You missed one point. In Capitalism business owners think only about profit not caring about their workers, environment, ethics... Everything is the mean of production of their wealth. In Socialism the most important thing is prosperity of the people.
@@IllustratetoEducate make some more educational ideas to the people ! Beyond being completely Confused & Constantly, Controlling by Government Party’s ?
@Keanu chungus 100 We currently live in a mixed economy and so do other countries. Are public schools capitalist? No. Is social security capitalist? No. Is Medicare capitalist? No. Is the police department capitalist? No. Are our roads and bridges capitalist? No. Is minimum wage capitalist? No.
@@badwolf9956 Look, the thing is, stuff like medicare and social security and other government funded projects don't work, for example it takes years for the government to get a road built, but a privately owned company could do it way better. So capitalism will always come out on top. There are zero benefits to socialism.
This guy is so good at going over controversial topics without getting canceled or hated on, because even the slighted bit of bias will send him down, good job!
@@IllustratetoEducateYou are spreading misinformation. There are 3 math equations going on here. @1:05 Socialism is not free. Social Security is deducted out everyone's paycheck. The USPS charges for their credits or stamps system. It's about delivery to the top of the mountain for the same credit to delivery next door. A credit one buys. Not free. Communist is a moneyless society that doesn't charge for their credit system. One doesn't buy food stamps or coupons handed out to everyone in a communist country. You get a free TV coupon in communist. Free food stamps for the handicapped is a social program. Not communist or socialism. Just a social program. But free food credits to everyone is communist. Communist is moneyless, AKA free. One credit system everyone buys (socialism). One credit system everyone gets for free (communist) One credit system only the handicapped receives (social program).. Actually the math in the socialism program USPS actually adds up. The less profitable routes are not canceled so the capitalist only keeps the more profitable routes. Leaving the less profitable routes gone. And we need mail delivery, to everyone, it's social.
Great video by the way. Sweden, Norway, Denmark are not socialist countries they are in the same sense as Great Britain and France they have social programs but still a capitalist economy
@RoniixxYou can start a company in the U.S. that is democratically controlled by the workers. It is perfectly legal and there are thousands of examples.
@@madinicolette2888 Proposing to take other people's stuff and spread it around is immoral. Actually stealing other people's stuff is evil. Not very complicated.
Oh dear, socialism is not government and capitalism is not markets. Socialism is all that pertains to worker control of production and the working class getting all the wealth it produces--including democratic worker-owned businesses and cooperatives--while capitalism is specifically a division of workers and owners. Colin Bruce Anthes is the clearest on clarifying the difference: ruclips.net/video/FhQkEB9ucwg/видео.html
1:06- Factually inaccurate. I don't know why people always describe public education or public healthcare as socialist. There is a vast difference between social programs (a program paid for socially, aka by the government) and socialism (by its own definition: "the collective/social OWNERSHIP of the means of production"). It doesn't take that much effort to look up a definition. Just because they both have the word 'social' in them does not mean they are the same thing, anymore than cart and carpet are the same thing just because they both have car in them. This fundamental mistake permeates the rest of the video. For example at 2:50 it declares that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are "generally considered socialist." But they're only "generally" considered socialist by Bernie Sanders. The leader of Norway even came out and publicly stated that "Norway is not a socialist system, we are a capitalist haven with the lowest corporate taxes in all of Europe. We have some well funded social programs but that is not the same thing. And we would appreciate it if American politicians stopped calling us that." Whether this was just a lack of research because he was confident in things he'd heard from the media/politicians, or whether this was intentionally misleading, I can't say. But given the amount of genocides and famines that have happened in ACTUAL socialist countries over the last 120 years, this false definition is the equivalent of saying "Nazis are the National Socialist Workers party of Germany who followed Hitler, and also are anyone who voted for Bush in 2000." It gives the ACTUAL Nazi's an easy out by saying "oh no, I'm not like the bad ones, I'm like the ok ones."
F**** finally an unbiased video regarding this complicated topic, well illustrated(loved the drawings) and straight to the point with both comparisons. Well done mate. Subscribed.
So many people on both 'sides' need to see this video. Everyone throws around the terms without defining what they actually mean by them, and without realising they already live under a hybrid system.
im assuming you mean capitalism works? if so, it is constanly bailed out by socialism everytime the market dips or crashes. the rich keep getting rich, and the poor keep getting poorer. you need a fairer mix of both of them for a society that acually works. there are alot more poor people in this wold than there are rich, capitalism needs to keep going burst to try get some money to the poorest people so they dont revolt.
@@garymckay7669 If someone is poor then that is their own fault. My family is poor and my dad has said several times that he did not care about school until late college
CB do on BBC cod Gucci obi jon Go no n in Go ff Co o’clock coo boo boo-boo Go phobic no Go igloo icon voodoo coco cocooning Co Co Co Co Co Co boo boo coco o
I think the last point, that governments and regimes mix elements of each, is important. They do not exist in an unambiguous dichotomy - there are policies from each approach that can be useful in different situations. It's hard to group countries neatly into one category or another. And in some cases, a socialist policy can meet capitalist goals (or vice versa). For instance, entrepreneurship and competition (capitalist) can be boosted by healthy minimum wages and subsidies for small businesses (more socialist). One criticism I have is that you equate socialist with a strong government role. Many socialists, historically, were anarchists as well, believing that equality could only be achieved without the involvement of states.
I think we need a good mix of both. Too much capitalism creates monopolies and drives the gap between the rich and the poor to be larger, and too much socialism is just too much of the government in control for my liking... people who swing too far on either side scare me tbh. I think we need to model ourselves after Europe more, or even Canada, well here in the US anyway. Theres really younger people out here that want straight up communism and I don't understand that at all.
Majority of millennials are in support of a socialist economy. Multiple polls have showed that 60% of them don't even understand truly what socialism is. Most people support socialism because it only sounds good but when they actually do research on what socialism has done to every country it's been in, they think differently
@@kiwikiwi2483 I'm a millennial and I absolutely do not support socialism lol, I support strong social PROGRAMS, but as far as the economy, free market reigns supreme... at least, in my personal opinion anyway.
@@AribellaAC I'm going off of statistics generated from polls done on millennials on the topic of whether or not they support socialism or not and if they are actually educated on what socialism is and how much it can screw up a countries economy
@@AribellaAC Again, it is only a majority however not ALL millennials. And these polls weren't done on all millennials, just a certain number of them (however that data would mathematically expand if you do polls for larger portions of the millennial population).
this video is wonderfully edited and i love the channel. however, there’s something you missed. socialism doesn’t inherently have anything do with government ownership, it’s about worker ownership. under socialism, a factory wouldn’t be run and operated by the state, it would be run and operated democratically by the workers. socialism is about fundamentally changing the relationship between the owning class by letting the workers run the business collectively instead of them controlled by a single person/small group of people. socialists can like markets, they just wouldn’t like that those markets are ruled over by CEOs, who they see as having too much power over large swaths of people. hope this comment is helpful to anyone curious about capitalism or socialism :))
Karl Marx Said: "Capitalism is best system in history to raise people out of poverty" ruclips.net/video/V6v0P-JUS3g/видео.html&ab_channel=CaliforniaWildfires
What I find interesting is that a “socialist” can have the very thing they want: A company that is fully owned by the workers. There are no legal barriers (in the U.S. at least). On the other hand, a “capitalist” cannot truly own a business. He or she will be compelled to share ownership with “government” people. Do we conclude then that the USA is a socialist country? Of course, the “socialist” will find that the “worker-owned” company must share ownership with “government” people as well. Maybe “government” people are simply scammers, con artists claiming ownership shares without any justification. Forget “left” and “right” nonsense for a moment and we might find the actual violations taking place in our economies.
Norway, Sweeden and Denmark are all capitalist countries with some socialist tendencies, but socialism is achieved when means of production are collectively owned which is not the case in any of those.
Hate to say it, but this video is wrong about what socialism and capitalism is. If we were to go onto a trusted source like google.com, or read any books as Di Fox has said, we would notice that socialism is an economic ideology where the means of production(stuff used to make stuff) is owned by the working class. Aka one private individual doesn't get paid from the worker's labor. What the person in this video is describing is called a Free Market economy(or mixed market) vs a command economy. If we look up the definitions, or read any books on these systems, we'll notice that a Free Market Economy is one where the government has 0 intervention in the economy, a mixed market is one where the government has some intervention, and a command economy is where the government has a lot of intervention in the economy.
Lol a government that is democratically elected by the people having control over the economy is 10x better than capitalism. A government cares more about the people than corporations do.
@Roniixx nope. Having a system where you have the freedom to criticize your manager and when the means of production are decided by the people is the best system
Understanding political economic ideologies! 1- Capitalism A system where there is private ownership of business, not regulated by governments, there is class difference as the owner can make profit and give workers their allocated wages. During economic breakdown unemployment is a problem as the state wasn’t regulating the workers. Capitalism promotes competition which is a source to boost economy. 2- Socialism A system where the government owns most of business and services (nationalisation) ; the people elect their ruler by democratic elections to regulate the service and distribute the money to people, but there is concession for private ownership but they come under conditions of high taxation. The government is responsible for the employment of people and the individual are paid according to the contributions made. The revenue generated by state is given for the welfare of people like free healthcare and education system etc. Basic rights like freedom of religion and expression are promised. 3- communism A system where the people own most of the services, it’s a classless society where everyone is paid equally regardless of contributions made, the central government gives people the necessity, only the ones they need. This leads to corruption by the ruling power, which is why Orwell was against it. There is no system of democratic elections likewise no freedom of religion and expression. 4- fascism It is defined as a government structure where one dictator has complete control of the entire country, state, or territory. Anyone who opposes this dictator is suppressed and individual rights are often oppressed. A fascist government might also be called totalitarian. This ideology leads to nationalism where people might opt for ethnic cleansing of minorities like in India. However, There is concession for ownership of private property like businesses as long as they are beneficial to the state.
