My apologies to my Nordic friends for getting the flags of your countries all mixed up :-/ I promise when I come to visit I won't actually mistake your countries for one another.
Here in the U.S. we have a mixed economy. Democrats want socialism. Republicans want Capitalism. I'm a democrat (the middle man) but i prefer capitalism with a gold backed currency meaning in order to end inflation & increase value of the dollar, central banks are held accountable under law. And this is what trump trying to place in. A gold standard ---> ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-LdyHso5iSZI.html
"the downside of socialism is that it's vulnerable to corruption" Yes because we all know governments in capitalist countries are an example pf integrity
@@willtofstad8703 I see your concern, but there is no need to worry. The thing here is that it is the current corrupt government that is in favor of said corruption. When you elect progressive politicians that are in favor of changing the system, that also means you're replacing the corrupt politicians one by one. As the government gets stronger (and big corporations in turn weaker), this newfound power will also be in the hands of new politicians that actually represent our interests. Basically the ones that would take charge and change this system, are also the ones that want those in power to represent the people more than anyone else.
@@regileblindsea , that makes no sense. The progressive politicians are corrupt look at vax mandates, lockdowns, high tax, vaccine passports. these are all forceful corrupt things that progressive politicians do.
@pies_man The freerer the market, the freerer the people is bullshit. You know uncontrolled capitalism leads to a goverment and system that are just as corrupt as those of communist countries? Have fun with crony capitalism, cause it's the natural consequence of capitalism. Remember, mixed economies are the best.
The thing Is that in a Marxist socialist country you give all control to the government they can tell u what to say, hoe much studd you Need to buy or sell, your property belongs to the state so yeah no wonder socialism gets corruption
Yo when this whole shit started to go down with the civil war part 2 I was like "... I heard Iceland is pretty nice" as a joke but now it's a valid option
That is why it is calles the "Nordic model of SOCIAL DEMOCRACY" The Free Market still rules, there is just a strong saftey net of Welfare and Social Programs. Government owned industries is the absolute exception with it being raw matierals.
Person: Socialism is good. You can see it by looking at the nordic countries Person 2: NO NORDIC COUNTRIES ARE SCOIAL DEMOCRACIES Person: Okay, we can try that Person 2: NO THATS SOCIALISM
As a chinese，I've never been sure where I fit in the political spectrum, and I think I am yet closer to social democracy，so I hope to learn more about that. this video gets right to the point！Thanks for sharing🌹👊
KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE! For the good of information read this message. I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong. The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this: -Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself. So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state. On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..) -Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism). For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free. Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society. Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify. -Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality). A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made. It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period). Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature. These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company. There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me! I hope this was useful, cheers!
@@Faun471 I recommend this site for a first approach to socialism ecc..: www.socialism101.com There is the voice ''basics'': it has explanations and answers to common questions. There is also the voice ''recommended books for beginners''!
@@Alessandra-qk7hs So I should not call myself a democratic socialist but a social democrat????? Like seriously what do you call the people that fall under social democracy??
@@danielmann4159 Yes, if you support Danish, Swedish ecc.. economic system you are a social democrat. Here a socialist consideration about socal democracy, just to clarify both positions: - Many European nations practice an ideology known as social democracy. Social democracy is an ideology which supports "economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy", and thus it a capitalistic ideology, not a socialistic ideology. Socialism, by definition, opposes capitalism and seeks to dismantle the capitalist system. Whilst social democratic nations do well in some regards, they are only able to offer things like social security to their citizens due to the availability of cheap off-shore labour in the third world, and by high taxes on the working class. We socialists oppose outsourcing jobs to third-world nations and we oppose taxes on the general population. We believe in common ownership of enterprise, the productivity of which will be used to benefit all of society and not just CEOs. Taxes and redistributionism only attack the symptoms of inequality, not the cause. We are not social democrats. We are not Democrats. We are not Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. -
KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE! For the good of information read this message. I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong. The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this: -Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself. So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state. On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..) -Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism). For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free. Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society. Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify. -Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality). A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made. It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period). Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature. These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company. There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me! I hope this was useful, cheers!
@@zaklaj I’m a communist. The goal of the currently communist generation is to build socialism, to end capitalism and imperialism. Or at least keep struggling in order to create the material conditions for socialism. Communism is the next social economic system after socialism, according to the materialistic view of history. Marx called socialism “the low stage communism”, and communism “the high stage of communism”. Then Lenin made the difference between the world socialism and communism, (the brief definitions that I wrote above), but they are two stages of the same path: the path of human progress and freedom! For a deeper introduction to these arguments I suggest this site: www.socialism101.com/basic
@@Panda_J1 socialism according to Marx himself is a step towards communism. Ie, if communism is bad then necessarily socialism is too because it strives to bring about communism
They did get communism in particular a bit wrong though: The final stage of communism would not be governed by a state at all; rather, the workers would self-manage the economy and the rest of society, while abolishing currency and social classes. This is the most complete form of socialism. Socialism is more broad, and can, as the video described, include some market systems, but it does not have to. It simply stipulates common ownership of the means of production. This can be through an anarchist society, a democratic state, and possibly an authoritarian one, though whether that would really entail common ownership is up for debate. The one with the democratic state is democratic socialism. The video got the definitions of capitalism and social democracy mostly correct. Capitalism stipulates private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit, while social democracy is focused on the humanization of capitalism, usually through a strong welfare state. Sanders is free to self-describe as socialist, but, especially with the lack of focus on ownership of the means of production, Sanders-style “socialism” would basically be social democracy in practice.
Communism is not redistributing wealth with absolute equality, it is the building of a classless moneyless borderless society. Most people view communism as marxist lenninism, which is when a vanguard party siezes the means of production and rules according to democratic centralism(democracy until a decision is made). Communism is a form of socialism. The type of socialism described in this video is market socialism, however there are many forms of socialism including marxist lenninists, democratic socialists, anarchists, council comunists and utopian socialists. The portrayal of democratic socialism is essentially correct, though there is some nuance when it comes to wether or not they want markets long term, and whether or not they want communism. Social democracy was originally what we call democratic socialism today, however in the 80s most social democratic parties abonded socialism as a goal.
