you, ye titan of dishonesty!
The theory that only labour increases value to the end product is considered wrong today by most economists. An example would be putting stickers on my computer (labour) would automatically increase the price. Legendary economist Alfred Marshall put out a book in 1890 which explained why this wax incorrect and how prices are determined.
I think the lecture would be more coherent if you had talked a little about Libertarianism and liberalism and how it really influenced the creation of the capitalist system, instead of having capitalism appear from the simple idea of individualism. It would make it easier for newcomers to understand. Capitalism, though it is also a political structure is not really an ideology in the same way as socialism, so to compare them as you do, so early on, would be a bit confusing if I didn't know more about libertarianism etc. Although, I'm happy for people to correct me, as I'm certainly no economics, history, or politics buff.
As an Alabamian, you might enjoy "Hammer and Hoe" by Robin Kelley. For all us northerners look down our noses at y'all, there was some important and powerful socialist and communist organizing in Alabama - where it was *really* f'in hard - that can inspire all of us everywhere today.
Actually Stalin used to talk more about building socialism than already having done it... that's why he kept saying the class struggle wasn't over in the USSR...The focus on the State became so big because there was still a huge pressure from the western world to seize it back for the privates in Russia in order to destroy that important step...if the whole world would have agreed on this path (with all the necessary peculiarities from place to place) with no WWII and no cold war the process could have proceeded further toward a socialist society and eventually a communist one.... There would still have been aberrations in some places, but in general there wouldn't have been the stagnation and the conservative mindset that took over after Stalin's death, when there was the most need for a dynamic and committed Party leadership that could profit from the peace to implement the changes needed to the transformation....
Our "predetory" capitalism and the change in laws and policies and business model from the early '80's has been nurturing what is turning into an oligarchy. We need a good mix of a capitalism which maximizing profit isn't only priority but go back to where businesses used some of their profits towards the workers, their benefits and community (wouldn't exist without) to avoid high taxes, and a socialized system for things that involve basic rights, care protection and education, (like healthcare, police, firemen, schools, military, etc).
Exactly. Socialists seem to focus on the few at the top with money and power who Greedily don't share the wealth with their employees, and the less fortunate. It's a shame that multibillionaires Spend a lifetime crushing competition, and their own workers. Simply to become Filthy rich. What a Miserable existence, Surrounded with Others like themselves. In their old age they develop a conscience and heart, Then set up a Philanthropic foundation. I believe in capitalism. However, I'll never be a billionaire because I help the needy (not the greedy) as I get it. That's what my Creator has placed in my Spirit.
State Capitalism! A concept los in time which explains why the failiure of the soviet union. The problem is not socialism nor communism but still Capitalism, state capitalism.
state capitalism is a complete misunderstanding of what capitalism is. There is no such thing as state capitalism. He many be referring to cronyism, which again is not capitalism.
Even if you unlocked socialism from the state, how would you coordinate everything, like health care for example, or universities. If money is tied to profiting from you own labour, how are you able to profit when you aren't labouring.
+KarasekUS - Actually, he didn't. That's a made-up quote by Capitalists, attributed to Lenin. Also, Leninism wasn't Socialism - he used the word, but didn't practice the deed. Lenin was an authoritarian. Actual Socialism requires complete Democracy, as it's by the People. Leninists don't believe in Democracy, and think it's unrealistic. But if you want to talk about "useful idiots", look at the people who accept starving wages, allow themselves to be in debt, let overlord businesses run their government, etc.
Rationalist Stuff Starving wages are virtually guaranteed under socialism, in most cases *they are an effect of socialist policies*. Just look at any historical example, or any socialist or walfare state today. Socialism is indeed *by definition* based on negation of private property, therefore depriving people of fruits of their labor and in effect turning them into slaves.
KarasekUS I'll have to challenge you on that. Maybe a quick history lesson will help you. Did you know that, historically _(up until the Southern Strategy),_ Socialists and Communists identified most heavily with Republicans? This was up until the 1960's. Republicans were Leftists, and in several cases, "Progressive Parties" _(Progressive Party of 1912, 1924, 1948, etc.)_ branched off, to push even more radical Leftist ideologies. The Liberal, Progressive elements within the Republican Party are what fought for black liberation with Lincoln, brought about the minimum wage, fought for women's rights, fought against Jim Crow against the Dixiecrats, and fought for children's rights (not requiring them to work, but to go to school, instead). And up until the 60s, the Republican Party had always been the successful Party. Prior to that, the southern Conservative Democrats _(aka "Dixiecrats")_ were the racist KKK, individualist, sovereign property, pro-slavery, Jim Crow, and small government Party. Just as the Republicans had Progressive Parties branching off, the Democratic Party had "States' Rights" Parties _(States' Rights Party of 1948, 1958, etc.)_ that kept branching off, trying to force the Democratic Party to be more Conservative. LBJ signing the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Act _(which was supported by many Liberal Republicans)_ was a tipping point, however. Barry Goldwater (Republican Presidential candidate) opposed the Civil Rights Act, which drew many racist Conservatives _FROM_ the Democratic Party, over to the Republican Party. The "Southern Strategy" was a term coined by Nixon, which would appeal to the more racist, Conservative Southern whites. Ever since Republicans have taken over the more Conservative base during the Southern Strategy, Liberals, Socialists and Communists stopped supporting the Republican Party, and combined to take over the new Democratic Party. Modern Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, and Communists aren't the same thing, but they share many egalitarian, pro-People views in common. Modern Republicans, Racists, Conservatives, and Bigots aren't the same thing, but they share many anti-equality, individualistic views in common. Ever since the switch, the Conservative, Republican Party has, historically, been shitty, just as the Conservative Democrats (Confederate Dixiecrats) before them were. Ever since the switch, the Liberal, Democratic Party has, historically, been more successful and knew how to win, just as the Liberal Republicans (the Union) before them were. ... Where the Democratic Party has screwed up was electing Bill Clinton, selling his "3rd Way" moderate bullshit. Sure, he did some good, but he compromised too much on Conservatism and Corporations, which has led to the Oligarchy we now see. George W. Bush and Barack Obama followed suit, strengthening the Oligarchy. And now we face Hillary Clinton: more of the same "pro-business, pro-Corporate" oligarchy bullshit. *Socialism, historically, worked well in the US, back when they were working with the Liberal Republicans,* before political spies and sabotage became the norm. Socialism works well in an honest, ethical society. If you hate Socialism, it's because you admit to being corrupt. That's not my fault, that's yours.
Ese Omoru Socialism is a shallow emanation of the power of banks, which Socialists persistently do not want to understand. Socialists are people sponsored from distant centers, with freedom to dispose of cash, which makes them believe they are free. They never consider the cost of their actions. They do not understand elementary economics, and do not want to. The relief granted to them by their sponsor is mistakenly taken as a success, and then they are eliminated by other socialists, even more zealously obeying commands of the sponsor. Because they do not understand their mission. And that is simply to eliminate the existing ownership class, i.e. slaughter all the landowners and build in this place a kolkhoz, where cheap labor will produce screws or something else.