@@user-ci3ej4su6k I agree. A capitalist society can help promote and encourage development, while not promoting too much government control in terms of the means of production, but a mix of socialist ideals will allows for safety nets like free healthcare, and reduced education costs, especially to those who cannot afford those things.
Socialism is not when the government influences the economy or controls certain enterprises; if it were, every single country would be socialist. Socialism is when WORKERS own the means of production, not the government (Think of worker co-ops). Like a lot of the comments mentioned, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are not socialist because enterprises are controlled by private individuals or the government and not workers.
You could add that true socialist countries were the USSR and communist China (that still is a socialist or communist country adapting more or less market economy). Socialism in the Soviet Union resulted in hunger, death of tens of million people, poor economy that eventually led to the county collapse. Sweden has been reducing taxes that were the major reason for economy stagnation in 1970s and 1980s.
Professor Dan, this is an excellent video. I like how you made the point that there are different shades of gray when looking at countries economic practices. I think an additional video you could make is the fundamental differences between Socialism and Communism. The lines can get blurry. I experienced "communism" when living in Russia for a summer in 1990 as the wall just came down. It was eye-opening to say the least. Thank you for continuing to educate all of us on really important concepts in our lives! I think it helps us be better voters!
Russia wasn't communist though. How do they have so many billionaires today if they're communist? Communist aim to achieve a STATELESS, MONEYLESS, CLASSLESS society. The USSR achieved none of that 😂😂😂
@@kodablack1550First of all, Russia today is not communist but back when it was part of the Soviet Union it was communist until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Second of all, a communist society can never achieve a stateless, classless, moneyless society because hierarchies are created by natural human instinct, money is what gives people an incentive to work so they can use that money to feet themselves, and finally, under communism, the state is everything because it owns everything and rules its people with an iron fist. Me personally, fuck the state, but I am keeping hierarchies and money.
In a capitalist society prices can be set on items the amount one pays for it what the true cost of a A product or service costs socialism they don’t care what the cost of a service or product is will just raise the tax to pay for it not being concerned with the bottom line
It blows my mind that the most successful economic systems (western Europe and North America) are looking to become more like the known socialist economies of China, Vietnam, Cuba...North Korea who haven't been anywhere near as prosperous 🤔
There’s no way for these two systems to exist entirely independently from one another, and there is no pure form of either one anyway. Capitalism is an affront to the sensibilities of materialism. Socialism enforces the idea of living for future elsewhere as both desirous and also ridiculous. The appeal of capitalism is the challenges it paced, paved, and placed upon individuals. You get a sense of who you are, you’re truly one-of-kind, but also not really. Socialism is by far more comforting, which can also become excessive and smothering. Really, we should look at these two as defining the nature of industry, and not economy. A socialist country specializes in manufacturing, and in general factories, in a very large and broad sense. A capitalist country specializes in making the socialist economy meaningful, which is also partially an euphemism. The reason I say socialism is comforting is that the very idea that you will always have something, and that you won’t face the capitalist roller coaster of which a fall from graces could destroy a person. Capitalism creates cliff like scenarios, where as a socialism may seem like a perpetual fog. A fog is oddly comforting although it makes it difficult to see, and a cliff is exhilarating, but if your health should fail you for example, you may plummet to your end as loss after loss after loss can pummel you, or the realization that most of your life will have to live in the balance between stability and instability, requiring continued investments of your money to provide you with various protection. A third world country is a misnomer. We should instead translate this into a kind of industry. They are resource countries.
Thank you for making this video. I think the topic of how socialism has affected both major and minor nations should be another video. It's an essential lesson
This fails to mention anyone can become rich in a capitalist society and no one can be rich in a socialist society. I would rather control my own life and business instead of the Government doing it.
Probably because that isn't true. Anyone can be rich in a system where products/services are exchanged for money. Devil's advocate though, is your life and value system based around being able to be rich? Personally, I wouldn't want to be rich in the country where there are people living in poverty. I believe everyone should be able to live at least comfortably.
@@denverlilly3669 then don't strive to be rich. Other peoples lives are other peoples problems. Everyone has a brain,anyone is capable of living the life thry want to. It all boils don't to is bad life choices. Am i suppose to not strive to be better and successful just because other aren't? Life isn't easy and nor should it be. that's what builds character.
@@bombzz783 Success in life isn’t about money or being rich. Success in life is measured by doing what makes you happy and making sure that your other human counterparts are happy. Making sure that earth is a good place. Capitalist are brainwashed to believe that life is all about money and that wealth is what makes you successful.
So like for example. Lets say Joe and Bob. These two guys love pizza. Joe opens a Pizza parlor. "Joe's Pizza." A private business. Joe is in control. He can decide how he wants to make the pizza, can decide the quantity, prices, how much Joe can make, and anything else he wants to sell. Joe is in control. So that is a sign of capitalism. Now Bob, also a pizza lover, but is a fan of Pizza Hut. A chain. So he decides to buy his own Pizza Hut location. Now Bob can own that location and make profit. But Pizza Hut still controls production. They would tell Bob how to make the food. Pizza Hut sets the quantity he would give, and set the prices, and even the hours that Bob can work. Then monthly, Bob has to pay twenty percent of his profit to Pizza Hut. So that is a sign of Socialism. Maybe this could be a future video. Learning the pros and cons of owning a private owned business, and owning a business that is part of a chain. 👍
There are only three ways to get people to submit to work, voluntarily, through trade, and through coercion. Every country uses a mix of all three. Socialism uses more coercion (slavery). Capitalism uses more trade.
This is quite a mischaracterisation of socialism. Socialism is more about public ownership that state ownership, coloration over competition. Depending who controls the state state ownership can be capitalism or socialism. Mind you the biggest issue I have with this video is presenting socialism and capitalism as a dichotomy as if they are mutual exclusive or the only two options - this is a fallacy.
Acts 4:32 All the believers were united in heart and mind. And they felt that what they owned was not their own, so they shared everything they had. Is this a type of socialism? One motivation by love and unity?
@@pixel6698 no, honey. socialism can't exist without the free market to feed off of. that's why progressively socialist countries implode and go back to the free market. all countries with a govt are socialist to the degree income of the individual is stolen by said govt.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Painfully obvious you liked your own comment, but oh well. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? The biggest issue with people criticizing socialism is that they pretend it always fails, when that is just not true.
@@pixel6698 if you dont' like your own comments, you shouldn't be making them!! lol. i never said socialism fails. it works exactly as the ruling class intend.
Karl Marx Said.. "Capitalism is best system in history to raise people out of poverty" ruclips.net/video/V6v0P-JUS3g/видео.html&ab_channel=CaliforniaWildfires
Socialism does not equal government. Socialism is when the means of production are owned socially rather than privately. For example, anarchism is socialistic, yet it completely lacks a government or any other hierarchies for that matter
The Nordic model is social democracy, which operates under a capitalist framework, albeit regulated. Capitalism is the only system compatible with individual liberty, though it does not guarantee it.
Imagine thinking socialism and communism, which are inherently democratic, are not compatible with liberty. There’s is nothing more liberating then the workers controlling the workplace and the state.
@@arthurmorgan1550 Democracy actually limits individual liberty, which is why we limit democracy. Who is more free: the person who wakes up in the morning and chooses their own outfit or the person who wears whatever the majority voted they should wear? It's called a tyranny of the majority for a reason.
@@Nanofuture87 So how exactly is workplace democracy tyrannical? It’s far more free than a ceo a thousand miles away controlling everything. And without democracy, the so-called tyranny of the majority, you’d be left with tyranny of the minority. That tyranny of the minority could be a dictatorship, an aristocracy, capitalists, etc. It would be a small group of people in power controlling everything.
I would say that communism is more authoritarian, while socialism is more libertarian. America is pretty much a mix of capitalism and socialism so we aren’t even close to being communist.
@@IllustratetoEducate good article and it nails the core meaning behind each term. So many people instantly associate both words as being terrible or awful. While I am not a fan of true communism, unchecked capitalism. or true socialism. I do believe Democratic socialism is a nice in between of capitalism, so people dont lose innovation and drive, while maintaining a balance of social programs that benefit the majority. A strong foundation is built from the ground up.
I think you presented the "income" slide the opposite in your employment graph. Employment should go up under Capitalism, and should go down in Socialism. Unless you mislabeled employment from *unemployment*. Which you have supported in your audio.
Gil V., RRT Sorry, yeah it’s a bit confusing. What I was trying to say was that employment can’t be guaranteed in a capitalist system when the economy takes a downturn but employment can be better “controlled” in a socialist system where the government is more hands on with the economy. But yeah the way it was presented was not great. Sorry about that.
@@IllustratetoEducate I still think you got it opposite. Capitalism creates more jobs, Socialism plummets the economy by taking more money through taxes from big companies, which leads to less money to hire more employees. However, I do love this video overall and also your Democrats vs. Republicans video. Very on point!
Gil V., RRT Yeah you’re right! And I think that that’s the point I should’ve made. I was more referencing during economic downturns (like we’re in now) where employment takes a greater hit in a capitalist system. Is that not right though?
@@IllustratetoEducate true, and good to note that the downturns are created by applying socialist principles and regulations which the regulators have no intention of following themselves.