Socialism predates Marx. And there are different understandings of communism, even though we typically associate communism as what emerged when Lenin and others revolted to form the Soviet Union based upon Marxist principles.
First socialists where democratically elected "Soviets". The word socialism is literally translated out of of Soviet. Started gaining ground circa 1905. Eventually won popular vote (ie democratic socialism) and soon after take over socialism collapsed the economy -- made it worse than it already was. Paved the way for Lenin's autocratic controls & communism circa 1917.
@@michelem7786 Socialism comes from the french word "social." Which is pretty much the same word with the same meaning in modern English and French and other Latin-based languages. The word "soviet" is from the word "sovét" which means council in Russian. Which comes from a slavic religious word "sŭvětŭ" which means advice. None of these are nefarious words by themselves. The term socialism was created by Henri de Saint-Simon in the early 1800s. He used it in a positive way to talk about the good of society. Ironically, he wouldn't really be called much of a socialist by today's standards because he was a fan of economist Adam Smith. He believed in meritocracy and industrialization. The use of the word "soviet" in Russia denoted councils...decision making bodies. There is nothing socialistic about the term. There were societs (councils) in Tsarist (imperial) Russia. However, the term "soviet" took on new meaning in the revolutionary era because the assumption among many socialists was that worker soviets would be the primary decision making bodies. The Soviet Union (in my opinion) betrayed this by focusing on a centralizing authoritarian party with party leaders (the Communist Party) instead of focusing on the worker councils (the soviets). This is a whole big debate among leftists of the era and since. Trotsky, for example, wanted a more soviet-centric system. Many think that Stalin betrayed the vision of Lenin. And, of course, many felt that Lenin wasn't faithful to Marx's ideas either. All of this is a long-winded way of saying: To boil "socialism" down to one particular understanding of communism in revolutionary era Russia is a huge mistake.
@@michelem7786 There were anarchists and "libertarians" (now referred to as "libertarian socialists," because the term was stolen by capitalists) around long before the Soviets. Even before Marx.
@@michelem7786 Dear Michele. You cannot imagine how ridiculous such democratic arguments sound in Russia. There was no voting in Czarist Russia, and in Soviet era voting was just a show with no more than a single candidate in every case. It is a very different world.
Such a well made video and needs to be seen by a lot more people. Can’t believe it hasn’t even 3k views! Even some political channels with millions of subs wouldn’t be able to sum it up so well in such a short amount of time. Amazing work.
Still the same thing as Socialism. The only difference is that there is an option that workers' alliances take control of those important industries otherwise there is just no difference. It's like as if people are putting the word "Democratic" just to make socialism look good.
In basic: the way I understand and agree with “democratic socialism” being is that the government through essential services, social housing, even a ration program if needed, and a guaranteed universal basic income for everyone, takes care of it’s people\citizenry and ensures that everyone’s basic needs are met: while also having a country’s natural resources be publicly owned and harvested so that the actual country benefits from them rather then a few individuals: while at the same time there being well regulated free enterprise so that there is for lack of better words at least “civilized competition” and innovation can occur. In short; government deals with need: free enterprise deeds with want.
So what happened to individual freedom in this equation? Innovation will not occur if profit incentive will be confiscated and shared with everyone else.
@@CommanderLVJ1 Yah, I heard your utopian wish lest through the end, It doesn't exist anywhere on the planet. First off this isn't the world I'd even want to live in. What's the guarantee that big government bureaucrats that you believe should control everything will always be honest with everyone's interest front and center? That hasn't ever happened anywhere either so dream on Klingon.
Actually I take that back, this actually does exist. What you have described fits how Indian reservations are run and managed by the US government department of Indian affairs. Ask any Indian how well that has worked out.
+Erth Mann Where to begin...Firstly I suppose; especially considering that you have nothing good to say about it I find it very interesting that you would bother to watch a video part of which talks about actual socialism at all; regardless: if you think that throwing a little money at people in the middle of nowhere and then not either moving them to a larger community that can provide for their basic needs or otherwise not supporting them with infrastructure and essential services is socialism then I don’t think it means what you think it means...while I have no idea if this will help I will post a link to another video talking about democratic socialism: m.ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-XD94UUTvMts.html Secondly; while it may not yet outright doing a little research into things such as some of the especially Northern European countries and examples such as France’s healthcare system and Finland’s education system in trying to teach their children about miss-information and how to recognize it shows that while it may not yet exist we are getting their: so the only response I can think to give when you say “it doesn’t exist” is...and? Remember; “for everything there is a first time” and that nothing exists until it does. Finally the statement “big government” is a standard republican\con unreasoning talking point and really truly does not mean anything: what they are really saying is that they do not want a properly funded government that can hold them and their...donors\contributors\benafactors\business buddies accountable for their actions.
Socialism is the direct response to and critique of capitalism. It was born out of the ashes of the French Revolution, which institutionalized capitalism for the first time. Arguably, capitalism had existed on much smaller scales for decades previous. But socialism was developed in western Europe after the French Revolution.
I mean he said about communism “when the government dictates the price…” i immediately didn’t take the video seriously because there isn’t a government in a communist society like 🙄 I think bro is getting communism mixed up with state capitalist
This video is well made but inaccurate. Communism is stateless and socialism does not involve a free market for goods and services made using privately owned means of production. Also, democratic socialism is just a form of socialism and is no closer to capitalism than any other form of socialism.
Some of your definitions are correct and some are a bit off or really off. Here are the actual definitions: Capitalism: private ownership of the means of production for profit. You describe this accurately. Social democracy: state regulation, rather than state or worker ownership, of the means of production and extensive social welfare programs. You describe this accurately. Socialism: public ownership of the means of production (either centralized state control under Marxist-Leninist socialism or decentralized control by the workers under democratic socialism). Communism: a classless, stateless, moneyless society in which all property is publicly-owned. This is the goal of both Marxist-Leninist socialists who use the state to reach communism and anarchists who seek to jump directly into communism. In your video, you describe Marxist-Leninism at the socialist stage, rather than communism.
