Capitalism and Socialism: Crash Course World History #33
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 05. 2024
- In which John Green teaches you about capitalism and socialism in a way that is sure to please commenters from both sides of the debate. Learn how capitalism arose from the industrial revolution, and then gave rise to socialism. Learn about how we got from the British East India Company to iPhones and consumer culture in just a couple of hundred years. Stops along the way include the rise of industrial capitalism, mass production, disgruntled workers, Karl Marx, and the Socialist Beard. The socialist reactions to the ills of capitalism are covered as well, and John discusses some of the ideas of Karl Marx, and how they've been implemented or ignored in various socialist states. Plus, there are robots!
Chapters:
Introduction: Capitalism 00:00
What is Industrial Capitalism? 0:59
How did Industrial Capitalism begin? 3:04
Capitalism Increased Productivity 4:51
Capitalism as a Cultural System 5:41
Criticisms of Capitalism 7:12
Socialism 7:59
An Open Letter to Karl Marx's Beard 9:12
Karl Marx's Ideology 10:23
Socialism vs. Industrial Capitalism Today 12:14
Credits 13:14
Resources:
The Relentless Revolution by Joyce Appelby: bit.ly/3OlIBPV
The Marx-Engels Reader: bit.ly/3M8o4fL
Crash Course is on Patreon! You can support us directly by signing up at / crashcourse
Want to find Crash Course elsewhere on the internet?
Facebook - / youtubecrashcourse
Twitter - / thecrashcourse
Instagram - / thecrashcourse
CC Kids: / crashcoursekids
You can tell he’s so stoked to talk about this. But I am watching this because I want to, not as an assignment
I'm watching it cuz my history teacher said I had to xD
Same, I just want to learn lol
Gay
yup
@@sage5361 I'm trying to find unbiased information and explanation of Socialism
"We don't have a lot of time to explain the whole thing" **Proceeds to play with robot-toys, the globe, and talks about Marx's beard, and plays with the Mario-flowers**
The important things
Lol
@@8bitmagic ahahahahaha
this made me abnormally mad.
Because he is trying to make education fun like it should be.
Clovers add nitrogen to the soil... Wow I learned something new today!
But not about capitalism/socialism, it seems
Dale Redpath thats.. the joke
If you go back and view the Islam video he did, he tells you that Islam that migrated into Spain taught them that.
fynes leigh you sound like your proud to be inbred
fynes leigh you would not know that if it wasn’t for Islam. Europeans had no clue.
"Bad if you're a sailor because you lost your life, but worse for stock merchants because you lost all your money." - America
Underrated! You go up and up.
I am America and I do not approve your statement
@@AndrewVanLare Then you are not America!
goverment*
I caught on to that also.
But that is HIS view. This does not necessarily apply to anyone else.
But I think it DOES give us a hint to where his mind is at.
This really should have been split into two separate videos. There's a lot to talk about and I don't feel that either topic was adequately expanded on.
Xoltan Your feedback is not important to john green. This video was made in 2012. He has definitely improved.
He should remaster some videos.
Now that's an idea! ^
I view the two as bearing a similar relation to that between general relativity and quantum mechanics. In as much as one is more suited to explaining the workings of the finer detail of reality, and the other as better used in defining the nature of reality on a grander scale. Socialism is, in this manner, a superior prescription as to how a system is better managed at the local level. After all the social nature of the species dictates our one to one interactions with our peers. Capitalism, however, excels at prescribing successful navigation through the greater system. Our social nature breaks down with the advent of strangers and the fewer people in the system we know the greater tendency we have to view the population as a series of pawns, predictable, and therefor manipulable in their behavior. Much like each individual violin loses its distinction in a section of strings so to do persons within their societies. It is capitalism that dictates how best the individual engage with such complexity.
Therefor it is my recommendation that if we as a society are to have socialism let such a system rest in our town halls. Let our nations relinquish their hands from this responsibility. Socialism is about the responsibility of man to his fellow man not of a government to the individual. Capitalism is about the relation of a citizenry to its civilization. In this respect both systems, the high and the low, by means of mutual indebtedness, are forever bound in a state of reciprocity in their respective relations.
@Jericho Gonzales Great points well said. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter
In America is CZcams
In soviet Russia is Ourtube
in Soviet Russia, videos watch you!
@@ScareSans Maybe you should count the cameras watching you starting in the parking lot at WalMart in and though you shopping experience and back out again.
@@kimobrien. i rather appreciate those cameras, as they are kinda the main thing that helps solve crimes, such as abduction, when the criminal can be identified.
@@ScareSans You have a surveillance state mind. We've all heard that if your doing nothing wrong why do you object to being watched 24/7? So then who will watch the watchers? Even Stain and Hitler didn't have these capabilities. More and more aspects of our lives will be placed under these controls. Don't complain or get mad because we are watching you. We know all and any mistakes will be severely punished like stealing extra flimsy shopping bags. Walmart is already introducing the double checkout to determine if your checkout was done right the first time.
@@kimobrien. let me guess... You're also a flat earther...
His hyperactivity gives me anxiety
Crash Course World History is what I imagine the internal dialogue looks like for every history teacher I've ever had.
Pure capitalism and pure socialism would be absolutely disastrous. Neither system is perfect, in fact a perfect system (utopia) can't exist because frankly human beings aren't perfect and we'd always fuck something up. Too much capitalism and you have people starving in the streets with nothing being done. Too much socialism and... yeah you still have people starving in the streets with nothing being done. We need to strike a balance between the two and try our best to incorporate the best elements of each. Sure, there will be some inconvenient trade offs and people argue about those trade offs all the time, but that's the only thing that can possibly work.
+Alyssa Schiffman "Too much capitalism and you have people starving in the streets with nothing being done" - no, what you have is a very small minority getting most/all the wealth, and masses of people taking any job they can find (no matter how low the pay), because they don't want to starve to death. Look at today's third world countries...look at 'the west' during the birth of modern capitalism, the Industrial Revolution (where factory owners made huge profit, while those lucky enough to work in the factory were paid next to nothing)! PLENTY OF WORK is/was being done...but the generated wealth just funneled to the rich minority.
