I see multiple problems with you comentary on socialism. First of all state ownership of the means of production does necessarilly not entail socialism, socialism is worker owneship (which could be done through a state) an CONTROLL of the means of production. Second of the definition you use of socialism the nazis where not socialist, they had socialist rethoric, but they didnt do anything resembling worker or state ownership of the means of production. Also comunism is huge political current with many branches and not just totalitarism. And last point to basically say that modern socialdemocracy and socialliberalism are forms of socialism is a big big strech. pd: Apart from my criticism I liked vid and the series overall keep up the good work
he identified everything correctly. You must look at these ideas as tools. How they are implemented is not going to be constant everywhere they will show in many different forms.
we the people may think we know what we need best but that’s the thing when we the people make decisions for ourselves about how to allocate things is when scarcity and shortages happen
The followers always striked me as something closer to Anarchists/Communists (definitely closer to the former given their presentation in NV), whereas the NCR was an actual representation of a socialist state.
I agree that the followers are anarchists but their self governing structures are socialist. The NCR is very much a capitalist society - you only need to look at the brahmin barons and the sharecroppers to see how far they are from socialism
The NCR are obviously Neo-liberal fascist- *ahem* sorry, Neo-liberal capitalists. The fact that you would think NCR are socialist spells out how most Americans don’t have a clue what they’re even criticising when they hear the word “socialism”
The main issue i see here is that Socialism has no avenue for dissent if you do not want to play along with what the Collective is doing.. Life is like one big shitty cooperative school project or HOA you are forced to participate in. Having some insignificant amount of "say" in how that is done, does not make it any less horrible. Democracy is a really shitty way to live, where ultimately the "will of the people" has vastly too much power over what happens to an individual. There is truth to the adage,that gang rape and lynchings are also Democracies. Individual rights to property insure that you , and ideally you alone, have the last word in how your life is run on your own terms. Once you stop having individual rights to property, you stop having the material support to have individual rights at all, because you cannot make real meaningful choices about how you live your life if anyone else has say about the material items you need to live life the way you want to.
You forgot about the Sierra Madre vending machines which are pretty much the star trek replicators, those can solve alot of problems. Also I think non of those things or places are better off in private hands.
Coming back to this, I’ve got an idea kicking around my head for the past month now to make socialism more…palatable? The basic idea is to just make every business a democracy, top-down. CEOs, directors and other high end personnel are all voted in by staff instead of being selected by shareholders. This way, both parts of capitalism and socialism are fulfilled, at least in part. Socialism…well, it’s rule by the people, albeit very segmented. Meanwhile, Capitalism demands that the population be as self interested as needed to survive. This basically turns that into a good thing, with the whole staff looking out for themselves and no one person having an advantage. Sure, there’s eventual factionalism and manipulation of the voting process, but that would be small potatoes to libertarian wet dreams.
You might be interested in looking into a concept called demarchy. It involves decentralising democracies so that each function (e.g. healthcare, defense, education) becomes it's own government using random selection instead of elections. I wrote my thesis on the topic and it starts to address these problems far more effectively (if theoretically). www.newdemocracy.com.au/2015/06/06/demarchy/
Socialism works amazingly well in small communities. Where everyone roughly knows each other and is close enough to the problems the community needs to solve to understand them. In the context of a community trying to solve it’s own problems it usually does good. But rather than nationalism being the problem, I think it becomes a problem when the government control becomes too centralized and disconnected from the ground. Part of it is authoritarian or fascist regimes where someone makes decisions based on goals other than solving the community’s problems. Part of it is acting in the “greater good of the many” at the cost of the “lesser good of the few” too often. The country needs a factory but which city will put up with the pollution. The country wants to cut down on carbon emissions but the community is dependent on the local coal mine for work and income. The city votes for regulations on farmers outside of their own community. Socialism is more of a tool, so it isn’t bad or good in and of itself. But how are the decisions actually made and how does it impact the local community.