I just think they were somewhat misinformed about nordic countries in the sense that these are as capitalist as the USA by having less corporate taxes and no minimum wage and having a lower gdp per capita than the USA and having a less progressive tax rate. They once were socialist and back then they were growing way less than the other EU countries.Talking about Denmark and Sweden Portugal, Spain, France and Greece are more socialist like Bernie Sanders
I find it interesting how many people see pure capitalism as a solution to anything. We all seem to agree monopolies are bad and competition is good for controlling prices and getting companies to innovate. Some may even go as far as calling monopolies uncaptialistic since in a capitalism system competition driving the market is key to the equation. But then the right doesn't seem to think we need to regulate businesses and that regulations are bad. How do we stop monopolies without regulations? Hell, even with current monopoly laws we don't stop them. One industry that is a great example is internet service providers (ISP's). There are single digit numbers of major phone service providers and home internet providers in the US. They all agree to non-competition arrangements where they don't invade on each others share of coverage in the country in most areas. They still compete in major cities but a majority of america has 2 or fewer ISP options. As a result we pay one of the highest rates per speed of internet in the developed world. Edit: also they keep small companies from getting bigger by getting the local city councils to sell them sole rights to use the cable lines which means a new company would have to get permission to basically dig up the whole town to lay an additional set of lines. Plus the infrastructure costs of that are astronomical. Meanwhile the major companies often share lines/cell phone towers when in an area with more than 1 option.
most hard core liberals that i have talked to, do not like competition at all. i agree about monopolies, we used to have laws against them. our founders created an economy that they called free market and was based on the government being the soul creator and distributor of money, removing the need for taxing the people and assuring that, as long as the system was competently monitored, there would also be no goverment debt. this change completely when woodrow wilson opened the gates to the barbarians and allowed the federal reserve to be born. capitalism is not the free market enterprise system of our founders. it is the nation looting system of the rothschild globalists.
Regulation of business hurts competition, because smaller less established companies are less able to absorb the cost of the regulation. This is why established companies frequently lobby Congress for increased regulation of their industry. You just described a government-created monopoly through zoning permits. The only type of anti-trust law that should be used against monopolies are monopolies gained through fraud or coercion. Otherwise, you're basically punishing a company (and its customers) because it delivers too much value to its customers. I don't know if pure capitalism is achievable, but striving for it is in the best interests of a society.
@@timmytimmy105 There is no science or history to support any of what you are saying. You have such a warped view of reality. We had mostly pure capitalism laissez-faire in the late 1800's. Children were working in factories with no shoes for nickels a day 18 hour days. Regulation of corporations is absolutely necessary. Plus, companies try to pay to keep small companies down. You can look it up ISP's pay towns money to not let anyone else have access to the cables. The rest of the developed world has a lot of these policies already in place. The math works out, no one has been able to disprove any of the doctors of epidemiology at yale's paper saying the bernie M4A plan payment works out. Do your own research, wealth inequality has skyrocketed due to a corrupt system since the 1970's. The working class get poorer and poorer, we can't have 45% of our country unable to buy basic things. It will tank the economy if that many people can't buy things. 78 million americans owe 81 billion in medical debts, 45 million americans owe over a trillion in student loans. These people will never be able to invest. That hurts everyone when people can't keep up with the worlds prices even working full time with a part time job. People spending 50% of income on rent in terrible living conditions. Other countries have passed us in international rankings in a lot of areas, infant mortality rate, education, rates of happiness, poverty rates, ... We really don't lead the world in much now. We need to modernize our country. Climate change is predicted to do over 100 Trillion in damage by the end of the century. The country would collapse. A true patriot would want the country to thrive by adopting proven scientific options to our problems instead of something some old guy got paid 3 million to say by a corporation.
@Michael Lochlann Because some people are sociopaths. That's really all there is to it. There's no other reason to think that preserving competition and increasing profits for the wealthy could ever be more important than preserving human lives and increasing the happiness and well-being of society. What the hell is even the point in existing for the bottom 99% of people? What is our purpose in life? To work for someone else's luxury, while we barely meet the basic costs of living, until we die? Absolutley not. We are free to make our own purpose, and it won't be dictated to us by the wealthy. Who cares what the overlords think? I couldn't care less.
This is a horrible video. The creator doesn't understand capitalism or socialism AT ALL. Capitalism is no, or low inflation (you keep your savings, no central banks), higher wages (very low or no taxes, so you keep more money) and you can invest (very low regulations). Socialism is high inflation (politicians printing money and stealing poor people's savings), low wages (high taxes everywhere), you can't invest (horrible regulations, you can't save enough due to inflation and high taxes). Socialism is basically slavery, with the politicians as masters. Free enterprise (or capitalism) is you keeping the fruits of your labor and you getting richer by saving and investing. Don't vote for more taxes for god's sake. Learn how capitalism truly works, because it's your friend, it's the protection of your property, socialism is your enemy, it's giving your stuff to politicians. The nordic countries are WAY more capitalist than the USA, that's why they got richer. They are NOT socialists, socialists are Venezuela, Cuba, almost all South America, all of Africa. Easy to see why they are poor, they are slaves of the politicians!
@JOSEPH DEJEU That's not how it works. The problems you talk about today are due to government (socialism, like central banks), not capitalism. Capitalism protects the poor (it protects private property), not the rich. Socialism protects the rich (they can enslave you through lobbying), not the poor. You don't want power concentration and you want to solve it by concentrating it even more (in politocians' hands). That's just ignorance. The robber barons are a myth btw. USA's people got rich when it had a small government, not due to it. Concentration of wealth is always due to socialism, not capitalism. Ask Venezuela, Cuba, etc. who is rich there. You are falling for the same trap.
Capitalism: Private ownership of personal goods and the means of production. It’s not necessarily in favor of markets e.g. state capitalism. Socialism: Private ownership of personal goods, but public ownership of the means of production either through the government or directly through the public e.g. worker democracies and unions. It can be in favor of markets e.g. market socialism. Communism: Socialism plus the abolition of all private property and currency; it can exist with the presence or absence of the state.
We need to pull back from the oligarchy we've become and go back to capitalism with social programs. Social programs like health care, education, police, fire, ambulance and other necessities. I don't believe in people living for generations off what is supposed to be a safety net. But if other countries can manage to do it, why can't the United States?