Many people say this (ie. "We need to strike a balance between the two..."), but it's very clear that one system is much MUCH more logical and fair than the other. Remember, humanity lived in tribal 'communes' for the first 90% of our species existence...we're mentally hard wired to be social and work together.
+DeathToTheDictators Tribal communes? That worked out? What a moron.
Parneli Jones "That worked out?" - lol yes, very well actually...we survived 2 ice ages and went on to invent civilization and everything. And I'M the moron?
DeathToTheDictators "We"? Tribes? How old are you? 30,000?
+DeathToTheDictators
''no, what you have is a very small minority getting most/all the wealth, and masses of people taking any job they can find (no matter how low the pay)''
true, but with all the remaining choices we have, we would have 99 % of the population working in ghoulish factories under a state that can take your life like nothing.
'' Look at today's third world countries''
which suffer alot because foreign states mandate their market and force their states to regulate their market. Note: STATES. Other nations can invade you if you don't give them what they want. Third world countries are struggling for a million reasons, but their only way to becoming saved is to become democracies free of corruption. Here, the united states is a massive hypocrite, because we don't allow all nations to produce and export to whoever they please.
''the Industrial Revolution (where factory owners made huge profit, while those lucky enough to work in the factory were paid next to nothing)''
which can't be done anymore, because work has been so redefined that people can choose who they should work for and employers putting their employees in those conditions would make for bankrupcy.
'' PLENTY OF WORK is/was being done...but the generated wealth just funneled to the rich minority.''
yes, because there wasn't any education or technology to speak of those days that gave people options. Those options would be scratched instantly if you lived in Soviet. ''Go back to the factory and work comrade, or we'll torture you for hours''. As for the employers not working as much: back in those days, it was naturally unfair since most of them inherited their wealth. But as of today, most of the corporate giants started very humbly and made it far. You won't see the CEO of Mcdonalds run to every single restaurant in the world to make burgers for literally everyone to generate his cash, because he simply can't. Naturally, it is wise to question their decisions to pay their workers the way do, the product they sell and whatever. Thing is, you have to actively protest, otherwise they won't go away. Take your money elsewhere and open your own hamburger joint. Expect to have to work your ass of in the beginning.
''Remember, humanity lived in tribal 'communes' for the first 90% of our species existence...we're mentally hard wired to be social and work together.''
we did. And it was a time when the chieftain ruled with an iron fist. Breaking codes resulted in excommunication or execution. The life expectancy was significantly lower and almost every other child died in childbirth. Not to mention the likelyhood of starving to death or being killed by another tribe. There are simply too many people for us to live in separated communities. Eventually, these communities would need new ways to get new goods, or die in the process.
You can argue that Marxism doesn’t work, but Marxism as an idea isn’t evil. Blaming Marx for Stalin and Mao is like blaming Jesus for the crusades.
Vooryjoni Spion The popes who organized the Crusades probably read the Bible. Does that mean Christianity is evil?
Marx wrote the communist manifesto almost 80 years before the Russian revolution.
Marx was dead for almost 50 years when russia became communist.
Hence why he has nothing to do with Stalinism. Stalin was 10 when Marx died.
His theories and how people twisted them decades later to rob the masses are a distinction that needs to be made.
Hence my analogy with Christianity and the crusades.
Mr. Coffee Its also worth mentioning that all theories can be twisted to allow people to seize power. For example, during the French Revolution, Robespierre twisted Enlightenment values to make himself a dictator. Yet those same values are what guided the way the US government and many other Republics in the western world were founded.
@@doggo5577 please read about MARXISM then post ur comment...and I think u know nothing about war history ....
Mr. Coffee Way to incompetently make a bogus comparison. Sure Marxism “had” good intentions, but guess what, so did the Bible. Unfortunately the only things that sprout out from the two are corrupted. Thing is, at least the Bible and religion has significantly done much more good than Marxism ever will, which I believe hasn’t done one yet. Also pathetic how it seems you all only look for the proponents for Marxism, perspectives that will only and obviously praise it, rather than study the reasons why many are against it. What good is an unrivaled belief besides indoctrination? Maybe you should do some research on countries, such as Venezuela, where some people, despite waiting overnight to be first on the breadline every week, are told they can go only after government affiliates ransack the place first. Maybe their warnings, literally saying that socialist promises are lies, might convince you. PragerU actually has a good video not of some right-wing white male talking, because I know how that may offend some of you, but interviewing residence of Venezuela. This might be your first dose of a red pill, but if you all want to continue living the lie, you do you.
The most important piece of information in this video is that clovers add nitrogen to the soil.
“...shortcomings of industrial capitalism: child labor, working conditions were awful, days were long, arduous and monotonous, workers lived in abject poverty...” lol no big deal
@Leathley Capitalism does that every day - and not accidentally.
@Leathley So, grocery store workers provide nothing to society? How about delivery drivers? Mail-men? These are people often too poor to afford medical charges, and yet, coronavirus has proved their need.
There is a pervasive myth of meritocracy, where people who succeed or fail do so only on their own merits. All of the data point to the contrary. Economic mobility is low in America compared to other developed nations, productivity does *not* correlate with wages, and many jobs are outright frivolous and unnecessary. Tell me: how much do you think the CEOs of airliners actually benefit their companies? What about their shareholders who divert 90+ percent of their companies' revenues to stock buybacks? Do you think they contribute orders of magnitudes more to society than your septic worker? I doubt it.
Rename this episode to John Green does coke
replace does coke with is bias.
@That guy Bacon at this point, we might as well change it to
John Green is actually secretly Elvis, who used time travel to look younger and plastic surgery to make himself look like someone else.
because he isn't biased.
@@ScareSans Of course he is biased! He describes George Washington like he's Genghis Khan and Genghis Khan like he's George Washington.
@@tylerdurden4392 to be fair, lots of stories about Khan and Washington are probably farse, or stretched out of proportion. I doubt he's biased, and if he is, he keeps it from creeping into his videos perfectly.