If you're interested in this topic, I can strongly recommend looking into demarchy - I wrote my thesis on the topic. It has a high decentralised government with random selection of public representatives :D
Think about criminal juries - random selection in determining the fate of an individual. We already do it. If you're interested in learning more, it's called a demarchy and you can have a look here: www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2158379X.2019.1573514?casa_token=oSn4jOCdKu4AAAAA%3AIWA6vVIXtSLrG8T35OoFFEQLxQNoHq0R8OllOMrtgIWHd7ccvY5Ir8F6Ozr3OZVCB4OB7G9O-Fui
4:01 not necessarily, socialism and nationalism have went hand in hand a bunch of times with the liberation of the people as a result. Look at Vietnam, Burkina Faso, Yugoslavia and many others
Yea, but in Yugoslavia, there was an ideology about all little slavic nations being one. Becuase we were and still similar. It was patriotic in that way, btu if you were patriotic in their "bad way", such as praising Croatia and Croatia's patriarhy, by singing patriotic songs and praising its independence and such or Albainian patriarhy and minority, praising liberation of Kosovo, or other patriarhy of one nation in Yugoslavia, if you were caught doing that you would be in big trouble.
nice to see you posting again. now to your final question news, official statistics, some education and the internet should absolutely be private. handing over control of information is incredibly dangerous to society. i mean its very possible that giving government control over these things could lead to them fudging the numbers so to speak. im not against socialism per se but im not complete onboard. the rest are most likely ok.
There should be independent NGOs that cannot make money that provide news and official statistics. I completely agree that government made news is going to be propaganda but business made news is not going to serve the public interest.
@@gonzophilosophy Modern news is already propaganda by being funded by oil barons and other organizations. Just look at FOX or OAN, they’re just conspiracy shows. I would argue we need a law letting news organizations be punished to the fullest extent of the law for lying to their audience. A misinformed democracy is a broken democracy. Also, the internet ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BE OWNED BY CORPORATIONS. It is a fundamental of society that cannot and should not be paywalled, same as roads or healthcare.
Feel free to read the first paragraph on socialism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy if you think I am in error. plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ There is also the peer-reviewed Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy - first paragraph - iep.utm.edu/socialis/ and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/socialism/v-1/sections/defining-socialism
@@gonzophilosophy hmmm maybe I don’t know much about caesars legion then. As far as I was aware, Caesar is basically a dictator that means to distance himself from his conquered peasants. Choosing only certain people to be given access to freedoms that he deems necessary. Not to mention he practices slavery and misogyny. I could go on. My main point is that an ideal socialist society would be progressive and anything that isn’t, is not in fact socialism, but a form of fascism.
@@TheFifthBanana01 I agree with you - an ideal socialist society would be progressive. But as I said in the video, socialism isn't a government - it's an economic/social theory. It is combined with a governing type - like dictatorship or democracy.
I think they covered it in enough detail - they did a real number on so many tribes. But can I recommend the game Tyranny if you are interested in seeing what it's like when the fascist dictatorship wins. It's by Obsidian too I believe :D
Do you mean conceptually or in practice? I'm happy to hear in what way the National Socialist Workers Party was not socialist. We could also make distinctions about how well they realised that goal or perhaps how truthful it was to some and not to others
![Fallout New Vegas Builds - The Prodigy [Part 1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4Y5EL-U52ig/mqdefault.jpg)
I see multiple problems with you comentary on socialism. First of all state ownership of the means of production does necessarilly not entail socialism, socialism is worker owneship (which could be done through a state) an CONTROLL of the means of production. Second of the definition you use of socialism the nazis where not socialist, they had socialist rethoric, but they didnt do anything resembling worker or state ownership of the means of production. Also comunism is huge political current with many branches and not just totalitarism. And last point to basically say that modern socialdemocracy and socialliberalism are forms of socialism is a big big strech.
pd: Apart from my criticism I liked vid and the series overall keep up the good work
he identified everything correctly. You must look at these ideas as tools. How they are implemented is not going to be constant everywhere they will show in many different forms.
we the people may think we know what we need best but that’s the thing when we the people make decisions for ourselves about how to allocate things is when scarcity and shortages happen
Do you mean when we individually make choices for ourselves without considering the facts or the greater good?