Go back? The problem is that average American has no idea about it. It seems like American type of socialism might be very controlling one. I grew up in Europe and we still had more freedoms then now in USA we do have.
Yes, go back...this is as per a study from Princeton. Regardless of the party elected, most laws that have been passed since Reagan in the 1980s benefits the top 10% of the wealthiest Americans...so yeah, go back.
Health Care should be managed the same as fire & police & education, locally. Why should farmer in Nebraska pay for NYC healthcare? Let AOC, DeBlasio, Cuamo, Schumer, etc solve their own problem. They have an abundance of resources.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just happen to believe government is the worst institution to accomplish these goals. If you put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, there would be a shortage of sand in less than 4 years.
I prefer capitalism with a gold backed currency. JFK style. We're already in 23 trillion & counting. Our dollar (is devaluing way quicker than americans see) & printing our way out doesn't work. Only way to end inflation is to keep the central banks accountable & placing metals as a way to get rid of inflation.
Love how he tells that Americans don't know anything about Socialism. And then doesn't know anything about Socialism or Communism is either. Places like the Soviet Union was Socialist. Love, a communist. Remember kids, down with the state.
Yeah, I’m personally trying to decide between social democracy and democratic socialism but I’m very sure that whichever I fall into it’s gonna be pretty anti-authoritarian
@@devonwesleyhahnkurkowski840 you know anarchism never work's, and will only lead to fascism in the end,its the human conduction for people to want order
it's not a very good explanation at all, this guy got the definitions way wrong. You'd be better off checking out Second Thought for more accurate definitions.
1:27 I see what you mean here, but child labor was already dropping in the United States before there were laws on the books, and by then most child laborers were working on their parents farms. I’m not saying these laws shouldn’t be in the books, but I am saying that they didn’t play the biggest role in ending child labor
Yeah. The same could be argued in the way of pollution and also like you said, Child Labor. If there was 0 government regulation there, it would still naturally fall as consumers decide to not buy those products. For example, don’t like Nike? Then don’t buy their products because they use child labor. Don’t like Coca Cola because they contribute to the most plastic pollution? Then also, don’t buy it. The government isn’t the only force to stop that stuff.
key word: in the us You see, with capitalism comes economic imperialism, that means that some of the clothes you wear were made by a child in some other country. Unfortunally capitalism is very detremental to the workers, but more so to those who can offer more competitive prices, wich are poor countries easly exploitable
Socialism sucks... social democracy ain't bad tho, idk if it would work in the US but it's worth a shot. People, my old self included, just scared they businesses gonna get over regulated. Long as we leave the majority capitalism with changes for areas that can be exploited, and as someone who is in the middle politically, I'm good w that
Carve Red it works quite well for Canada. So, it can work. However, it really depends on how it’s run and who runs it. If your not careful corruption will ensue.
@@ZZ-ex8py you don't know much about socialism do you. To be socialist you still be capitalist. Ever heard of social democracy, it's a type of socialism that takes the goods of capitalism and the goods of socialism and mushes them together. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#:~:text=Social%20democracy%20has%20been%20described,as%20advocated%20by%20revolutionary%20socialists. www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy
This feels like PragerU for the left. The graphics and animation are on point. The audio could use a little work. The facts are spot on. Nicely done! Maybe the Gravel Institute should be paying you to do some of their videos. I'll spread the word about the channel. Keep up the great work.
As a democratic socialist, let me tell you you got that scale very very very wrong. Democratic socialism isn't in between communism and socialism (??), it is socialism it's just one that isn't authoritarian, it's democratic. Democratic socialism is an umbrella term including any type of socialism that supports a democracy yet that isn't anarchism, libertarian Marxism or any type of communism. Socialism is an umbrella term including in the narrow sense any type of Socialism or in a more broad sense any type of socialism and then the type of communism. On a scale of ideologies with a comparable authority axis to DemSoc, this would look like this; Luxembourgist communism - Democratic socialism - Liberal socialism (postwar social democracy a la Olof Palme) - Modern Social democracy (liberal socialism+more liberal capitalism) -Third Way neoliberalism and Ordoliberalism -etc etc Why do you make a video busting misconceptions when you yourself dont know what socialism,democratic socialism and communism even are. You are just spreading misinformation As I said above I am a democratic socialist. On the libertarian end of demsoc (NOT the american meaning of libertarian, rather less statist, libertarianiam used to refer to left libertarianism). I support abolishing the vast majority of private property (excludes only microownership, that is a few hectares of land or a a business w a few workers), extending democracy into a semi direct democracy and decentralizing the government a la green municipalism. Edit; And again you got communism wrong too...... Communism ISNT just Marxism-Leninism. Anarcho-communism exists, as does Libertarian marxism (council communism etc). Please, learn the fundamentals here before attempting to explain anything...
But Dr dre is a doctor tho... He advices me to smoke weed and listen to creative music. It's healing and healthy for one to follow these instructions for a better life 🙌 R.I.P 2pac tho
This video is wrong on so many levels - it's a simplification of complex topics that gets the basic facts wrong, I'm not sure why, it's not even that difficuilt to explain things right. Capitalism, is a system where the ownership of the means of production falls to the owner class ( or as it is sometime reffered the bourgeoisie ), meaning most of the wealth produced goes to them and not the workers who create the goods and services. Capitalism by it's nature is inherently economically authoritarian, because the market is not decided democratically, but instead by the powerfull owning class. Socialism on the other hand is a system, where the workers own the means of production or more specifically, where workers decide how their companies and workplaces are run and where the value of the work of the workers is not extracted by any owner class - this means for example worker cooperatives, where workers decide what sort of products the company makes, what wages they recieve for their work etc. and they do so democratically, either by voting on the issues or in bigger companies electing representatives to higher positions, where they than make decisions with other elected officials ( similarly to democratic elections in the political sence ). State owning the company and it being run democratically is also not self excluding, but it's also not necessary, the main point is workplace democracy. Likewise, Socialism can be and I'd argue has to be democratic politically by nature. It would not make sence to have a political dictatorship seeking control over their citizens politically, but give them freedom economically, in such situation that would be going against the interrests of the people in power. So in short - Socialism is both democracy in politics and democracy in workplace. Communism is a system which expands on the ideals of Socialism - Communism is a stateless and classless society. That doesn't mean that things that are run by the state, such as the say the welfare programs, just stop existing, it just means they are run comunally. It's also inherently impossible for a communist society to be authoritarian, because there is no state to enforce any authority. What the video is describing when talking about Socialism and Communism is State Capitalism - which just means that the state controls the means of production, which doesn't make it democratic, it just means that the ownership class are the ones who are in power politically as well. That's what any and all so called ,,Socialist'' and ,,Communist'' countries are/were, that's what the USSR was, that's what China and North Korea are. People defending these countries and saying ,,this is what Socialism and Communism means'' are called tankies and they are basically just facist larpers pretending to be progressive, because they like the USSR aestetics. I do not know why they are conflicting these terms and accepting these definitions used by tankies in this video, it's blatantly false and wrong. Finally we get to what the so called democratic socialism is - it's basically just a term, used to describe socialism to people who don't understand what socialism means in order to sell them the idea and differenciate themselves from the tankie crowd who celebrate countries like USSR or North Korea. There are some minor differences between Socialism and Democratic Socialism, but in essence they are pretty much the same thing.