Socialism in combination with an 'open' market is a nightmare scenario for: - 1% shareholders owning 54% of all corporate stocks - 9% shareholders owning 39% of the other.
Capitalism: Focuses on private individual ownership of the means of production, business growth, and more job opportunities. Socialism: Focuses on social or state ownership over the means of production, the government employs citizens, and social programs for the poor and needy. Wealth is distributed amongst those who work hard and those who don't One system rewards hard work, and the other undermines hard work and rewards laziness. Well, in a nutshell.
@@karenparker6407 no but in socialist countries you literally have no motivation to do any kind of work I know people from Sweden they tell me all the time the government gives them too many benefits and it’s probably gonna lead to the country going broke
@Pack -A- Punch they still get more then what they deserve in a capitalist nation you earn to stay afloat.a country with millions of people cannot cater to every single person
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production and socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Welfare, high taxes and wealth redistribution can happen in capitalist economies and it can also not happen in socialist economies. It's all about the ownership of the means of production. Furthermore, collective ownership doesn't necessarily mean that the state owns it. There are other forms of collective ownership. The term 'market socialism' is where businesses are collectivly owned in coops (worker- or customer coops) and compete in the market similar to capitalism but without private ownership.
@@b0jizzle I'm certainly not an expert and my knowledge is limited as well. But I want a socialist system to ensure democracy in business and economy. That way, money and resources won't stay with a particular elite class of the society and will reach people who actually are in need. Capitalist system in the US has flaws. It needs to be replaced because the demands that are coming from the rapidly changing world are different. With the rising rates in poverty, we NEED a socialist system to ensure that the lower classes of the society get facilities so that they may contribute something as well. I know this is idealistic and the ideology failed in the past. But I think a socialist system with a few capitalistic qualities (which'll ensure that the democracy in politics stays away from the democracy in economics to minimise corruption) is preferable.
"...the economies of Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries are not socialist but capitalist. They depend on the free market to generate the funds that make their extensive welfare system possible"
The title of this video should be what is the difference between capitalism and state socialism. Socialism has nothing to do with the government owning the means of production and everything to do with workers owning the means of production.
The Prime Minster of Denmark went on US TV to make clear that they have a capitalist free market economy. He further made clear that they have large welfare programs that are only afforded by a robust free market economy. Marx gave socialism it's defining characteristic; public ownership of the means of production. If it doesn't have it, it ain't socialism.
It’s a symbol of solidarity and equality, so both groups use it and both groups are connected to an extent. If you believe in class equality you probably agree with racial equality too, so many in BLM support socialism. MLK and Malcom X were socialist as well.
Nothing wrong with free education and healthcare, those are the building blocks to a healthy society, capitalists version of this, where only the rich get to fully benefit from education and health care is no better than the dark ages where only the nobility got to enjoy life on the back of the working class.
Not really. He said "the government". Does he realize socialism specifically mentions the community controlling the economy and not the government? This guy is forgetting about anarcho-socialism.
@@shinybaldboy4384 That MIGHT be the case... yet , your starting point was questioning the effectiveness of capitalism. Look how we have it here in USA, we strive under capitalism
The biggest difference between Capitalism and socialism , is that , in Capitalism , my destiny can change . As an individual , an idea can make thousands of dollars . In communism and dictatorships , Authorian government . this would never happen to the common man , In Capitalism it can ( The Current Attitude Towards Making Money is appualing by some businesses though ) . My destiny is controlled in communism and with Dictators ( what communist country does not have a dictator , none) . In Capitalism My Destiny Can Be My Own . And in a Capitalist society we can travel the world . In the rule of a communist and dictatorial government , travel by the common people to other countries , is not allowed . They are stuck in just their own country . Never experiencing the larger world , our planet . And its history , from other countries and cultures . Having said this , a combination of both is best .
Karl Marx Said: "Capitalism is best system in history to raise people out of poverty" ruclips.net/video/V6v0P-JUS3g/видео.html&ab_channel=CaliforniaWildfires
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!! No matter what system you live under two things will ALWAYS remain the same. 1. The corrupt will ALWAYS be doing the SCREWING 2. The ethical will ALWAYS be getting SCREWED.
Karl Marx Said: "Capitalism is best system in history to raise people out of poverty" ruclips.net/video/V6v0P-JUS3g/видео.html&ab_channel=CaliforniaWildfires
Why do i have to pay taxes in capitalism? I pay for my food, water, electricity, clothes, internet, car, insurance, education, hodpital bill, train tickets and so on. My government charges 20% tax on every single purchase i do and still wants me to pay thousands from my total income of the day. Is that a tax for breathing air?
Here, let me elaborate in simplicity... You can have Capitalism without socialism, but you can't have socialism without capitalism as it requires other people goods for redistribution. It does not solve societies problems of discipline in society only nurturing good values will help with that. This is historic. Just took all the mumbo jumbo out of it.
I like this video a lot, and I agree socalism could be very beneficial. My only issue with it is I feel like an order to make it work we need to have leaders that are honest and care about the citizens. If anyone is ever in greed aka how Russian socalist economy and country failed with the government getting all the power and becoming greedy. I would actually be fine with it if thier was a guarantee that the leaders would never become evil. So that's why I feel capitalism though it may be a bit flawed is the form of government that best suits the people.
I don’t feel that it’s the systems that are the problem, I feel like it’s corruptible human nature that is the issue at hand. The idea is always about instituting freedom and fairness yet people always find a way overtime to exploit the system for personal gain and power … it’s really just a reflection of the collective human condition, the solution lies in the collective morals and closeness of the people once that is breached and everyone starts watching out for themselves the tools that govern them follow suit.
In Capital, Marx begins his analysis with an already existing capitalist economy. Marx can't explain how the capitalist economy came into existence because such an economy couldn't come into existence according to Marx's peculiar analysis of the capitalist economy where surplus-value created capital must first exist, but since surplus-value doesn't exist yet, there can be no capital to begin the capitalist economy. To overcome this inherent contradiction in Marx's "investigation", he begins Capital where we find an already existing capitalist economy: “The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an immense accumulation of commodities," its unit being a single commodity. Our investigation must therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.” The "investigation" needs to begin with how the commodities came into existence, that is how the capitalist economy came into existence, an oversight necessitated by a fraud. Let's see if we can commence the Capitalist economy using the following Marxist tautology, "Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value.":* (1) What do we need to initiate the Capitalist economy? Capital, of course. (2) So let's get some capital...where is this capital, according to Marx? (3) We get capital from surplus value, Marx tells us, "capital arises from surplus-value." (4) Okay, so let's get some surplus value to get capital. Where can we find surplus value, according to Marx? (5) "Surplus value emanates from capital", Marx's tautologically informs us! ------------------------- * Capital, Chapter 24, first sentence (1867)
Why does not the "free market and competition lead to the highest quality product" and point by point 1) Cartel - a criminal conspiracy of industrialists who have agreed not to compete with each other, but to set certain prices so that everyone earns from the market 2) The fact that there will be competition does not mean that there will be an increase in the quality of goods. Everyone can take and start baking bread, but why will his bread be of high quality? Peter and John will bake bread "as it turns out" because there is no education and the necessary knowledge. And if another one comes who will make the bread better, then the antimonopoly service will crush him and say - your share will be no more than 30% in the entire market. And where is the increase in product quality? 3) How many times have you met people in companies to whom you could complain about the shortcomings of this company? Yes, no one needs it in vaunted capitalism. If you don't like something, YOU should do something to solve it.
I want to talk about capitalism a bit. At some point in the past I have pointed out that modern capitalism is all about maximizing the profits. For the state, the individual and the firms. This is the motive. It is the wrong motive. Love is the correct motive as it has been taught to us by many polymaths throught history. But recently I came to believe that there is an even worse aspect of capitalism that the one I already mentioned. You see in capitalism in order for you to live someone else has to die. Someone else has to die in order for you to have your meat, your clothes, your car. So you must make your life be worth the sacrifice! Or be the one dying.
I’m sorry you found it getting biased near the end of the video. It’s my goal to keep it from being biased either way. Curious though, what did you find biased about it so that I can fix that going forward?
@@IllustratetoEducate Nordic countries are not socialist at all, they are as capitalist or more than the USA. Sweden for example has all the railroads as private owned like almost everything there
@@IllustratetoEducate and income inequality is not a characteristic of capitalism. Socialist countries have far more income inequality because of the fact that people are more equal so the ones at the very top are an even smaller percentage meaning everyone is poorer
LightningBolt Thanks for your reply. You’re not wrong in your facts. I’m more confused that you feel that I was being biased toward one side or the other. I’m not seeing in my video where I discredit one system or say the other is way better. I’ll admit that I could’ve included more detail into specific countries and how their individual systems work, but I like to keep my videos around 5 minutes. Average watch time for most RUclips videos is 2-3 minute. So I tried to provide as much basic info without getting too detailed. But you should consider making a video on this topic. You seem to be really knowledgeable about it.
Social programs and government ownership is not the crux socialism. The basis of socialism= workers own the means of production. Not necessarily government. Worker-cooperatives are socialist. Employees having a share of stock is socialism. Government is one way (and the way many 20th centuries did) to socialize the means of production and remove certain sectors from the market. But its not the only way. Socialism can also include markets (i.e., market socialism)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Scandinavian countries are actually among the _least_ socialist countries in Europe. Spain, Italy, and Greece are far more socialist in design, and much worse off economically as a result.
this video is actually about markets vs centralized regulation completely ignoring socialist ideologies like market socialism & anarchism which DO NOT advocate for the latter
Also Capitalism being unsustainable NEEDS Socialism to revive it everytime it innevitably crashes with: bailouts - shareholder compensation - bankruptcy protections - golden parachutes - stimulus packages etc.