@@ScareSans In one of his videos he says "let's face it, all white men (or people or whatever) in the Americas (at a certain time) were racist" ...I'm paraphrasing, but it's 98% accurate and it gives NO credit to abolitionists or anything that came before efforts to fight slavery. There are also many mentions of "the Mongols" when it comes to positive things even though Genghis Khan raped so many women that many would kill themselves to avoid the serial rapist--he changed the gene pool of entire communities! Not only that, Genghis Khan was an illiterate monster that couldn't get through his teen years without killing his own brother. Even Attila the Hun would shy away from such a savage, yet American leaders were the bad guys of history?
All I want for Christmas is to seize the means of production
andrew carrera
Mkon
*memes
That's easy start your own business and do all the work yourself.
No it's not; you still have to sell what you create in socialism. They aren't "taking back" anything at all. It's stealing the land, building, machines, savings, etc. The owner bought them and risked a considerable amount of cash (typically life savings, considerable loans with the house as collateral) to create the business. If the business fails the owner may be ruined.
Without him the jobs would not exist in the first place. The workers are trading their labor for a wage, and unlike the owner they will be paid even when the company is losing money.
And the workers are free to pool their resources and take the risk of starting their own business. But they don't want to take that risk. Why should one reap the rewards without taking the risk?
Why do you assume workers can't own a business?
"Without capitalists jobs would not exist" says who? Do you really think benevolent landlords and CEOs create trade and business? Do you think we'd run out of food if Monsanto let the workers own the land? Or we'd run out of oil or coal if tycoons weren't profiting off of them?
"unlike the owner they will be paid even when the company is losing money" lmao, really? Is that why capitalists claim that raising the minimum wage will get people laid off? No, if they company loses money it'll cut corners wherever it can. Jeff Bezos could double all of his 340000 employees' salaries just by docking his own pay, and he'd still be in the top 1%. It's pretty clear that capitalists are hoarding as much wealth as possible.
And there's very little risk for the capitalists in the modern systems because a) the amount of wealth accumulated through dynasties and inheritance ("A small loan of a million dollars), b) banks are much more willing to lend to the already wealthy for startups, and almost never to co-ops because bankers are looking for profit too, and c) capitalists have worked with the state for decades on things like NAFTA and other neoliberal trade agreements, in order to ensure they can squeeze as much value from the laborers as possible, even if it means outsourcing, slavery, and death squads, such as the child slaves in the Congo who work in mines for 2$ a day for Apple, inc.
this was the most chaotic crash course episode i've ever seen and i support it
“Do not go to Alaska with a girl you just met.” Looking For Alaska? 🧐😂
no its a real thing he did
You probably didn't read the book
Watching this in 2016 sorta makes me reflect; now we have Bernie Sanders to talk about socialism, and I guess I'm happy about that. Why? Because it's about time that the people of America realize that corporatism (the result of capitalism after large business entities convert their "economic freedom" into "personal freedom") is purely disastrous, and ultimately incompatible with a democratic society.
+LegoGuy87 He said democratic society, not democratic State. So he's right. The Nation is built upon a democratic foundation, the State is a Republic.
+LegoGuy87 He's referring to the social structure of the country, not the legal political system of the government. In the US, people vote for their representatives, then their representatives vote for their needs. Voting is a basic democratic principle. So while the State is indeed defined as a Republic, it is a Republic via Democratic means. He said society too, which doesn't mean State.
+loneevergreen Capitalism inevitably fails when technology runs rampant. Why? Because then it's no longer everyone taking advantage of everyone else, it's a few taking advantage of everyone else.
+LegoGuy87 It's democratic in that citizens can participate in the political process. You can run for a position. You can talk about it, and try to change someone's mind. It's like a kind of democratic republic.
+loneevergreen It's good you have Sanders. Up till now, you've only had the right and the centre. Now you can actually explore some socialist policies that are successful in Europe, Oceania and even just north of your order, or at least discuss them.
Ultimately, a mixture of socialism and capitalism, aka Social Democracy, would be the best route, as it gives the people the necessary safety net in the case of financial failure in a competitive market. It also keeps a healthier workforce, which again is necessary to compete in a competitive market.
12:42 Sweden is very pro free markets I don't get why everyone keeps saying they are a socialist example to follow. They are indeed an example to follow in MANY areas but they are definitely not socialist
Boi the SFRY had a free market and they were full blown COMMUNIST...
@@howtocossackdance free market does not mean capitalist
@@pretzel502 A free market is a market controlled by individuals. If other workers control the market then it is no long free.
The Crazy Cossack
Hahahahaha
Why you just said is dead person can be alive 🤣🤣🤣
@@pretzel502 You cannot advocate free trade unless you are a capitalist. Capitalists believe in free trade while non-Capitalists believe in fair trade. Fair-trade does not advocate free trade because if your freedom is exchanged for fairness.
Oooohhhhh God
I'm going into the comments section
Wish me luck
I’m binge watching the entire series for fun. Not for school. For fun
For those of you that says socialism is for those who are lazy, please get your lazy asses up from that couch and do some reasearch. We can take Indonesia, India and a bunch of other countries that are capitalists as an example. India and Indonesia have probably one of the most hard working people I've ever seen, and still they barley have money enough for neither food or roof. Capitalism favours those who are lucky, rich and/or embrace innovative change with an open mind (pluss a little luck).
Tell me, when did those NBA players work harder than those poor factory workers, working up to 18 hours a day, in the American capitalist country USA?
Socialism is by no doubt for the better good, as the richer people pays a higher percentage of their income in taxes, still they are remarkably richer than the poorest tax payers, even though they pay a lower percentage. This still let's the rich be rich, and the poor be poor, but leaving the poor with the most vital things such as health care, food, roof and work.
For instance, let's say that we have a person that has a annual income of 1 000 000 USD. In USA he pays 14 %, which is 140 000 USD, leaving him with 860 000 USD, but in Norway, Sweden or Denmark he pays 35 %, which is 350 000, leaving him with 650 000 USD. He pays a lot more in taxes yes, but he still has a considerable amount of money, still making him classified as rich.
Well-said, FrasierCraft. I'll add that those who have capital beyond what is needed to survive are able to use that capital to make more money without actually working for it.