The success of Stalin - the man who used to boast that he conquered the United States "from the plow to the atomic bomb in just a generation" - compared to Gorbachev's failure shows that a socialist economy is unable to function with a minimum of efficiency without requiring a massive dose of political violence. In an attempt to reform a decadent regime, Gorbachev moved faster with the process of economic opening in the hope of removing the predictable resistance that the Soviet bureaucracy would create to economic reform measures, as thorough proof with the failed attempt. coup d'état in August 1991 - which ended up precipitating the final crisis of socialism and the dissolution of the USSR itself Its Chinese parallel - Deng Xiaoping - adopted a logic diametrically opposed to that of Gorbachev: it prioritized the achievement of economic prosperity (adopting in practice capitalism) precisely to delay any attempt at political opening, as was evident with the acceleration of the economy. reforms after the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is important to note that it was Karl Marx himself who, in his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, discerned the scenario in which the conditions for a social revolution process are formed, describing it as follows: 'At a certain stage in its development, the material productive forces of society contradict existing production relations or - which is only their legal expression - with the property relations in which they have been active until then. From the forms of development of the productive forces, these relations are transformed into fetters of them. So, it is a time of social revolution. ' (Reproduced according to MARX, K. Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, organized by Florestan Fernandes and published under the title K. Marx: Theory and historical process of the social revolution, In Marx & Engels, Great Social Scientists Collection, History, vol. 36. São Paulo: Ática, 1983. p. 232. Commemorative edition of the centenary of Karl Marx's death) By rejecting the pursuit of profit maximization as an instrument to stimulate innovation, socialist countries ended up condemning themselves to obsolescence. Thus, they lost the chance to incorporate the productivity gains made possible by technological progress. That is why the capitalist countries managed to provide a greater rise in the standard of living of their population, even without pursuing the egalitarian ideal. Therefore, until the “final crisis of socialism” (to paraphrase K. Marx's own definitions once again), it was only a matter of time. But religious fanatics do not give up on their faith, even against the indisputable proof of the facts, which completely refute it!
@@JustLikeGreta Somewhat but more like the lying left that can’t or won’t explain their agenda but back groups like Antifa who have cause over 1 billion in damage in the U.S. unlike Bernie Sanders who explained his plan in laymen’s terms so the low iq liberal masses could understand, you know the blue/green/pink haired “i’m looking for a neutral binary gender bathroom”....people, the i’m a “they/them” not he/she person!!! The people that watch fox are pretty grounded and understand what exactly truth is, you know the non inner city people that don’t have tattoos under their eyes, on their necks or blue/green/pink hair that know it’s wrong to let trans boys compete in girls sports. But I’ll give you a few minutes to pick that one apart.
@@aross5035 KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE! For the good of information read this message. I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong. The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this: -Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself. So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state. On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..) -Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism). For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free. Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society. Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify. -Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality). A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made. It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period). Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature. These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company. There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me! I hope this was useful, cheers!
This is amazing. I agree that the word “socialism” has lost all mean in US political discourse. People just throw the word around, but when you ask them what they mean they speak in platitudes and sound uninformed. I’m not sure where I stand on the issue, but what I do know if that calling yourself a socialist tell me very little about your views in today’s world.
The word has a meaning. Just because imbeciles don't understand what it is doesn't mean that the word doesn't have a meaning. Actual socialism is authoritarian. It consists of a centralized government where the government regulates EVERYTHING (but they claim that the workers own it, haha). It's a centrally planned economy and results in almost no freedom. The government dictates who does what, sets prices and quotas. It's always horribly inefficient.
acttv you are most welcome. THANK YOU. We need simple and clear educational tools like this to share with the masses. We have no time to waste. This video will be shared widely ☮️💖🤘🏼
acttv I think semantics are of the essence. I wish Bernie would use the term “social democracy” rather than “democratic socialism.” The word “socialism” scares too many people.
Yes, let's vote to collapse the economy by implementing socialism (because it always fails) because we envy the rich even though we are all spoiled Americans who live in luxury compared to the rest of the globe. What could possibly go wrong?
Michele M I lived in the Netherlands for many years. A wonderful, well organized society where everyone has healthcare , higher education is very affordable, there are virtually no homeless, and there is income equality. If that’s “wrong”, I’ll take it.
Like many Americans, I was told that Socialism was something horrible, something to be avoided or worse, done away with, like the plague. But even *I* don't know what *"real"* Socialism is, what it means, how it could benefit society, etc.
The red scare and McCarthyism is still living strong in the US. A dive down fascism road have also abolished education, so no, I don't see any real sentiment to actually learning something of these sorts over there.