The followers always striked me as something closer to Anarchists/Communists (definitely closer to the former given their presentation in NV), whereas the NCR was an actual representation of a socialist state.
I agree that the followers are anarchists but their self governing structures are socialist. The NCR is very much a capitalist society - you only need to look at the brahmin barons and the sharecroppers to see how far they are from socialism
@@gonzophilosophy the NCR can be described as NeoLiberals
The NCR are obviously Neo-liberal fascist- *ahem* sorry, Neo-liberal capitalists.
The fact that you would think NCR are socialist spells out how most Americans don’t have a clue what they’re even criticising when they hear the word “socialism”
The main issue i see here is that Socialism has no avenue for dissent if you do not want to play along with what the Collective is doing.. Life is like one big shitty cooperative school project or HOA you are forced to participate in. Having some insignificant amount of "say" in how that is done, does not make it any less horrible. Democracy is a really shitty way to live, where ultimately the "will of the people" has vastly too much power over what happens to an individual. There is truth to the adage,that gang rape and lynchings are also Democracies.
Individual rights to property insure that you , and ideally you alone, have the last word in how your life is run on your own terms.
Once you stop having individual rights to property, you stop having the material support to have individual rights at all, because you cannot make real meaningful choices about how you live your life if anyone else has say about the material items you need to live life the way you want to.
I agree with your criticisms - provided that the socialistic state is undemocratic. A democratic socialist state resolves all of your objections.
You forgot about the Sierra Madre vending machines which are pretty much the star trek replicators, those can solve alot of problems.
Also I think non of those things or places are better off in private hands.
Public free use food replicators! Now that's a great idea that we need everywhere :D
@@gonzophilosophy Forgot to add auto docs.
Coming back to this, I’ve got an idea kicking around my head for the past month now to make socialism more…palatable?
The basic idea is to just make every business a democracy, top-down. CEOs, directors and other high end personnel are all voted in by staff instead of being selected by shareholders. This way, both parts of capitalism and socialism are fulfilled, at least in part. Socialism…well, it’s rule by the people, albeit very segmented. Meanwhile, Capitalism demands that the population be as self interested as needed to survive. This basically turns that into a good thing, with the whole staff looking out for themselves and no one person having an advantage. Sure, there’s eventual factionalism and manipulation of the voting process, but that would be small potatoes to libertarian wet dreams.
You might be interested in looking into a concept called demarchy. It involves decentralising democracies so that each function (e.g. healthcare, defense, education) becomes it's own government using random selection instead of elections. I wrote my thesis on the topic and it starts to address these problems far more effectively (if theoretically).
www.newdemocracy.com.au/2015/06/06/demarchy/
Socialism works amazingly well in small communities. Where everyone roughly knows each other and is close enough to the problems the community needs to solve to understand them. In the context of a community trying to solve it’s own problems it usually does good.
But rather than nationalism being the problem, I think it becomes a problem when the government control becomes too centralized and disconnected from the ground. Part of it is authoritarian or fascist regimes where someone makes decisions based on goals other than solving the community’s problems. Part of it is acting in the “greater good of the many” at the cost of the “lesser good of the few” too often.
The country needs a factory but which city will put up with the pollution. The country wants to cut down on carbon emissions but the community is dependent on the local coal mine for work and income. The city votes for regulations on farmers outside of their own community.
Socialism is more of a tool, so it isn’t bad or good in and of itself. But how are the decisions actually made and how does it impact the local community.
If you're interested in this topic, I can strongly recommend looking into demarchy - I wrote my thesis on the topic. It has a high decentralised government with random selection of public representatives :D
@@gonzophilosophy RANDOM SELECTION!? isnt that incredibly dangerous to a government?