Kellie Nicholson
Thank you for those kind words!
luvcheney1
Another fact is that Norway has the most efficent oil production, also considered the safest. Still Norway runned with a socialist policy.
luvcheney1
Capitalism doesn't work without a social safety net and strict regulation. Another flaw our version of capitalism has is permitting inheritances, which is just a stacked casino game and not really about skill, talent or merit.
*****
Just a thought... if you can't explain yourself in your own words, then perhaps you don't really understand what you're saying. Another thought... if you aren't aware of all other theories related to the topic, then perhaps you should read more.
Now I must ask... What gives you the right to say that any of the earth's resources are yours? What gives you the right to lay claim to any property once you're dead? What makes you think that anyone has the right to land ownership? Are you aware that our fore fathers discussed that the land belonged to ALL of us, so they wanted to impose a tax on all land owners as rent to be paid to those who don't own any land?
The examples of capitalism failing: every country that has tanked its economy when corruption settled into the faulty system. If you really want to get into a discussion, it would take a lot longer than I have, but I'll make a few points. Rather than try to discount my ideas, why not give them thought, as this isn't about you and I, this is about creating a better system for future generations. Throughout all of history we have improved on the way we do things, so why on earth would anyone think that we have reached the point that this is the best we can do?
1. Any economic system requires participation of all members, or corruption will seep in. That is not a failure on the part of Capitalism, but of the people of the nations that employ it. The choice to watch mindless television over having a political or philosophical discussion is how the corporate world has brain-washed the masses into believing that Capitalism is the best we can do.
2. The reason the people must participate in the regulation (this could mean organizing unions or boycotting corrupt companies, etc.) of a Capitalistic society is because capitalism breeds corruption, as the main goal is profits, rather than happiness.
3. People who get caught up in the numbers game tend to become vacant souls. EX: Many wealthy people send their children away to boarding school or hire nannies for others to raise them, thinking that leaving their heirs money is more important than making them a sandwich or holding a cold compress on their forehead when they're sick. They use the excuse that it's for their children, but it's really to satisfy their own egos. Those parents fail to realize that they have neglected their children in ways that will affect their self-esteem their whole lives.
4. If we created a society that focused less on competition and more on curiosity, we would have a more balanced and more evolved civilization. Competition uses the ego to pit people against each other, while curiosity is a personal exploration that encourages out-of-the-box thinking, which leads to new inventions and improved systems.
5. If we regulated Capitalism to be more fair, there wouldn't be such a need for hand-outs and charitable organizations, as everyone would have a fair chance in the game. Poor children never get a chance to enter the game, because Capitalism requires a surplus of capital. Even the game of Monopoly gives everyone a bank to start out in the game. Poor children get nothing: no down-payment on a home, no college education, no seed money to begin a business, no Ivy League connections. They spend their lives living from paycheck-to-paycheck, unless they get lucky. Those success stories are meant to cause ridicule for anyone who doesn't make it and to insinuate that anyone who works hard can make it. That is a fallacy.
6. Inheritances should not be permitted, as once you're dead, you no longer have a vote or a say. Once you're dead your heirs should have already been blessed with your knowledge to survive on their own without a hand-out from the parents. Read up on what Thomas Paine thought about inheritances. He proposed that estates of the deceased be put into a fund to be dispersed in equal amounts among the youth of the nation at a determined age to begin their lives. Everyone would start at the same place, rather than relying on the lottery of birth. It's my opinion that this would create a more mentally healthy society. The defense of Capitalism is in itself clearly a symptom of sickness and brain-washing.
7. It is nothing more than hypocrisy to support Capitalism, but then also argue that inheritances are fair. If you don't think your brats can make it playing on a level playing field with everyone else, then perhaps you didn't do a very good job of parenting. Oh, if you think your brats deserve to be ahead of everyone else in the game, then you're just a selfish a**hole and that is a matter of character. No argument there.
8. Society is no more than a game with rules established by the participants. There is a consensus reached to define the values and then the rules are supposed to support and encourage those values. Let's be clear that unregulated Capitalism rewards cut-throat, selfish behavior. I think we can do better.
9. How can we improve? Co-operative businesses, abolish inheritances (estates go to all the youth of the nation equally), ban monopolies and ownership of all enterprise (including businesses, inventions, medical research, utilities, etc.) that was initiated with public money should remain in the hands of the public to reap any profits or to pay for use at cost, thus eliminating profits.
I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm trying to make people think. Those who claim that Capitalism is the most successful economic system in history are not thinking critically and obviously have not read much history. Let's look in the mirror and figure that out, then get on the internet and do some research - not to support your claims (as you already know that), but to learn something new. You don't know everything and until you do, you shouldn't stop listening to what others have to say.
With Capitalism, today there are 80 persons as rich as half of the world.
Not much else to say.
+Deimos with communism everybody would be dirt poor instead. It isn't perfect, but it is the best we have. Economic systems has to be designed in a better way.
Pastor Bush If you don't know the difference between Socialism and Communism I have nothing to answer to you.
Deimos Socialism provide the same results. Socialdemocracy is a different thing and can indeed work.
Pastor Bush The people in power want everyone to think capitalism works, but it doesn't.
I hope people will wake up before it's too late.
We're today the only problem in the planet, we can't even live in peace in our own species. Fighting over liquid decomposed shit found underground and other stupid stuff.
Deimos It doesn't truly work to make the world perfect, but it makes the world better than the current alternatives.
Man i came with good intentions to learn about capitalism and left youtube with a headache. Hence, i never comment in youtube
11:03 So we're not gonna talk about the guy banging his head and money spewing out of it?
Capitalism is an imperfect system. But it’s the best system we have. It accounts for human need and nature. However we do need some government intervention. Worker protection, child labor laws, and anti trust laws are required to help maintain the free market. It’s also the most democratic.
Spencer Wines Agreed, and it shouldn’t be hard to achieve. International trade has prevented wars and improved the GDP of a number of countries. By interfering to prevent monopolized business and enforcing agreed upon social policies working conditions and standards of living, almost anyone can prosper in a capitalist system.
Daniel Chapman a mixed economy exactly.
Capitalism is but not Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is the system we are increasingly heading towards.