@@duckcylinder9903 Ads usually target your interests based on data they collect from the algorithm and your personal info so heres the idea stop over obsessing with Ben Shapiro
This all sounds good... but here’s the catch. Really what socialism is all about is sounding great so the voters will vote a bunch of socialists in power then they will change the laws on the name of “what’s best for everyone” and then you no longer can vote them out😓 this exactly what happened in Venezuela
not at all what happened in venezuela, that was a violent militant overthrow of the government, there was no democracy, there wher eno checks and balances
Correct, you are! Even the very first socialists movement in USSR was done via democratic election. After they caused the economy to collapse, they starved people an paved the way for communist authoritarianism. The "Soviets" were formed sometime around 1905 and eventually won popular vote. Everyone thought this was awesome until the peasants learned they would eventually come for their little farms, their seeds, and their goats. The ENVY celebrated by today's youth is vulgar and ignorant. My mom's a refugee from the USSR so I know a little bit about how this all works.
@@michelem7786 " first socialists movement in USSR was done via democratic election" true that the first movement was done democratically, but it did not lead to socialism soo
@@magnusorn7313 It did not lead to the socialist utopia because socialism will never work. It is a toxic ideology that goes against the very grain of human nature and drives out the top producers by plundering and pillaging them. When you continuously drive out the top 10% ("the rich"), you are left with poverty and a demotivated workforce. This should be self-evident. Yes, they DID implement socialism and the peasants didn't want to give up their means of survival. People who backed the Soviet movement became coined "useful idiots". They help instigate a movement that immediately turn against their own self-interest. All of this has been long known and widely accepted. This glorification of "socialism" is new and it is due to lack of education and an embittered and spoiled population who resents the fact that "the rich" exist. The U.S. has a MORE progressive tax system than in the nordic countries. "The rich" pay a higher contribution to overall collected taxes. The top 10% of earners pay most all of the income taxes collect (70% of the total 4T collected). In Bernie's utopia (Denmark) even the poor pay taxes. Food / groceries are taxes at 25%. Every single thing is taxed. Cars are taxed at 180%!!! It is theft by government and that is what Bernie supporters are wishing for.
I find that when arguing with a capitalist the argument usually comes down to defining socialism. The definition of ‘Socialism’ has always been contested turf- even the left doesn’t fully agree on what it fully entails, but it does have core tenants like ‘workers owing the means of production’ and ‘worker empowerment’.
Can't the workers own the means of production in a capitalistic economy if they desire to do so? They could all come together and start there own company, right?
KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE! For the good of information read this message. I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong. The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this: -Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself. So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state. On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..) -Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism). For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free. Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society. Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify. -Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality). A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made. It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period). Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature. These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company. There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me! I hope this was useful, cheers!
Primer, our fellow Americans still don't have the basics down pat ... "A Democratic Socialist is not Marxist, Socialist or Communist, A Democratic Socialist is still a capitalist, just one who seeks to restrain the self-destructive excesses of capitalism and channel government's use of our tax money into creating opportunities for everyone. Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet human needs, not simply to make profits for a greedy few."
Ist fast das gleiche aber egal. Die SPD vertritt auch die Werte vom demokratischen Sozialismus. Willi Brandt war ein bekennender demokratischer Sozialist.
@@victord9814 As a Capitalist my self I do think Capitalism is a good thing however when it get out of the reach of anyone able to make sure they don't do something unethical then things go down hill. It only really works as long as we can make sure everyone is being ethical in how they treat there employees. Plus not all forms of socialism is bad everyway for example the Nordic country's seem to be making it work. But I do have to say I think that what they have there probably won't work everyway and if it works or not comes down to if a country can afford to do it, VERY good decision making and a very tiny bit a luck and it always has to be social democracy.
Onyx Cotton Alright then what can you refer me to that can help me understand what Democratic Socialism is? I’ve heard the term thrown around but when people explain what it means it’s always muddled in personal opinion. Or that’s what it sounds like for the most part. It also seems like there isn’t an agreeable definition of it.
@@Snackyyz KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE! For the good of information read this message. I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong. The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this: -Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself. So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state. On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..) -Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism). For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable. Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free. Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society. Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify. -Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality). A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made. It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period). Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature. These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company. There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me! I hope this was useful, cheers!
“All you freedom loving left wing thinkers in the West! You may suddenly understand it all someday-but only when you yourselves hear “hands behind your backs there!” and step ashore on our Archipelago.”
Unregulated markets DO NOT lead to child labor. Abject poverty requires child labor because without the income from those children, their families can't afford to eat and the children starve to death. As soon as families make enough money to send children to school, they do. At around the 3:00 marker you start talking about what DS really stands for: employee ownership of the company, a higher share of the profits, strong safety nets, etc. What's great about our current capitalist model is that you can ALREADY do all of that today! In fact, there are a number of companies that operate successfully under that model around the country. In other words, you don't need to vote for democratic socialism. Just go out and DO democratic socialism! Get together with all of your DS friends, start a business, pay yourself whatever you think is fair, give yourself a good retirement package and unemployment insurance, get the best medical insurance and retirement package you can get. You don't have to force anything onto anyone else through the political process in order to achieve your goals. All you need is the gumption and support of your fellow DSs to go out and get it done. So, go do it! Go do it and leave our capitalist system intact so that the rest of us who like it can keep it. You can have yours just the way you like it and so can we. So let's just do that!
What' is happening with capitalism at the moment is that massive corporations run and determine politics and world affairs. Personally it looks like socialism is creeping up at us from the massive growth, production and progress made by capitalism. With robotics, better surveillance etc. it's not going to be long before we are totally ruled by a powerful elite that will determine what is best for us - actually happening right now. It's stupid to force socialism in a country. Will never work because the needed infrastructure is not present. Leave capitalism to grow and develop on it''s own and before long we will have socialism. And one day, when automatism through AI and robotics has overtaken every facet of our lives there will be a form of communism. We will merely sustain it and direct it - if even that.
@@snaphaan5049 The biggest problems in modern capitalism have nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is nothing more or less than free people using the resources they own to trade for the resources they don't. Everything else is external to that, including and especially government interference in the market, which is the real problem here. Government corruption and cronyism is hurting capitalism. It's not a feature of Capitalism. It's a corruption of it. That's something most people fail to grasp.