The two continuums of running a society are 1. Corporate Socialism vs Democratic Socialism: a primer We are all socialists. Humans require society for survival. Socialism is all governance. Governance is the type of gov. tax appropriations, gov. regulations and the direction of gov. agencies. It is a continuum. It goes from democratic socialism which is spending tax monies and having policies for the benefit of all those who actually contribute to the tax pool and represent the vast majority of the population, to corporate socialism which is spending tax monies and making gov. policies for the benefit of the corporate interests of the 2% many of which pay little or no taxes and brag about gaming a system they have bought and influence with their ever exponentially increasing wealth. This is a nasty feedback loop that leads us to a state of economic serfdom and ultimately to gated communities for these same people who caused this situation with their insatiable greed machine of lobbyists and swinging door appointments from corporate boardrooms to government agencies and administrations. 2. The second parallel rail/continuum of societal organization is the agreed upon Mode of Economic Exchange which ranges from Capitalism which encourages the profit motive, to Communism which says we must share the profits of our labors. Communism has never existed except as an idea. It has historically been implemented as a rallying cry to disaffected people in rebellions, but once the new batch of rulers took power they quickly and logically reverted to their individual interests, which in a society governed by democratic socialism would be just fine, but instead though they quickly diverted themselves to the greed of the top 2% by adopting extreme corporate socialism to become Oligarchs and Fascists. Just look at the brutal suppression where these rebellions took place in the societies of Russia, China, North Korea etc. Actual Communism has only existed in some local communes of people dedicated to the concept, but they only last a short time because they are inefficient at meeting individual needs and aspirations beyond those who are totally committed to that group. A 'Canard' is an spurious idea presented by someone to provide an excuse for a concept that would otherwise be revealed as being for their own selfish motives. Interestingly, Communism is held up and used as a 'Canard' by both those who promote the interests of the Corporate Socialists in countries with democracies as being a bogeyman that will lead them all down the path of 'socialism' and 'communism', to the so called communist states where it is held up by their leaders in their 'Communist Parties' who want to cloak their actual oliogarchal, fascist intentions to their masses as being a utopian ideal to which they must sacrifice their individual desires too. The end result is the same with the canard idea of communism being used to control the majority to serve the interests of the few. Democratic Socialism as governance plus Capitalism for economic exchange = a society that builds itself up for the betterment of its society, spending their tax dollars and government policy on national health care, a clean environment, education, infrastructure spending etc for all it's citizens, versus Corporate Socialism plus Capitalism for economic exchange which = a society like ours The United States; that shunts money to the top 2% of it's citizens, leaving us with no National Health Care, a shrinking middle class and a growing class of unhealthy uninsured working poor, along with a deteriorating environment for the short term gain of some industries, bogus foreign wars and the resulting deaths of our American youth for the investors in the Military Industrial Complex like Halliburton corporate investors and their ilk, and so on through our government policies, regulations, laws, and judicial appointments etc. The Societies of our planet need to work towards establishing Democratic Socialism in order for us to avert disaster and to coordinate our place on it in a manner that will sustain a good life for all our species and ecosystems. The dominace and greed of Corporate Socialism in both Democracies and the so called 'Communist States' is leading us to a diminishing quality of life, with an inability to make positive adaptive change and is causing ever increasing societal chaos and environmental deterioration. Everyone, we have got to get it together with Democratic Socialism combined with Capitalism. War, disease and misery are not a necessary management plan.
People keep debating on the Nordic countries being socialist saying they are further on the spectrum than the US but we (USA) already are a socialist democracy, we just don’t utilize our funds the right way. Our govt prioritizes military over healthcare and education because we use those funds to make weapons that we turn around and sell to other countries. We’re war mongers. We also haven’t socialized healthcare because our govt gets kickbacks from our privatized healthcare. Same goes for education, our govt has gotten rich off of student loans. It’s all about the money. That’s why capitalism will always reign supreme and we will never have as many socialist programs as Europe, because our govt is getting rich off of capitalism and refuses to share the wealth with it’s people.
PLEASE SUBSCRIBE to support more educational videos like this one! Thanks in advance! :)
I appreciate your unbiased analysis and explanations. 🙂
You missed one point. In Capitalism business owners think only about profit not caring about their workers, environment, ethics... Everything is the mean of production of their wealth. In Socialism the most important thing is prosperity of the people.
@@IllustratetoEducate make some more educational ideas to the people ! Beyond being completely Confused & Constantly, Controlling by Government Party’s ?
Norway Sweden and Denmark, all consider themselves to be Capitalist
none of the scandinavian countries are even close to socialist
They are capitalist.
@@tiagosousa1468 They're really not
@@ltreno2753 yes. They are.
Manu Juliá how? I’m curious
Personally, I think that a mixed economy of both socialism and capitalism works best. Everything is better in moderation.
I think you’re absolutely right! Thanks for watching! Please subscribe for more content. A new video comes out tomorrow on the Green New Deal!
@Illustrate to Educate I just subscribed!
No. Socialism is either everyone gets one or no one does, but they have none. So no one gets anything. Capitalism is clearly superior
@Keanu chungus 100 We currently live in a mixed economy and so do other countries. Are public schools capitalist? No. Is social security capitalist? No. Is Medicare capitalist? No. Is the police department capitalist? No. Are our roads and bridges capitalist? No. Is minimum wage capitalist? No.
@@badwolf9956 Look, the thing is, stuff like medicare and social security and other government funded projects don't work, for example it takes years for the government to get a road built, but a privately owned company could do it way better. So capitalism will always come out on top. There are zero benefits to socialism.
This guy is so good at going over controversial topics without getting canceled or hated on, because even the slighted bit of bias will send him down, good job!
Thanks! That’s so so true!
It is hard getting cancelled when you are literally misrepresenting everything
@@IllustratetoEducateYou are spreading misinformation.
There are 3 math equations going on here.
@1:05 Socialism is not free. Social Security is deducted out everyone's paycheck. The USPS charges for their credits or stamps system. It's about delivery to the top of the mountain for the same credit to delivery next door. A credit one buys. Not free.
Communist is a moneyless society that doesn't charge for their credit system. One doesn't buy food stamps or coupons handed out to everyone in a communist country. You get a free TV coupon in communist.
Free food stamps for the handicapped is a social program. Not communist or socialism. Just a social program.
But free food credits to everyone is communist. Communist is moneyless, AKA free.
One credit system everyone buys (socialism).
One credit system everyone gets for free (communist)
One credit system only the handicapped receives (social program)..
Actually the math in the socialism program USPS actually adds up. The less profitable routes are not canceled so the capitalist only keeps the more profitable routes. Leaving the less profitable routes gone. And we need mail delivery, to everyone, it's social.
Great video by the way. Sweden, Norway, Denmark are not socialist countries they are in the same sense as Great Britain and France they have social programs but still a capitalist economy
They have no socialist programs. Socialism is purely about the means of production. social healthcare is not socialist.
@Roniixx usa has social programs and is not socialist lol.
Id say France and Germany and Spain are more "state socialist" than the Nordic countries
Yes- but they are Statist nations.
@RoniixxYou can start a company in the U.S. that is democratically controlled by the workers. It is perfectly legal and there are thousands of examples.
The idea of socialism is wonderful, but, due to human nature, is impossible to pull off
ur just told to think that way brought up in the proper environment this is not true
Nature is shaped by our environment
Let me correct this:
The idea of socialism is immoral. Trying to pull it off is evil.
C L explain to me how sir that makes no since form someone who is educated on the topic 😃🤛
@@madinicolette2888 Proposing to take other people's stuff and spread it around is immoral. Actually stealing other people's stuff is evil.
Not very complicated.
socialism sounds like communism
it is in many ways but they are different things
Communism is socialism
Socialism is like a less extreme form of Communism. Like it's better than Communism but worse then Capitalism.
@@RJ-he2ns ohhh that makes more sense
Communism is always socialism but socialism isn't always communism. Its like the square and rectangle.
Oh dear, socialism is not government and capitalism is not markets. Socialism is all that pertains to worker control of production and the working class getting all the wealth it produces--including democratic worker-owned businesses and cooperatives--while capitalism is specifically a division of workers and owners.
Colin Bruce Anthes is the clearest on clarifying the difference:
ruclips.net/video/FhQkEB9ucwg/видео.html
1:06- Factually inaccurate. I don't know why people always describe public education or public healthcare as socialist. There is a vast difference between social programs (a program paid for socially, aka by the government) and socialism (by its own definition: "the collective/social OWNERSHIP of the means of production"). It doesn't take that much effort to look up a definition. Just because they both have the word 'social' in them does not mean they are the same thing, anymore than cart and carpet are the same thing just because they both have car in them.
This fundamental mistake permeates the rest of the video. For example at 2:50 it declares that Norway, Sweden, and Denmark are "generally considered socialist." But they're only "generally" considered socialist by Bernie Sanders. The leader of Norway even came out and publicly stated that "Norway is not a socialist system, we are a capitalist haven with the lowest corporate taxes in all of Europe. We have some well funded social programs but that is not the same thing. And we would appreciate it if American politicians stopped calling us that."