Jose Rojas I don’t follow. Can you explain.
Spencer Wines, Since the 80's there is a new form of capitalism that is increasingly taking over and that is destroying our societies, neoliberalism. People often associate the "system" we live in today with capitalism but it is more than ever a neoliberal system and it is only getting worse.
"In the United States Socialism has become something of a dirty word"
Yeah, tell that to comrade Sanders and his followers.
+Stannis Baratheon Sanders has followers because his policies are good. He is not bought off by corporate america like the rest of the candidates are, either.
Benjamin Ljunggren Socalism is not "good", and Rand Paul was an amazing candidate who wasn't "bought".
"Socialism is bad" Oh, I have never heard this before.
Paul was my favourite republican candidate, but he is still VERY questionable on climate change policies (like basically all republicans) and he is pro-life which I can't find myself to support at all.
Benjamin Ljunggren You heard it before? From every logical person ever? And Rand is educated on climate change and knows human activities have little change on it and killing complete industries is insane.
Stannis Baratheon I've heard it from every american that still believes in the anti-communism propaganda that Reagan and others were spewing out during the cold war.
The scientific consensus is that human activity has a significant impact on our climate. To not accept this is nothing but pure scientific illiteracy. But I wouldn't expect much more from a republican.
Santa: Favorite color is red, forces the population under his rule to work with little to no pay, gives out stuff for free, bushy mustache
Stalin: Favorite color is red, forces the population under his rule to work with little to no pay, gives out stuff for free, bushy mustache
this needs a revisit after the events of 2020
Pure socialism or communism and pure capitalism are both disastrous in different ways. The struggle we still face today is how to balance the two, or how much of each side we should embrace.
+RyHerbs Pure socialism and especially pure communism have not existed. Not even close.
+RyHerbs totally agree
+ratelslangen pure forms of those systems haven't yet existed because the societies which attempted to achieve them fell apart before they ever got there. With this in mind, and by analyzing the nature of those systems themselves, we can conclude they simply wouldn't work in the real world.
+Ben Graham North Korea? That totalitarian theocratic monarchy? Hardly.
+RyHerbs
Why, whats wrong with pure capitalism?
What we have now is a mixed economy, and its getting crushed by debt, the fed's money mismanagement, and corruption.
"Capitalists are so selfish and greedy! They won't let me decide how their money is spent!"
+Darth Vader holy f%ck are you ignorant.
+DeathToTheDictators Yea man! You showed him! The points you just made were clearly well thought out and educated! I could clearly tell what you were trying to express and you totally proved that you know what you're talking about! Good for you Mr. Socialist!
maestro23 lol ok smart guy, let's start with point number one....how exactly is the money a 'capitalist' business owner gets from his business 'his money', when it's actually his workers that are doing all the actual work for this money? It's THEIR labor, is it not their right to get the fruits of said labor?
Puglous "The workers profit" - 'profit'? They get to not starve, hardly 'profit'. If they were getting a wage more proportionate to the income they generate for their company, THEN they'd be getting 'profit'.
"and combined they only get to take home 3% of the business' revenues. That's fucking finger nail clipping" - only a fucking moron would call 12 billion 'finger nail clippings'.
"why the fuck hasn't ANYONE done it!?" - there ARE many successful companies that offer decent wages, and profit sharing, employee stocks/shares, etc. Costco for one.
Puglous "Who the fuck are you say workers aren't paid proportionate to the income they generate!?" - the workers to whom i've almost exclusively referred to (ie. Mcds walmart etc workers) are NOT getting a wage proportionate to the income they generate. I never said ALL workers, you strawman piece of shit.
"How could they not be paying workers proportionately to their productivity when their revenues are almost equal the money that goes to workers (97%)?" - lol name me these companies that list 'employee compensation' as 100% of their 'cost', idiot.
"get rid of the rich "parasites", and you'd add a measely three fucking percent to your paycheck" - which adds approx $7,000/year to a full time walmart employee. Which is like a 50% raise.
"How much additional revenue do you think Cashier #8, who ensures that you will have a 1 minute shorter wait in line when the store is busy, really brings in!" - lol considering the store can't sell ANYTHING unless there's people working the til, i'd say quite a bit.
"Capitalism is all about efficiency"
*laughs in 2020*
"You didn't know about Stalin" I'm dying
Cory Bosma wow
Blyat
was socialism even explained here???
Nope
That really struck me. He didn't really get into the core criticism of capitalism, and his emphatic pronouncement that people are better off under a capitalist system ignores a number of things like, that our economy is driven by overseas slaves, or that our standard of living has only improved as we've gotten more socialist, and democratic countries more socialist than us are generally better off. It all seems very "8th grade social studies" view of communism, that China and Stalin are the best examples of how Communism turns out. Communist uprisings in China having to be suppressed by the government should tell you all you need to know about how communist China really is.
@@captainmanacles Well... I don't think socialism is the answer.. no one but the man incharge people in his or her favour can be free to get rich.. Their should be a happy medium.. Britain is a good example of a mix of the two.
@@mrannunaki6852 In democratic socialism there is no single "man in charge". On the other hand, under capitalism the richest people in the country generally run everything. Britain is pretty right wing and has a pretty screwed up economy. A good example would be Denmark, which is pretty close to pure socialism and has the happiest population on the planet.
idk did it say it was bad? if so then yes
And now let's talk about the Red Fear which made it impossible in the United States to talk about socialism unpejudiced.
You mean the red scare? You sound like you like socialism...
"You sound like you like socialism" - you sound like you like unfairly funneling most wealth to a small minority
DeathToTheDictators
Exactly!
DeathToTheDictators No one is funneling anything to anyone. You know everyone in the top "1 percent," is anyone who makes 150,000 or more. They already pay around half the taxes in the U.S. I think they pay more than their "fair share!" If someone is strong willed enough to go start and business and have the intelligence to do so then they deserve the benefits.
If it wasn't for these wealthy CEO's there'd be way less jobs.
+Jared Langley
look sir...did John Walton somehow perform the millions of man-hours it took to make his billions? No, his low paid workers did.