@@chubbyninja842 I get that. But where does AI, robotics, security measures etc fit into the modern world. It is part and parcel of the development and progress that capitalism brings. Even if you take away cronyism and the government interfering then you still have the same tech developments through capitalism that will lead to a "better, safer and more secure" world. I get why people are frightened of being tagged with a chip (without being religious about the idea). But it makes absolute sense. It's the normal development and implementation of better and better tech. We are fighting our nature and using these methods is actually a good thing. Isn't it the ideal to have a flourishing world, where there are no wars, no sickness and poverty? Where everyone gives there best to further improve their lives and that of there fellow man? It's not impossible but we cannot reach this state without making current people slaves or maybe creating something better - a better and more docile humanity. We are unconsciously slowly moving the decision-making to computers and that is very good. With enough time and hard work we could create creature of such potential it might actually solve all the problems we have today. But we cannot build it if we try and force it too early. Communism wasn't meant for you and me. It's for a future humanity - created in our image but without the bullshit we suffer from. I'm rambling but I don't see capitalism as just capitalism. It has made possible the modern world we live in. But it has also given birth to something else. A monster of steel, silicon and machines that will (I believe) replace or control us in the future.
We have a problem here in the video at minute 2:02 because it's assume that Communism pre-date Socialism. Socialism started in 1879 in Marseille France when Union Laborer came back from the Philadelphia World Fair. They broke away from the Anarchists to form the Socialist Party. They used the Ben Franklin circle discussion model which remain in use today. In 1920, Lenin broke away and created the Communist Party. Socialists were there all along.
Norway's Social Democracy is a term for moderate and reform-oriented forms of socialism. This is a typical political discussion in the United States. There's a video here on RU-vid called. "Shapiro: Norway is not a socialist, it's a capitalist country with expensive social programs" Sinjin Reed Wrote this comment. MAN 1: Communism does not work! MAN 2: Norway is communist and it does just fine! MAN 1: Norway is not communist, it just has a large social safety net! MAN 2: Okay, let's do that! MAN 1: NO! THAT WOULD BE COMMUNIST I have stopped discussing Norwegian politics with people from the USA. Then I would rather go to a kindergarten and talk politics with the children.
@Flat Earth Communism Flat Earth Communism it's a fantasy. The dangerous and unrealistic idea is expecting to jump directly into a theoretical system which has never been validated. Smarter to start from what works, and improve stepwise.
But what's the point of sticking to theoretical definitions that we have never, ever seen in practice in human society? Even literal communes have some psycho running the show that gets to have sex with everyone's wife and has a bunch of nice things.
@@idakoric73 What communes are you talking about? Please share your evidence. Israel was founded on communal structure called Kibbutz. They weren't run by some psycho who had sex with everyone's wife.
I’m sorry but your scale where Medicare for all and free college is not just a smidge from capitalism. That is highly misleading. The philosophy of socialism is to take and redistribute. The problem is the government when given an inch tends in time to take a mile. Sorry but this has a whole lot of nonsense.
Actually you're comment is factually incorrect. Many capitalist societies have "Medicare For All" systems, while they may not call them Medicare they are identical. Great Britain, Canada , Denmark, Italy (I lived here for years), France, Norway, Finland , Switzerland, Sweden etc, etc, etc. None of these countries "take and redistribute". This link is the result of unregulated capitalism usdebtclock.org
@@redplanet76 It's not worth it because you have no rebuttal. Yes, by funding corporate subsidies and cutting revenues to the Treasury via tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations dating back to the 1980's (coincidentally about the same time the debt began to explode under Reagan) you create massive debts that snowball and result in numbers that even a parrot repeating OneAmercaNews talking points like yourself can not dispute when confronted with. ...and where's your rebuttal to my examples of other capitalist countries that employ democratic socialism to their health care programs? CRICKETS :))))) Remember, numbers never lie.
randy stevens you’re right. What was a I thinking? I thought debt was caused by out of control spending... but no, it was tax cuts 😂. And the fed has nothing to do with it either.... You know the roach motel of QE where checkout is never. This is the issue. I want the government to stop spending money in the first place, but evidently you want more taxes to compensate. That is a fundamental difference of opinion. One is capitalistic and one is socialistic... one leads to prosperity and the other a meltdown... but keep blaming free markets for your spending insanity.
@@redplanet76 now we come to a common ground. Out of control spending. So let's look at what that means. Other than promises we've made the generations that built this country, where do we spend recklessly? The Military. Yes, that socialist organization funded by the public giving free housing , health care and tuition assistance to it's members. FAR AND AWAY our biggest discretionary sinkhole. So what precisely fuels that consumption? Since we are surrounded by oceans on two sides with friendly countries to the north and south and possess the world's largest nuclear arsenal what purpose is served by this ever growing Cookie Monster? Corporate enforcement. The allocation of territory and resources for corporate enrichment, you know the same corporations that benefit from these ventures but now pay a smaller portion of revenues to the Treasury than ever before. If you are looking for a welfare queen sucking the country dry there you have it. As far as QE is concerned that has been and continues to be a gift to Wall Street by inflating an asset bubble and keeping interest rates low. With reference to the debt it is the result of corrupt capitalism, any economist worth their weight would tell you that. I am not a socialist, I love capitalism and I want to preserve it BUT our current form of it is dooming it because we have allowed the imbalances to grow too large.Are democratic socialist policies a way to restore balance? Absolutely, because they will lower costs that far outpace inflation in health care and education to start. Twenty three trillion in debt and our roads are the laughing stock of the industrialized world? Nearly 30 million people will no health care? The system is severely out of balance and if takes democratic socialist policies to correct it then I don't care what you call it, let's get to work.
In Europe liberal means capitalist and socialism means the government owns the means of production. The Swedes, the Danes are consider them selves social democrats. But Americans likes to be originals. :)
Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York who is widely considered the father of fascism studies, defined fascism as "a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda." www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.html
Nazi party was socialist, at first... then they turned. As always happens with socialism! NOT one country has been successful under socialism and Nordic countries are CAPITALIST, just taxed to death to pay for the freeloaders with tax rates over 60%!!!
@@MaryBrownForFreedom Aeroplane Jelly must really confuse you, hey? Get some credible sources, you farking dangerously ignorant farkwit. SCIENCE isn't wrong, of course, it's you who's full of crazed fascist propaganda, of course.