Whether this was just a lack of research because he was confident in things he'd heard from the media/politicians, or whether this was intentionally misleading, I can't say. But given the amount of genocides and famines that have happened in ACTUAL socialist countries over the last 120 years, this false definition is the equivalent of saying "Nazis are the National Socialist Workers party of Germany who followed Hitler, and also are anyone who voted for Bush in 2000." It gives the ACTUAL Nazi's an easy out by saying "oh no, I'm not like the bad ones, I'm like the ok ones."
F**** finally an unbiased video regarding this complicated topic, well illustrated(loved the drawings) and straight to the point with both comparisons. Well done mate. Subscribed.
Thank you! I’m glad you enjoyed it! Thanks for subscribing’
Haha. This video is definitely bias.
So many people on both 'sides' need to see this video. Everyone throws around the terms without defining what they actually mean by them, and without realising they already live under a hybrid system.
Well you see one actually works the other has never worked
im assuming you mean capitalism works? if so, it is constanly bailed out by socialism everytime the market dips or crashes. the rich keep getting rich, and the poor keep getting poorer. you need a fairer mix of both of them for a society that acually works. there are alot more poor people in this wold than there are rich, capitalism needs to keep going burst to try get some money to the poorest people so they dont revolt.
@@garymckay7669 NO it is not bailed by socialism
Do you even know what socialism is?
@@garymckay7669 If someone is poor then that is their own fault. My family is poor and my dad has said several times that he did not care about school until late college
@SICELO BHEKI BAFANA KHUMALO have you ever lived in a socialist country?
@SICELO BHEKI BAFANA KHUMALO don't avoid the question have you ever lived in a socialist country? Yes or No
Far Left vs Far Right essentially boils down to "Seize the means of production" vs "Seize the means of reproduction"
That’s is amazingly true
Both are extreme and authoritarian idea.
Left-centrist, Centrist, and Right-Centrist are the best solution to keep world at peace and free of tyranny.
CB do on BBC cod Gucci obi jon Go no n in Go ff Co o’clock coo boo boo-boo Go phobic no Go igloo icon voodoo coco cocooning Co Co Co Co Co Co boo boo coco o
aRE yOu mAGnA cUm LaUDe?
What do you mean by seize the means is reproduction?
I agree with capitalism but I feel like if it had free health care and education than it will be the best
I think the last point, that governments and regimes mix elements of each, is important. They do not exist in an unambiguous dichotomy - there are policies from each approach that can be useful in different situations. It's hard to group countries neatly into one category or another.
And in some cases, a socialist policy can meet capitalist goals (or vice versa). For instance, entrepreneurship and competition (capitalist) can be boosted by healthy minimum wages and subsidies for small businesses (more socialist).
One criticism I have is that you equate socialist with a strong government role. Many socialists, historically, were anarchists as well, believing that equality could only be achieved without the involvement of states.
McMatthew99 Thank you for your feedback! I appreciate your comments. Thanks for watching!
socialism is by definition anti capitalist. making it incompatible with capitalism but pop off ig
how tf do you get socialism without a strong government
I think we need a good mix of both. Too much capitalism creates monopolies and drives the gap between the rich and the poor to be larger, and too much socialism is just too much of the government in control for my liking... people who swing too far on either side scare me tbh. I think we need to model ourselves after Europe more, or even Canada, well here in the US anyway. Theres really younger people out here that want straight up communism and I don't understand that at all.
Majority of millennials are in support of a socialist economy. Multiple polls have showed that 60% of them don't even understand truly what socialism is. Most people support socialism because it only sounds good but when they actually do research on what socialism has done to every country it's been in, they think differently
@@kiwikiwi2483 I'm a millennial and I absolutely do not support socialism lol, I support strong social PROGRAMS, but as far as the economy, free market reigns supreme... at least, in my personal opinion anyway.
@@kiwikiwi2483 And honestly, I think it's more Gen Z that supports it. Millennial I believe are more split down the middle.
@@AribellaAC I'm going off of statistics generated from polls done on millennials on the topic of whether or not they support socialism or not and if they are actually educated on what socialism is and how much it can screw up a countries economy
@@AribellaAC Again, it is only a majority however not ALL millennials. And these polls weren't done on all millennials, just a certain number of them (however that data would mathematically expand if you do polls for larger portions of the millennial population).
this video is wonderfully edited and i love the channel. however, there’s something you missed. socialism doesn’t inherently have anything do with government ownership, it’s about worker ownership. under socialism, a factory wouldn’t be run and operated by the state, it would be run and operated democratically by the workers. socialism is about fundamentally changing the relationship between the owning class by letting the workers run the business collectively instead of them controlled by a single person/small group of people. socialists can like markets, they just wouldn’t like that those markets are ruled over by CEOs, who they see as having too much power over large swaths of people. hope this comment is helpful to anyone curious about capitalism or socialism :))
Karl Marx Said: "Capitalism is best system in history to raise people out of poverty"
ruclips.net/video/V6v0P-JUS3g/видео.html&ab_channel=CaliforniaWildfires
@@TheConstitutionFirst i’m not gonna lie i dont really care about karl marx lol
@@basedmuscleman6539 You know who else doesn't care about Karl Marx!?
What I find interesting is that a “socialist” can have the very thing they want: A company that is fully owned by the workers. There are no legal barriers (in the U.S. at least). On the other hand, a “capitalist” cannot truly own a business. He or she will be compelled to share ownership with “government” people. Do we conclude then that the USA is a socialist country?
Of course, the “socialist” will find that the “worker-owned” company must share ownership with “government” people as well. Maybe “government” people are simply scammers, con artists claiming ownership shares without any justification. Forget “left” and “right” nonsense for a moment and we might find the actual violations taking place in our economies.
Norway, Sweeden and Denmark are all capitalist countries with some socialist tendencies, but socialism is achieved when means of production are collectively owned which is not the case in any of those.
norway owns like 80% of the national wealth if you exclude homes. the other countries aren't as high , but they're a lot , lot higher than the US.
This was so helpful
right
@Di Fox ?
Hate to say it, but this video is wrong about what socialism and capitalism is. If we were to go onto a trusted source like google.com, or read any books as Di Fox has said, we would notice that socialism is an economic ideology where the means of production(stuff used to make stuff) is owned by the working class. Aka one private individual doesn't get paid from the worker's labor. What the person in this video is describing is called a Free Market economy(or mixed market) vs a command economy. If we look up the definitions, or read any books on these systems, we'll notice that a Free Market Economy is one where the government has 0 intervention in the economy, a mixed market is one where the government has some intervention, and a command economy is where the government has a lot of intervention in the economy.
IMO, the government should not have absolute control over the markets, so capitalism is better.
Lol a government that is democratically elected by the people having control over the economy is 10x better than capitalism. A government cares more about the people than corporations do.
@Roniixx nope. Having a system where you have the freedom to criticize your manager and when the means of production are decided by the people is the best system
Understanding political economic ideologies!
1- Capitalism
A system where there is private ownership of business, not regulated by governments, there is class difference as the owner can make profit and give workers their allocated wages. During economic breakdown unemployment is a problem as the state wasn’t regulating the workers. Capitalism promotes competition which is a source to boost economy.
2- Socialism
A system where the government owns most of business and services (nationalisation) ; the people elect their ruler by democratic elections to regulate the service and distribute the money to people, but there is concession for private ownership but they come under conditions of high taxation. The government is responsible for the employment of people and the individual are paid according to the contributions made. The revenue generated by state is given for the welfare of people like free healthcare and education system etc. Basic rights like freedom of religion and expression are promised.
3- communism
A system where the people own most of the services, it’s a classless society where everyone is paid equally regardless of contributions made, the central government gives people the necessity, only the ones they need. This leads to corruption by the ruling power, which is why Orwell was against it. There is no system of democratic elections likewise no freedom of religion and expression.
4- fascism
It is defined as a government structure where one dictator has complete control of the entire country, state, or territory. Anyone who opposes this dictator is suppressed and individual rights are often oppressed. A fascist government might also be called totalitarian. This ideology leads to nationalism where people might opt for ethnic cleansing of minorities like in India. However, There is concession for ownership of private property like businesses as long as they are beneficial to the state.
Love you
You forgot one.
Common Sense.
@@4th19th2 honestly there is a very subtle difference bw them, whatever I could find on google and my knowledge I shared it
Hope it’s beneficial
The best countries that promote the highest quality of life for the average citizen have incorporated elements of Capitalism and Socialism.
reasonably smart people know that the economy should be balanced between left and right philosophies.
@@casonherndon6122 Freedom of speechand of course common sense.
@@casonherndon6122 Freedom of speechand of course common sense.
@@user-ci3ej4su6k I agree. A capitalist society can help promote and encourage development, while not promoting too much government control in terms of the means of production, but a mix of socialist ideals will allows for safety nets like free healthcare, and reduced education costs, especially to those who cannot afford those things.
FALSE. socialism requires theft and is a parasite on the free market.
Socialism is not when the government influences the economy or controls certain enterprises; if it were, every single country would be socialist. Socialism is when WORKERS own the means of production, not the government (Think of worker co-ops). Like a lot of the comments mentioned, Denmark, Norway, and Sweden are not socialist because enterprises are controlled by private individuals or the government and not workers.
You're exactly right. The point of socialism is giving power to the people not necessarily the government.
You could add that true socialist countries were the USSR and communist China (that still is a socialist or communist country adapting more or less market economy). Socialism in the Soviet Union resulted in hunger, death of tens of million people, poor economy that eventually led to the county collapse. Sweden has been reducing taxes that were the major reason for economy stagnation in 1970s and 1980s.