Like i said, unfairly funnels most wealth (that's actually earned and created by the low/middle class majority) to a small (rich) minority....that's capitalism in a nutshell.
“Very hard to take off a shirt dramatically” perfect lol
“Although it’s bad if you’re a sailor because you lose your life, it’s really bad if your a merchant because you lost all your money.”
1:54
Am I the only one who thinks that there is something wrong with that statement
ppl < money. Capitalism in a nutshell
That's the joke
T'is is the thinking of those who worship the Federal Reserve Note.
Ya we get we are disposable but somehow for the capitalists going bankrupt is a fate worse than death. This is why he becomes to fat and needs a bailout.
Maria Catarina Bolena ok socialist
Saving history grades since God knows when :')
May 19th, 2006!
K Monster
Adam Soli goodness, I'm an engineer and I got like 4 history classes. Architecture program study though…
K Monster ever heard of studying
The test of life grades you much much harsher. I think you are studying for the wrong tests noobs.
When the enclosures of the commons took place in England, i think that the changing of people's mindsets towards a capitalist one was essentially a forceful assimilation in order to survive. The commons were lands that anyone could use to take their cattle to graze upon, pick berries or herbs (whatever may have grown - not sure if would just be wild or if people would plant stuff there too), chop wood for fire, (and particularly for women, the commons was an important social space of meeting and working together), helping each other out etc. The enclosures of the commons privatised that land, removed all the social and economic activity that was a part of the commons, and forced those people, who were mostly peasants (not meant derogatorily), to survive by making money (or more of it than before). With the commons taken away, i think pretty much the only way for most peasants or lower-class people to survive was to go and work in the new, industrial factories (or mines/other industrial labour) - in order to make a wage, this wage being now the only way that people could live.I'm not the first to argue that this change of culture was a violent process, as it removed people from the land - though i'm not saying that everything about peasant life is good of course. But it took away people's ability to be more self-sustaining, and forced them to work for most hours of the day doing repetitive, draining, often dangerous forms of labour (as mentioned in the video), that brought them very little fulfilment (beyond being paid and just surviving on that payment, but I wouldn't call that fulfilling) and, I would argue, made them much more oppressed by their new employers.
I know his character makes the show, but I would love people to end the sideshows that take place during these. "to keep people interested" I saw the title and clicked. Im interested.
People often do not realize that most nations are a very large mix , especially in nations in the EU and North America. People like to call the scandinavians all socialist when they actually tend to be very socialist in welfare projects and benefits and tend to be more capitalism when it comes to the economy. There's a lot of cross over even within those categories
Maybe I'm being dense here, but the answer to your ending question seems pretty obviois to me: Capitalism and Socialism are both unnatural on their own.
Humans are BOTH competitive and Communal.
Humans are BOTH greedy and generous
Humans are BOTH innovative and prone to stagnation.
pure Capitalism represents only one half of the human condition, and communism, yoo, only represents the other half of the human condition.
Humans have always soight competition and, in turn, innovation to be more competitive. Otherwise, there never would've been an Egypt to compete with a Mesopotamia.
Yet the very existence of families, tribes, empires, nations and social structures, by its nature, openly display's humanity's innate sense of community.
So economically, we are always wirking to reconcile the two halves of our nature. At this time in human history, that reconciliation is rooted in thr middle-ground of capitalism and communism.
None of what I've said seems all that high-minded or clever, so I'm curious as to why it's difficult to understand this.
People just capitalize on the state ... Everything is capitalism ... From your relationships to any object you are willing to trade .. That's it ... People wanna argue whether a glass of water is half empty or half full ... That's not the point ... It's value is subjective to the individual and whatever transaction is taking place.
Capitalism isn't all greed. People don't have to be forced to to be generous. Appealing to the consumer helps all people get the best things producing a better economy
This is the most brilliant and succinct way I've ever seen this issue worded!
I think people are so saturated in their own culture that they can't or don't want to understand.
That was brilliant! dude you put my emotions into words!!
Unlike socialism, capitalism wasn't idealized by an intelectual. It was a system naturally developed by time. Communism only exists when it's enforced.
I don't really think it matters whether it's capitalism or socialism as long as we understand that anyone with power will try to keep that power. It's human nature, and to keep that power, they will always bend rules in their favor.
Whether it's the government corrupting itself or corporations corrupting the government, power is something that instinctively protects itself. Both overly powerful governments or businesses will end up hurting someone.
This is a great response! I would suggest that the way to keep power decentralized is a system where one has the direct incentive to serve it's "customers, people" keeps the power in check. Free Markets do that much more efficiently than other systems. Guess which side I'm on!
Matthew Bellis your a liberal
liberals are delusional and stupid
free market only works if no one is greedy and have honest capitalist system LOL which Capitalism is not its about profit and greed live with that idea
your liberal ideas are stupid and out of this world
you will only find Free Market at your nearest yard sale
MrDICKHEAD28
Ahhh yes, the ol' wildly generalize, and insult strategy. Matthew's comment sounds way more Libertarian than liberal, but whatever.
you forgot religion.....christianity.
This statement by Gatzlocke was so well worded. Profound to say the least. It comforts me greatly to witness even a small morsel of intelligence and common sense in a world filled with foolishness and willfully blind sheep.
0:47 so that's his inspiration for "looking for alaska"
Capitalism isnt about efficiency in helping people, it's about efficiency in earning profits
You forgot to mention that Marx never worked a day in his life and lived a life of luxury in his friend's Capitalist Father's house.
He lived true to his philosophy
Apparently Capital just materialized out of thin air and published itself under his name. without him writing a word of it. Or you don't consider writing work,
Lmao yes he did. He had several jobs.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what is called an Ad Hominem.
Indeed, Marx sponsor was an uncle of his, the Dutch trader in tabaco, mr Philips, indeed a relative of the Philips who founded Philips Electronics. Das Kapital founded by the capitalists.
For those of you that think he was being bias - one of the motifs of this series is going against stereotypes/common beliefs that are wrong. It's in almost every video. Most people in America love capitalism and hate socialism. He was simply trying to put them on equal playing fields by addressing the misplaced fear of socialism in a broader sense. I am not talking about whether one of them is better than the other or anything. Simply stating that his point of the series is making people more open minded and addressing false stereotypes, and that is what he seems to be doing in this video.