Think about criminal juries - random selection in determining the fate of an individual. We already do it.
If you're interested in learning more, it's called a demarchy and you can have a look here:
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/2158379X.2019.1573514?casa_token=oSn4jOCdKu4AAAAA%3AIWA6vVIXtSLrG8T35OoFFEQLxQNoHq0R8OllOMrtgIWHd7ccvY5Ir8F6Ozr3OZVCB4OB7G9O-Fui
4:01 not necessarily, socialism and nationalism have went hand in hand a bunch of times with the liberation of the people as a result. Look at Vietnam, Burkina Faso, Yugoslavia and many others
Yea, but in Yugoslavia, there was an ideology about all little slavic nations being one. Becuase we were and still similar.
It was patriotic in that way, btu if you were patriotic in their "bad way", such as praising Croatia and Croatia's patriarhy, by singing patriotic songs and praising its independence and such or Albainian patriarhy and minority, praising liberation of Kosovo, or other patriarhy of one nation in Yugoslavia, if you were caught doing that you would be in big trouble.
Actually pretty interesting video
nice to see you posting again. now to your final question news, official statistics, some education and the internet should absolutely be private. handing over control of information is incredibly dangerous to society. i mean its very possible that giving government control over these things could lead to them fudging the numbers so to speak. im not against socialism per se but im not complete onboard. the rest are most likely ok.
There should be independent NGOs that cannot make money that provide news and official statistics. I completely agree that government made news is going to be propaganda but business made news is not going to serve the public interest.
@@gonzophilosophy
Modern news is already propaganda by being funded by oil barons and other organizations. Just look at FOX or OAN, they’re just conspiracy shows. I would argue we need a law letting news organizations be punished to the fullest extent of the law for lying to their audience. A misinformed democracy is a broken democracy.
Also, the internet ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BE OWNED BY CORPORATIONS. It is a fundamental of society that cannot and should not be paywalled, same as roads or healthcare.
First to comment, first to like, glad your content isn't stagnant like cement, good to witness you on the mike again. Time well spent :)
Thanks very much!
Isn’t the followers more like a charity rather than socialist?
Potentially. But they have political agendas too rather than focusing on one particular problem.
I’m not sure if government ownership of the means of production is socialism. :/
Feel free to read the first paragraph on socialism in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy if you think I am in error.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/
There is also the peer-reviewed Internet Encyclopedia of philosophy - first paragraph -
iep.utm.edu/socialis/
and the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/socialism/v-1/sections/defining-socialism
@@gonzophilosophy hmmm maybe I don’t know much about caesars legion then. As far as I was aware, Caesar is basically a dictator that means to distance himself from his conquered peasants. Choosing only certain people to be given access to freedoms that he deems necessary. Not to mention he practices slavery and misogyny. I could go on. My main point is that an ideal socialist society would be progressive and anything that isn’t, is not in fact socialism, but a form of fascism.
@@TheFifthBanana01 I agree with you - an ideal socialist society would be progressive. But as I said in the video, socialism isn't a government - it's an economic/social theory. It is combined with a governing type - like dictatorship or democracy.
@@gonzophilosophy hmmm. Idk i wish obsidian was given the time to expand on the legion’s lore like life inside legion-occupied territories.
I think they covered it in enough detail - they did a real number on so many tribes. But can I recommend the game Tyranny if you are interested in seeing what it's like when the fascist dictatorship wins. It's by Obsidian too I believe :D
The nazis were not socialist. Cool video otherwise
Do you mean conceptually or in practice? I'm happy to hear in what way the National Socialist Workers Party was not socialist.
We could also make distinctions about how well they realised that goal or perhaps how truthful it was to some and not to others
@@gonzophilosophy you are correct the nat socs were socialist, tik history gave a massive run down on it
you meet state for socialism the work out the state socialism won't work