Professor Dan, this is an excellent video. I like how you made the point that there are different shades of gray when looking at countries economic practices. I think an additional video you could make is the fundamental differences between Socialism and Communism. The lines can get blurry. I experienced "communism" when living in Russia for a summer in 1990 as the wall just came down. It was eye-opening to say the least. Thank you for continuing to educate all of us on really important concepts in our lives! I think it helps us be better voters!
Russia wasn't communist though. How do they have so many billionaires today if they're communist? Communist aim to achieve a STATELESS, MONEYLESS, CLASSLESS society. The USSR achieved none of that 😂😂😂
There is other countries that have achieved a country with no state and no classes however, but they still have money
@@kodablack1550First of all, Russia today is not communist but back when it was part of the Soviet Union it was communist until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Second of all, a communist society can never achieve a stateless, classless, moneyless society because hierarchies are created by natural human instinct, money is what gives people an incentive to work so they can use that money to feet themselves, and finally, under communism, the state is everything because it owns everything and rules its people with an iron fist. Me personally, fuck the state, but I am keeping hierarchies and money.
@@kodablack1550 communism is a form of capitalism . Russia has its rich and poor .
If I'm not mistaken, that video of communism vs socialism exists now.
In a capitalist society prices can be set on items the amount one pays for it what the true cost of a A product or service costs socialism they don’t care what the cost of a service or product is will just raise the tax to pay for it not being concerned with the bottom line
@Stuart MacPherson Why do so many complain about the American system then? How money is invested is also of great importance.
Socialism is when workers actually get paid based on how hard they work.
@@pixel6698
their should be no celebrities whatsoever in any socialist country then if that’s the case...
@@tjohnson2139 Yes, no fake celebrity lives, excellent
“socialism is when you have to pay taxes”
Tbh I just want a US government where there a more social benefits and a government that’s breaks up monopolies like Teddy Roosevelt
It blows my mind that the most successful economic systems (western Europe and North America) are looking to become more like the known socialist economies of China, Vietnam, Cuba...North Korea who haven't been anywhere near as prosperous 🤔
There’s no way for these two systems to exist entirely independently from one another, and there is no pure form of either one anyway. Capitalism is an affront to the sensibilities of materialism. Socialism enforces the idea of living for future elsewhere as both desirous and also ridiculous. The appeal of capitalism is the challenges it paced, paved, and placed upon individuals. You get a sense of who you are, you’re truly one-of-kind, but also not really. Socialism is by far more comforting, which can also become excessive and smothering. Really, we should look at these two as defining the nature of industry, and not economy. A socialist country specializes in manufacturing, and in general factories, in a very large and broad sense. A capitalist country specializes in making the socialist economy meaningful, which is also partially an euphemism. The reason I say socialism is comforting is that the very idea that you will always have something, and that you won’t face the capitalist roller coaster of which a fall from graces could destroy a person. Capitalism creates cliff like scenarios, where as a socialism may seem like a perpetual fog. A fog is oddly comforting although it makes it difficult to see, and a cliff is exhilarating, but if your health should fail you for example, you may plummet to your end as loss after loss after loss can pummel you, or the realization that most of your life will have to live in the balance between stability and instability, requiring continued investments of your money to provide you with various protection. A third world country is a misnomer. We should instead translate this into a kind of industry. They are resource countries.
Thank you for making this video. I think the topic of how socialism has affected both major and minor nations should be another video. It's an essential lesson
Hmmm that is a great idea. I like it! :)
This fails to mention anyone can become rich in a capitalist society and no one can be rich in a socialist society. I would rather control my own life and business instead of the Government doing it.
Probably because that isn't true. Anyone can be rich in a system where products/services are exchanged for money. Devil's advocate though, is your life and value system based around being able to be rich? Personally, I wouldn't want to be rich in the country where there are people living in poverty. I believe everyone should be able to live at least comfortably.
@@denverlilly3669 then don't strive to be rich. Other peoples lives are other peoples problems. Everyone has a brain,anyone is capable of living the life thry want to. It all boils don't to is bad life choices. Am i suppose to not strive to be better and successful just because other aren't? Life isn't easy and nor should it be. that's what builds character.
@@denverlilly3669 and you just proved why it never works
Just cuz you care about people being poor doesn’t mean i do
Why does nobody here understand that socialism is *not* about government control. This pains me physically.
@@bombzz783 Success in life isn’t about money or being rich. Success in life is measured by doing what makes you happy and making sure that your other human counterparts are happy. Making sure that earth is a good place. Capitalist are brainwashed to believe that life is all about money and that wealth is what makes you successful.
Giving all power to the government is always a bad idea
Yes, socialist's agree
So like for example. Lets say Joe and Bob. These two guys love pizza. Joe opens a Pizza parlor. "Joe's Pizza." A private business. Joe is in control. He can decide how he wants to make the pizza, can decide the quantity, prices, how much Joe can make, and anything else he wants to sell. Joe is in control. So that is a sign of capitalism. Now Bob, also a pizza lover, but is a fan of Pizza Hut. A chain. So he decides to buy his own Pizza Hut location. Now Bob can own that location and make profit. But Pizza Hut still controls production. They would tell Bob how to make the food. Pizza Hut sets the quantity he would give, and set the prices, and even the hours that Bob can work. Then monthly, Bob has to pay twenty percent of his profit to Pizza Hut. So that is a sign of Socialism. Maybe this could be a future video. Learning the pros and cons of owning a private owned business, and owning a business that is part of a chain. 👍
The chain business should make more money .
@@philharmer198 Agree
@@bickeya.j.m8470 depends on location , traffic , demographics and marketing . And the people .
If you go to the Unification Observatory in South Korea, you'll know why socialism shouldn't happen. From S.Korea
Yea, so repression of anybody having a slightly better vision of our society?
: )
Absolute power absolutely corrupts
There are only three ways to get people to submit to work, voluntarily, through trade, and through coercion. Every country uses a mix of all three. Socialism uses more coercion (slavery). Capitalism uses more trade.
Lol this was a great video but when I'm finished watching I still dont understand. I need to watch it over 50 times
You're me, and I'm you. I have test tomorrow and I'm fcked up.
I only understood 50% of it.
@@danishgda1886 hows the test?
@@NEY-uu3lx Surprisingly it's going very well lol.. not as bad as I thought
@@danishgda1886 good to know
This is quite a mischaracterisation of socialism. Socialism is more about public ownership that state ownership, coloration over competition. Depending who controls the state state ownership can be capitalism or socialism.
Mind you the biggest issue I have with this video is presenting socialism and capitalism as a dichotomy as if they are mutual exclusive or the only two options - this is a fallacy.
Acts 4:32 All the believers were united in heart and mind. And they felt that what they owned was not their own, so they shared everything they had.
Is this a type of socialism? One motivation by love and unity?
Mostly capitalism some socialism>All capitalism > All socialism
free market is the default. socialism is the disease.
Socialism > Mix > Capitalism
@@pixel6698 no, honey. socialism can't exist without the free market to feed off of. that's why progressively socialist countries implode and go back to the free market. all countries with a govt are socialist to the degree income of the individual is stolen by said govt.
@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 Painfully obvious you liked your own comment, but oh well. Do you have any evidence to back up that claim? The biggest issue with people criticizing socialism is that they pretend it always fails, when that is just not true.
@@pixel6698 if you dont' like your own comments, you shouldn't be making them!! lol. i never said socialism fails. it works exactly as the ruling class intend.
The Nordic countries should not be confused as “pure” socialist countries though as they’re absolutely not.
Love the music background you should return it for your new videos 😃
Good feedback. I definitely will!
Karl Marx Said..
"Capitalism is best system in history to raise people out of poverty"
ruclips.net/video/V6v0P-JUS3g/видео.html&ab_channel=CaliforniaWildfires
Socialism does not equal government. Socialism is when the means of production are owned socially rather than privately.
For example, anarchism is socialistic, yet it completely lacks a government or any other hierarchies for that matter
The Nordic model is social democracy, which operates under a capitalist framework, albeit regulated. Capitalism is the only system compatible with individual liberty, though it does not guarantee it.
Imagine thinking socialism and communism, which are inherently democratic, are not compatible with liberty. There’s is nothing more liberating then the workers controlling the workplace and the state.
@@arthurmorgan1550 Democracy actually limits individual liberty, which is why we limit democracy. Who is more free: the person who wakes up in the morning and chooses their own outfit or the person who wears whatever the majority voted they should wear? It's called a tyranny of the majority for a reason.
@@Nanofuture87 So are you an an-cap? (Oxymoron.)
@@arthurmorgan1550 No, a minarchist.
@@Nanofuture87 So how exactly is workplace democracy tyrannical? It’s far more free than a ceo a thousand miles away controlling everything. And without democracy, the so-called tyranny of the majority, you’d be left with tyranny of the minority. That tyranny of the minority could be a dictatorship, an aristocracy, capitalists, etc. It would be a small group of people in power controlling everything.
This gentleman seems to be confused about socialism..he seems to be describing communism.
Justin Kottabi www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/socialism-communism-differences
I would say that communism is more authoritarian, while socialism is more libertarian. America is pretty much a mix of capitalism and socialism so we aren’t even close to being communist.
@@IllustratetoEducate good article and it nails the core meaning behind each term. So many people instantly associate both words as being terrible or awful. While I am not a fan of true communism, unchecked capitalism. or true socialism. I do believe Democratic socialism is a nice in between of capitalism, so people dont lose innovation and drive, while maintaining a balance of social programs that benefit the majority. A strong foundation is built from the ground up.
Thats because socialism and communism are very similar
@@locked_code2468 Nah
Norway ,Sweden , and Denmark are not considered socialist.