@3:10 Florida was not counted as one of the original 13 colonies. This was primarily because of the fact that it was a prize of war rather than one settled by English colonists. The British took possession of Florida in 1763 as the result of the Seven Years War.
I love his lessons as a student in the 7th grade i find myself watching his videos for hours. He got me to laugh and learn give him a prize for his teaching ways
Capitalism serves simply to maintain the economic/class divisions in society and to produce profit for businessmen. People might say capitalism works, what they mean by that is that it is the only economic system that has been able to sustain itself on a large scale over a long period of time. Governments and businesses have been very successful in manipulating the population to conform to the capitalist system, when in reality they are just promoting it because capitalism and the current status quo helps them to maintain their power.
Capitalism works because it rewards success. Do you honestly think a factory worker and a Doctor should be making the same amount of money?
Yes they should have the same or at least similar wage. Making money and profit from health care is immoral in my eyes anyway.
what is immoral for you? Is selling food at a profit seem immoral for you?
***** Who gets to define what is moral and what is not? You're an idiot. So if uneducated factory workers are going to get paid the same as Doctors. Do you honestly think people would push through medical school if they know they will not get anything out of it?
Yet Cuba has the 2nd most doctors per capita, while USA is 52nd.
The point is that a culture that priorities material comfort comes with its costs. Mental , spiritual, and social health are all suffering greatly.
But material comfort frees one to explore these other domains.
I think you left out the most fundamental aspect of Marx's economic analysis, which is that in industrial capitalism, the owner of a factory, say, takes home (nearly) all of the profits even though its the workers in the factory who did all the actual work producing those goods. Its a strange arrangement allowed by the concept of private property. Of course, the owner bought the factory with their money, so it is their right to take home the profits. Its all about perspective and values. If you have any sense of collective justice, it seems obvious that the workers have, in a certain sense, been stolen from. They do not get the majority of the fruits of their labor (profits) - they are paid a paltry wage and are kept needing to exchange their labor for wages because they cannot amass the capital to own or invest in their own enterprise. This is why one response to this arrangement is the cooperative - a situation where the workers collectively own their factory and share the profits. Theoretically there's nothing preventing this today, but practically its nearly impossible. This is due to many things preventing people from amassing savings and organizing such a space, but at least in part due to our capitalist culture - people see their livelihoods and careers as individual, like you mentioned, and don't often consider organizing with others around mutual interests. This is one of the most important lessons I gained from Marx.
_"Of course, the owner bought the factory"_
Yeah, like 8 generations back.
@@elrondhubbard7059 I'm not trying to excuse the issue of generational wealth. For sure, I'd agree, most wealth is passed on and maintained, I was just trying to balance the two perspectives on the owner/worker arrangement.
@@NS-pj8dr
Sorry, that was just what my brain said after I read that sentence I quoted. I actually agree completely with your comment.
I wouldn't say I'm a _Marxist_ per se, I think a lot of what he wrote doesn't exactly apply to conditions in the 21st century, but I certainly did learn a lot from reading him and it certainly influenced my thinking in regards to labour and capital.
@@elrondhubbard7059 Yeah same, I think of some it still applies but not as strictly because work and classes are a lot more multifarious now, wealth and ownership takes a lot different forms as well. I'm very pro-cooperative, bottom up grassroots democracy, especially when it threatens powerful monopolies (corporations)
@@NS-pj8dr false most wealth is made
Idk man I’ve seen capitalist who wouldn’t have a conversation and just say “die commie” I mean it’s bad on both sides but isn’t a one sided thing
come on John you didn't even play
*...the soviet anthem*
Союз нерушимый республик свободных
Сплотила навеки Великая Русь.
Да здравствует созданный волей народов
Единый, могучий Советский Союз!
Славься, Отечество наше свободное,
Дружбы, народов надежный оплот!
Знамя советское, знамя народное
Пусть от победы, к победе ведет!
Сквозь грозы сияло нам солнце свободы,
И Ленин великий нам путь озарил.
Нас вырастил Сталин - на верность народу
На труд и на подвиги нас вдохновил.
Славься, Отечество чаше свободное,
Счастья народов надежный оплот!
Знамя советское, знамя народное
Пусть от победы к победе ведет!
Мы армию нашу растили в сраженьях,
Захватчиков подлых с дороги сметем!
Мы в битвах решаем судьбу поколений,
Мы к славе Отчизну свою поведем!
Славься, Отечество наше свободное,
Славы народов надежный оплот!
Знамя советское, знамя народное
Пусть от победы к победе ведет!
Matthew Villalba - Mutis that’s communism
@@michaelwells9970 haha
@@pretzel502 Now make it E A R R A P E !
@@bobross2362
*Союз* *нерушимый* *республик* *свободных*
*Сплотила* *навеки* *Великая* *Русь.*
*Да* *здравствует* *созданный* *волей* *народов*
*Единый, могучий* *Советский* *Союз**!*
*Славься, Отечество наше свободное,
Дружбы, народов надежный оплот!
*
Знамя советское, знамя народное
Пусть от победы, к победе ведет!
Сквозь грозы сияло нам солнце свободы,
И Ленин великий нам путь озарил.
Нас вырастил Сталин - на верность народу
На труд и на подвиги нас вдохновил.
Славься, Отечество чаше свободное,
Счастья народов надежный оплот!
Знамя советское, знамя народное
Пусть от победы к победе ведет!
Мы армию нашу растили в сраженьях,
Захватчиков подлых с дороги сметем!
Мы в битвах решаем судьбу поколений,
Мы к славе Отчизну свою поведем!
Славься, Отечество наше свободное,
Славы народов надежный оплот!
Знамя советское, знамя народное
Пусть от победы к победе ведет!
In Sweden there is truly a huge difference between the use of the word socialism and communism. Communism is here a really dirty word just as in USA, though socialism is not at all a dirty word and is associated with the swedish social democratic party, which is considered pretty far from communism.