@@MaryBrownForFreedom Here's a list of democratic socialist societies,you farking lying, fascist goon: Armenia Bolivia Brazil Croatia Denmark Ecuador Finland France Germany Greenland Iceland Italy Luxembourg Moldova Netherlands Nicaragua Norway Peru Portugal Serbia Slovenia Sweden Tunisia Turkey UK Venezuela Of these nations, the countries that have a socialist party that serves as a governing party are: Armenia Bolivia Ecuador Iceland Nicaragua Northern Ireland Portugal Serbia Venezuela worldpopulationreview.com/countries/democratic-socialist-countries/
2:19 but capitalsim is more and i mean MORE curropt then socialism, you cant just say socialsim is curropt without saying capitalism is curropt too, thats just one minded
@@JMVExplained thats the thing he is using a practice which has been stoped and became illegal to say capitalism is curropt he dosent bring the REAL reason to why capitalism is curropt
I live in Finland, but I'm originally from and grew up in New Zealand and spent some time living in Australia - The difference is like day and night. I won't ever move back to New Zealand nor Australia they way they are now.
There is nothing Socialist about the Nordic Nations. Being leaders in Economic Freedom, free enterprise, defense of private property, leaders in private banking and entrepreneurship promotion is the opposite of socialism. Interventionists willingly want us to confuse a welfare system in a capitalist society with socialism. Socialism is the political and economic theory which defends that the means of production, distribution, and financing should be owned or controlled by the state. Nordic countries are NOT socialist. They are capitalist societies with a welfare state. The success of the Nordic countries has been to take pro-market measures, privatize inefficient sectors and guarantee private property, wealth creation as well as legal and investment security. They have a labor market that is among the most flexible in the world. In these countries, private education is encouraged through school vouchers, not forced state-run schools.
I know this is supposed to be a brief overview, that political terminology is inherently vague and messy, and that how words are used partly determines their meaning. But the fact that people can take this seriously simply shows that Americans don't know what political words mean - not surprising in a country in which 'liberal' means left of centre and where there are people who unironically think Warren Buffet is a socialist. There are, for instance, some democratic socialists who do support varieties of economic planning but who are not communists, unless we arbitrarily redefine both words to mean something different from their conventional meanings. The type of 'democratic socialism' you describe is what the rest of the world would just call social democracy, or even plain Social Liberalism in its less radical varieties. I also think it's pretty high-school level stuff to regurgitate the conventional blandishments about the 'pros and cons' of ideologies, as though they are undisputed facts, under the guise of informing people about the meaning of different ideologies.
The socialist Michael Harrington, when asked why the Socialist Party had not gained support in the U.S. responded that the reason was that liberalism had gradually come to embrace most of the socialist agenda. That era of left-right compromise came to a crashing end with Reagan.
@SamGurney88 This response misses the point of the video in the same way you suggest Americans misunderstand socialism. You're of course generalizing and leaning on anecdotal fallacy to make your point that Americans don't understand socialism - but a majority of Earth's humans don't understand socialism to the extent that you or I do. This video is an introductory tool and not a published, peer reviewed study. If your concern is that not enough people understand the basic tenets of Socialism, surely you'd instead celebrate this video as being easy to digest. If your ACTUAL concern is a perceived misrepresentation of socialism, then you should consider writing about it in a more factual way (but that can still be interpreted easily by the layman)
I entirely agree with this description. I find it unbiased, clear and based on common sense.The only but I find is that it concentrates exclusively on how the wealth is produced and how it should be - more equally - distributed. The social structure of every society also has an important factor to consider: Freedom. How much and for how many. Democratic Socialists believe in a Popperian Open Society where no particular creed dominates the path education should take. Democratic Socialists are overwhelmingly secular humanists, the only philosophy that allows total freedom to develop an open mind.
And social democracies aren't successful, lol. Sweden is a great example of how crazy high taxes can kill the economy and how quick market reforms can fix that.
@@zigoter2185 i think they can survive with high taxes. Its just that the nordic country got lucky with natural resource and also its very low population. If US go for what the nordic did, the tax would go up to 90% for everyone probably
@@yourfavoriteperson3653 In Sweden in the most "socialist" years taxation sometimes went above 100%! I think it was for self employed people. This caused a recession in 1980-1990, but once liberal reforms where taken and taxes where reduced economic growth started again.
This breakdown left out a regulated free market as an alternative. It is like they wanted to leave people with the impression that we have to choose between different types of socialism or 1 type of capitalism. Just like their are variants of socialism there are variants of capitalism. I propose no social safety nets but regulations that helps people save for thier own future and their own safety nets. The less you make the more the employer has to contribute to that individually owned savings accounts. For example 1 for retirement, 1 for medical, 1 for unemployment, 1 for college. Those accounts will be regulated on when and how they can be used. The most know example is turning social security from money going to the government to money going into individual accounts.
Im a DemSoc, and this video was total bs. It's called democratic socialism wrong and it got communism wrong and so on. If you wish to learn I am open to questions (If RU-vid sends me notifications because it's become common that it doesn't)
The basic idea is that the outcome of greater citizen participation in governance would be a more just balance between property interests and human rights.
Social democracy is a compromise between socialism and capitalism. Democratic socialism is worker-owned means of production decided democratically and can be done by worker coops, worker self-management, democratic control of economic institutions and democratic organizations which distribute resources (such as democratically elected governments or via direct democracy at local levels). Market economies may or may not exist in democratic socialism but capitalism or private ownership of the means of production would be minimized via democratic means.
@@greenbrickbox3392 Why workers "own the means of production" if they didn't risk the capital nor provide the creativity or ideas that launch a particular business or industry?
@@TyehimbaJahsi I mean they do provide the creativity and ideas to keep the company running and they spend the majority of their waking hours working at the company creating profit. Why shouldn't they have some ownership over what they create?
It is using our taxes to provide a strong safety net and provide things like education, healthcare and military, and libraries and roads....because yes...those are social programs and some of them are already in place and have worked well...oh and Social Security...and it was formed by our only Democratic Socialist president...the one that most people think was the best president we have ever had...FDR...