I think you presented the "income" slide the opposite in your employment graph. Employment should go up under Capitalism, and should go down in Socialism. Unless you mislabeled employment from *unemployment*. Which you have supported in your audio.
Gil V., RRT Sorry, yeah it’s a bit confusing. What I was trying to say was that employment can’t be guaranteed in a capitalist system when the economy takes a downturn but employment can be better “controlled” in a socialist system where the government is more hands on with the economy. But yeah the way it was presented was not great. Sorry about that.
@@IllustratetoEducate I still think you got it opposite. Capitalism creates more jobs, Socialism plummets the economy by taking more money through taxes from big companies, which leads to less money to hire more employees. However, I do love this video overall and also your Democrats vs. Republicans video. Very on point!
Gil V., RRT Yeah you’re right! And I think that that’s the point I should’ve made. I was more referencing during economic downturns (like we’re in now) where employment takes a greater hit in a capitalist system. Is that not right though?
@@IllustratetoEducate correct!
@@IllustratetoEducate true, and good to note that the downturns are created by applying socialist principles and regulations which the regulators have no intention of following themselves.
Socialism in combination with an 'open' market is a nightmare scenario for:
- 1% shareholders owning 54% of all corporate stocks
- 9% shareholders owning 39% of the other.
Capitalism: Focuses on private individual ownership of the means of production, business growth, and more job opportunities.
Socialism: Focuses on social or state ownership over the means of production, the government employs citizens, and social programs for the poor and needy. Wealth is distributed amongst those who work hard and those who don't
One system rewards hard work, and the other undermines hard work and rewards laziness.
Well, in a nutshell.
oh yes the poor and homeless are lazy arguement
@@karenparker6407 no but in socialist countries you literally have no motivation to do any kind of work I know people from Sweden they tell me all the time the government gives them too many benefits and it’s probably gonna lead to the country going broke
@Pack -A- Punch they still get more then what they deserve in a capitalist nation you earn to stay afloat.a country with millions of people cannot cater to every single person
Capitalism focuses on maximising profits, and when "investors" think profits are too low, workers will lose their job.
Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production and socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.
Welfare, high taxes and wealth redistribution can happen in capitalist economies and it can also not happen in socialist economies. It's all about the ownership of the means of production.
Furthermore, collective ownership doesn't necessarily mean that the state owns it. There are other forms of collective ownership.
The term 'market socialism' is where businesses are collectivly owned in coops (worker- or customer coops) and compete in the market similar to capitalism but without private ownership.
I prefer socialism with a few capitalistic qualities, if that makes sense 💀
In the U.S.? If so, why?
@@b0jizzle I'm certainly not an expert and my knowledge is limited as well. But I want a socialist system to ensure democracy in business and economy. That way, money and resources won't stay with a particular elite class of the society and will reach people who actually are in need. Capitalist system in the US has flaws. It needs to be replaced because the demands that are coming from the rapidly changing world are different. With the rising rates in poverty, we NEED a socialist system to ensure that the lower classes of the society get facilities so that they may contribute something as well. I know this is idealistic and the ideology failed in the past. But I think a socialist system with a few capitalistic qualities (which'll ensure that the democracy in politics stays away from the democracy in economics to minimise corruption) is preferable.
Capitalism is not about wealth and yes about self contentment.
Sounds like a common sense human with freedom would be
BRO THANK YOU SO MUCH I FINALLY GET IT
"...the economies of Denmark and the other Scandinavian countries are not socialist but capitalist. They depend on the free market to generate the funds that make their extensive welfare system possible"
The title of this video should be what is the difference between capitalism and state socialism. Socialism has nothing to do with the government owning the means of production and everything to do with workers owning the means of production.
Marxian socialism*
I only clicked this to fact check myself- and would like to applaud you for your creativity and this channel concept
Thank you! :)
Capitalism: One man's greed
Socialism: Everybody's greedy
Communism: All greed sucks
The Prime Minster of Denmark went on US TV to make clear that they have a capitalist free market economy. He further made clear that they have large welfare programs that are only afforded by a robust free market economy. Marx gave socialism it's defining characteristic; public ownership of the means of production. If it doesn't have it, it ain't socialism.
Why does the fist look so similar to thee blm fist?
I don’t know. That’s just a common logo representing both things.
@@IllustratetoEducate huh. Weird
It’s a symbol of solidarity and equality, so both groups use it and both groups are connected to an extent. If you believe in class equality you probably agree with racial equality too, so many in BLM support socialism. MLK and Malcom X were socialist as well.
@@arthurmorgan1550 epic
@@arthurmorgan1550 Sounds like Colonialism to me.
Divide and Conquer.
Nothing wrong with free education and healthcare, those are the building blocks to a healthy society, capitalists version of this, where only the rich get to fully benefit from education and health care is no better than the dark ages where only the nobility got to enjoy life on the back of the working class.
Capitalism would work if it wasn't for the greed of businesses
Socialism would work if it wasn't for the greed of governments.
I like how he is just describing it and not being one sided
Not really. He said "the government". Does he realize socialism specifically mentions the community controlling the economy and not the government? This guy is forgetting about anarcho-socialism.
@@shinybaldboy4384
The government is the community.
How’s that been working in Venezuela?
Venezuela isn't socialist. Look at how much China's poverty went down after they flipped to socialism.
@@shinybaldboy4384 Yeah, I know... China embraced capitalist ...
@@shinybaldboy4384 Yeah.... China is Authoritarian capitalism , yet still capitalist
@@joesatva Lol what? Look at how much the average Chinese worker starves under authoritarian capitalism.
@@shinybaldboy4384 That MIGHT be the case... yet , your starting point was questioning the effectiveness of capitalism.
Look how we have it here in USA, we strive under capitalism
The biggest difference between Capitalism and socialism , is that , in Capitalism , my destiny can change . As an individual , an idea can make thousands of dollars . In communism and dictatorships , Authorian government . this would never happen to the common man , In Capitalism it can ( The Current Attitude Towards Making Money is appualing by some businesses though ) .
My destiny is controlled in communism and with Dictators ( what communist country does not have a dictator , none) . In Capitalism My Destiny Can Be My Own .
And in a Capitalist society we can travel the world . In the rule of a communist and dictatorial government , travel by the common people to other countries , is not allowed . They are stuck in just their own country . Never experiencing the larger world , our planet . And its history , from other countries and cultures .
Having said this , a combination of both is best .
This video would make sense if it was titled free market capitalism vs social democracy rather than capitalism vs socialism
Karl Marx Said: "Capitalism is best system in history to raise people out of poverty"
ruclips.net/video/V6v0P-JUS3g/видео.html&ab_channel=CaliforniaWildfires
@@TheConstitutionFirst It was then. Compared to feudalism and slave societies capitalism is great however that isn’t saying much.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!
No matter what system you live under two things will ALWAYS remain the same.
1. The corrupt will ALWAYS be doing the SCREWING
2. The ethical will ALWAYS be getting SCREWED.
Karl Marx Said: "Capitalism is best system in history to raise people out of poverty"
ruclips.net/video/V6v0P-JUS3g/видео.html&ab_channel=CaliforniaWildfires
Why do i have to pay taxes in capitalism?
I pay for my food, water, electricity, clothes, internet, car, insurance, education, hodpital bill, train tickets and so on. My government charges 20% tax on every single purchase i do and still wants me to pay thousands from my total income of the day. Is that a tax for breathing air?
What country do you live in
It's for the fucking roads, military, fire department, and police. Jesus H. Christ did anyone really need to explain that to you?
@@Dennis-nc3vw agree
Both systems have pros and cons but in the long run I believe that Capitalism works better. But I think that you need a mix of both.
No. How can you have a mix? Capitalism does not work better and it has proven that by looking at the Global South.
Inequality vs Repression Choose your pill
Unbias, clear and concise. Nicely done!
Thank you!
Here, let me elaborate in simplicity... You can have Capitalism without socialism, but you can't have socialism without capitalism as it requires other people goods for redistribution. It does not solve societies problems of discipline in society only nurturing good values will help with that. This is historic. Just took all the mumbo jumbo out of it.
I like this video a lot, and I agree socalism could be very beneficial. My only issue with it is I feel like an order to make it work we need to have leaders that are honest and care about the citizens. If anyone is ever in greed aka how Russian socalist economy and country failed with the government getting all the power and becoming greedy. I would actually be fine with it if thier was a guarantee that the leaders would never become evil. So that's why I feel capitalism though it may be a bit flawed is the form of government that best suits the people.
socialism is not about achieving an equal society it is about achieving a free society
Wrong species! Socialism is for the insects! It contravenes human nature. How free are the worker ants or worker bees?
I don’t feel that it’s the systems that are the problem, I feel like it’s corruptible human nature that is the issue at hand. The idea is always about instituting freedom and fairness yet people always find a way overtime to exploit the system for personal gain and power … it’s really just a reflection of the collective human condition, the solution lies in the collective morals and closeness of the people once that is breached and everyone starts watching out for themselves the tools that govern them follow suit.
capitalism + socialism = social economy?
is that right?
I’ve heard it referred to as a mixed economy.
Mixed economy 🤦🏼
No
THANK YOUUUUUUUUUUUU
Socialism never worked, capitalism does. It's quite simple.
Great video that is very informative! Good work!
In Capital, Marx begins his analysis with an already existing capitalist economy. Marx can't explain how the capitalist economy came into existence because such an economy couldn't come into existence according to Marx's peculiar analysis of the capitalist economy where surplus-value created capital must first exist, but since surplus-value doesn't exist yet, there can be no capital to begin the capitalist economy. To overcome this inherent contradiction in Marx's "investigation", he begins Capital where we find an already existing capitalist economy:
“The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist
mode of production prevails, presents itself as “an
immense accumulation of commodities," its unit
being a single commodity. Our investigation must
therefore begin with the analysis of a commodity.”
The "investigation" needs to begin with how the commodities came into existence, that is how the capitalist economy came into existence, an oversight necessitated by a fraud.
Let's see if we can commence the Capitalist economy using the following Marxist tautology, "Hitherto we have investigated how surplus-value emanates from capital; we have now to see how capital arises from surplus-value.":*
(1) What do we need to initiate the Capitalist economy? Capital, of course.
(2) So let's get some capital...where is this capital, according to Marx?
(3) We get capital from surplus value, Marx tells us, "capital arises from surplus-value."
(4) Okay, so let's get some surplus value to get capital. Where can we find surplus value, according to Marx?
(5) "Surplus value emanates from capital", Marx's tautologically informs us!
-------------------------
* Capital, Chapter 24, first sentence (1867)
Why does not the "free market and competition lead to the highest quality product" and point by point
1) Cartel - a criminal conspiracy of industrialists who have agreed not to compete with each other, but to set certain prices so that everyone earns from the market
2) The fact that there will be competition does not mean that there will be an increase in the quality of goods. Everyone can take and start baking bread, but why will his bread be of high quality? Peter and John will bake bread "as it turns out" because there is no education and the necessary knowledge. And if another one comes who will make the bread better, then the antimonopoly service will crush him and say - your share will be no more than 30% in the entire market. And where is the increase in product quality?
3) How many times have you met people in companies to whom you could complain about the shortcomings of this company?
Yes, no one needs it in vaunted capitalism. If you don't like something, YOU should do something to solve it.
I want to talk about capitalism a bit. At some point in the past I have pointed out that modern capitalism is all about maximizing the profits. For the state, the individual and the firms. This is the motive. It is the wrong motive. Love is the correct motive as it has been taught to us by many polymaths throught history. But recently I came to believe that there is an even worse aspect of capitalism that the one I already mentioned. You see in capitalism in order for you to live someone else has to die. Someone else has to die in order for you to have your meat, your clothes, your car. So you must make your life be worth the sacrifice! Or be the one dying.
Da hek where’d you get that idea
Towards the end this became very biased
I’m sorry you found it getting biased near the end of the video. It’s my goal to keep it from being biased either way. Curious though, what did you find biased about it so that I can fix that going forward?
@@IllustratetoEducate Nordic countries are not socialist at all, they are as capitalist or more than the USA. Sweden for example has all the railroads as private owned like almost everything there
@@IllustratetoEducate and income inequality is not a characteristic of capitalism. Socialist countries have far more income inequality because of the fact that people are more equal so the ones at the very top are an even smaller percentage meaning everyone is poorer
LightningBolt Thanks for your reply. You’re not wrong in your facts. I’m more confused that you feel that I was being biased toward one side or the other. I’m not seeing in my video where I discredit one system or say the other is way better. I’ll admit that I could’ve included more detail into specific countries and how their individual systems work, but I like to keep my videos around 5 minutes. Average watch time for most RUclips videos is 2-3 minute. So I tried to provide as much basic info without getting too detailed. But you should consider making a video on this topic. You seem to be really knowledgeable about it.
Illustrate to Educate people as I said only leftists call Nordic countries socialist
Definitely subbing. Amazing video. Understand it better now. Thanks.
Thanks for the sub!
Capitalism is number 1
Capatilaism best
Social programs and government ownership is not the crux socialism. The basis of socialism= workers own the means of production. Not necessarily government. Worker-cooperatives are socialist. Employees having a share of stock is socialism. Government is one way (and the way many 20th centuries did) to socialize the means of production and remove certain sectors from the market. But its not the only way. Socialism can also include markets (i.e., market socialism)
Great video. Please do one on surveillance capitalism and techno feudalism
Interesting topics. I’ll need to look into those. Thank you for watching!
can advocate’s for socialism name 5 countries rn where PURE socialism is working and the economy is booming?
A mixed market economy is best right now, with elements of both. see my post.
One is evil and the other is actually fair.
Edit: Which is fair?
Depends on how you see the world.
Capitalist is fair
Capitalism
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The Scandinavian countries are actually among the _least_ socialist countries in Europe. Spain, Italy, and Greece are far more socialist in design, and much worse off economically as a result.
you ain’t margaret thatcher stfu
@@jjjj5374 HTF is that relevant?
@@anonygent if u had a brain u would think otherwise
@@jjjj5374 (insert George Carlin quote about arguing with idiots here)
this video is actually about markets vs centralized regulation completely ignoring socialist ideologies like market socialism & anarchism which DO NOT advocate for the latter
So basically, work for your money and earn it, or get it handed to you for free
No it shouldn’t be one
Thank you for the great video 👍🏽
Lmao we should all go back to watching watermelons explode with 1000 plus rubber bands
Im a capitalist woahhhhhhh
I am a Libertarian Capitalist.
better be
Also Capitalism being unsustainable NEEDS Socialism to revive it everytime it innevitably crashes with:
bailouts - shareholder compensation - bankruptcy protections - golden parachutes - stimulus packages etc.
Thank u very much sir, 😃😃
sanjana Mishra you’re welcome! I’m glad you enjoyed it. Please subscribe if you can! :)
The two continuums of running a society are
1. Corporate Socialism vs Democratic Socialism: a primer
We are all socialists. Humans require society for survival. Socialism is all governance. Governance is the type of gov. tax appropriations, gov. regulations and the direction of gov. agencies. It is a continuum. It goes from democratic socialism which is spending tax monies and having policies for the benefit of all those who actually contribute to the tax pool and represent the vast majority of the population, to corporate socialism which is spending tax monies and making gov. policies for the benefit of the corporate interests of the 2% many of which pay little or no taxes and brag about gaming a system they have bought and influence with their ever exponentially increasing wealth. This is a nasty feedback loop that leads us to a state of economic serfdom and ultimately to gated communities for these same people who caused this situation with their insatiable greed machine of lobbyists and swinging door appointments from corporate boardrooms to government agencies and administrations.
2. The second parallel rail/continuum of societal organization is the agreed upon Mode of Economic Exchange which ranges from Capitalism which encourages the profit motive, to Communism which says we must share the profits of our labors.
Communism has never existed except as an idea. It has historically been implemented as a rallying cry to disaffected people in rebellions, but once the new batch of rulers took power they quickly and logically reverted to their individual interests, which in a society governed by democratic socialism would be just fine, but instead though they quickly diverted themselves to the greed of the top 2% by adopting extreme corporate socialism to become Oligarchs and Fascists. Just look at the brutal suppression where these rebellions took place in the societies of Russia, China, North Korea etc.
Actual Communism has only existed in some local communes of people dedicated to the concept, but they only last a short time because they are inefficient at meeting individual needs and aspirations beyond those who are totally committed to that group.
A 'Canard' is an spurious idea presented by someone to provide an excuse for a concept that would otherwise be revealed as being for their own selfish motives. Interestingly, Communism is held up and used as a 'Canard' by both those who promote the interests of the Corporate Socialists in countries with democracies as being a bogeyman that will lead them all down the path of 'socialism' and 'communism', to the so called communist states where it is held up by their leaders in their 'Communist Parties' who want to cloak their actual oliogarchal, fascist intentions to their masses as being a utopian ideal to which they must sacrifice their individual desires too. The end result is the same with the canard idea of communism being used to control the majority to serve the interests of the few.
Democratic Socialism as governance plus Capitalism for economic exchange = a society that builds itself up for the betterment of its society, spending their tax dollars and government policy on national health care, a clean environment, education, infrastructure spending etc for all it's citizens, versus Corporate Socialism plus Capitalism for economic exchange which = a society like ours The United States; that shunts money to the top 2% of it's citizens, leaving us with no National Health Care, a shrinking middle class and a growing class of unhealthy uninsured working poor, along with a deteriorating environment for the short term gain of some industries, bogus foreign wars and the resulting deaths of our American youth for the investors in the Military Industrial Complex like Halliburton corporate investors and their ilk, and so on through our government policies, regulations, laws, and judicial appointments etc.
The Societies of our planet need to work towards establishing Democratic Socialism in order for us to avert disaster and to coordinate our place on it in a manner that will sustain a good life for all our species and ecosystems. The dominace and greed of Corporate Socialism in both Democracies and the so called 'Communist States' is leading us to a diminishing quality of life, with an inability to make positive adaptive change and is causing ever increasing societal chaos and environmental deterioration.
Everyone, we have got to get it together with Democratic Socialism combined with Capitalism. War, disease and misery are not a necessary management plan.
capitalism with the iron fist and socialism with the greenbacked dollar (cash only)
People keep debating on the Nordic countries being socialist saying they are further on the spectrum than the US but we (USA) already are a socialist democracy, we just don’t utilize our funds the right way. Our govt prioritizes military over healthcare and education because we use those funds to make weapons that we turn around and sell to other countries. We’re war mongers. We also haven’t socialized healthcare because our govt gets kickbacks from our privatized healthcare. Same goes for education, our govt has gotten rich off of student loans. It’s all about the money. That’s why capitalism will always reign supreme and we will never have as many socialist programs as Europe, because our govt is getting rich off of capitalism and refuses to share the wealth with it’s people.
Mixed economy we haven’t reached socialism 🤦🏼