Well, Social Democrats aren't really Socialists. Social Democracy is a secession of Liberalism. Miljöpartiet and Vänsterpartiet is the only Socialistic parties we have, really.
Then we have Social liberal parties, which all parties in Alliansen probably falls under, and then we have two (sort of) Conservative parties, KD and SD.
Markus9705 Yeah I agree to an extent but I would not consider Miljöpartiet (The Environment party) a socialist party only Vänsterpartiet (The Left Party) fits in that category and Moderaterna (The Moderates) is mix between a social liberal party and a conservative party.
MackMaster Miljöpartiet is definitely a Socialist party. They are aginast profits in the welfare, Swedish arms exports and surveillance on the Net. Instead, they want to pay tribute to people and whistle blowers who find fault in democracy. They want that our (Swedish) foreign policy priority to conflict prevention and non-military means to create and maintain peace and promote democracy and human rights, they want free school meals, free state health care, they fight for LGBT rights, they promote animal rights and so on.
Miljöpartiet describes themslef as a feminist party, and as far as I konw they are for affirmative action.
I would consider them as green Socialists, mainly because they are Socialists. :P
The Left Party in Sweden have quite similar opinions as the Environment Party, which personally is a bit of a problem for me; I don't know what to vote for. :(
MackMaster Moderaterna is Liberals, not Conservatives. Anyone who say that they're Conservative haven't simply read their Party Program.
Markus9705 To be against surveillance on the internet is a liberal idea, it is built upon rights of freedom. You are doing what you want with your internet without anyone blocking you or affecting our privacy. LGBT rights is also built upon a liberal grund. Being able to marry who ever you want without the state interfering for example is very liberal. My personal viewpoint is a bit socialist but some parts of liberalism such as these two that I just mentioned are crucial in a great society.
Therefore I would consider Miljöpartiet social-democratic environmental party, since social-democratic parties often have a little bit more liberal influences than socialist party's.
All party programs are very subjective and promote their own politics in the way they want to present it to the public. Moderaterna originates from conservative routes and writes laws that pretty often stands especially positive to descendants of the old nobility.
Obrigada pela legenda em portugues (BT). Muito bom !
Oof this comment section is a garbage fire.
That's not much facial hair for a couple weeks.
thatisthejoke.jpeg
he was forced to share it with other people
He worked in gulags
Yes, John. France is totally what you call the border between Egypt and Lybia.
Former rightful French territory am I right
I think he meant the place his finger landed on was the border of Egypt and Libya. Then again, I wasn’t paying attention.
I particularly like how in this video, which is ostensibly about both capitalism and socialism, John never actually defines what socialism is, I assume because he expects the viewer to already be familiar with it. The closest he comes is by associating socialism with "the idea of protecting our collective interest," which is in the right ballpark but not specific enough to explain to the viewer what exactly socialism is beyond being opposed to capitalism. This gives the impression that socialism is ultimately a nebulous and totally theoretical system, unlike the battle-tested, ascendant capitalism (which he says has "ultimately won out" in the conflict between the two). He even says that the principles of socialism live on in the debates about how much regulation of the economy should be done under capitalism, which is sort of true but elides the fact that Nordic model social democracy is still fundamentally capitalist, not collective ownership of the means of production.
So while the video tries to present itself as a neutral source on these two competing economic systems, it frames one side in a much better light and fails to bring up most of the serious arguments of the other side or suggest that they might have legitimate criticisms of our modern world. Just goes to show that it's not easy to recognize pro-capitalist bias when it's all you've ever known.
What are the technological innovations that the Nordic system has brought us?
oh damn u right 🤭
He also frames it as though investing, markets, and innovation are exclusive to capitalism-
@@wagnergauer9133 It hasn't been around for long, but theoretically there isn't anything that is preventing innovation.
@@bighomie6435 theoretically if there is no innovation there is something preventing it.
Out of curiosity, is there an accessible/public place where you document your resources? Not only for this video, but in general
I have questions now. I haven't been formally educated in economics at all. How are (or were) Capitalism and unemployment tied? How did child labor become abolished in the US (and in the U.K. and Germany)? This cultural shift is really complex. Also this bit about Utopian Socialism and Auguste Blanqui is fascinating (I don't think I've encountered Blanqui outside of this video). Would CC consider a future course on Labor History or a History of Economic Thought course? That would be awesome! John would be a good teacher for manyl of these. Maybe do another video on Capitalism as Culture or Capitalism as Cultural Revolution hosted by Mike Rugnetta (If he's interested and doesn't have other projects in mind)?
My favorite history show John! Please bring it back with singular episodes on certain topics
As always, I appreciate your humour and explanations.
My ADD started acting up after 10 seconds of watching this ☹️
A.m 00000 dude me too I wanna slip this guy a Xanax
Don't worry. So did his
Biggest problems with this video:
1. Socialism is never defined. There's a vague and incomplete history of Socialism, but its never stated what socialism actually is (the control of the means of production by the workers who use them), or what that means. Ideas that are critical to actually understanding socialism, like Marx's labor theory of value, aren't explained, and there's no discussion of what a socialist economy would actually look like, or that there are multiple distinct types (primarily: planned, market, or syndicalist).
2. It misrepresents what early capitalism looked like, and what the arguments of classical economists actually were. Free market advocates opposed monopolies created by government favoritism, not consumer and worker protection laws. In pre-industrial economies almost everyone was self employed as either merchant-craftsmen or farmers working on their own land or the commons. By breaking up state monopolies (primarily on land), writers like Adam Smith were advocating for MORE self employment. Today a position like that would be considered distributist or market socialist.
3. The idea is presented at the end that an economic system can be partly socialist and partly capitalist, and that things like government ownership and social programs are inherently socialist. This is simply untrue. For one thing, no socialist theorists prior to Lenin made a distinction between socialism and communism. Second of all, this is conflating socialism and social democracy, which does not advocate transfer of the means of production to workers. To quote the Marxist revolutionary James Connolly: "State ownership and control is not necessarily socialism. If it were then the army, the police, the judges, and the jailers would all be socialist functionaries... The ownership by the state of all the land and materials of labor combined with the cooperative control by the workers of such land and materials, would be socialism."
"Crash Course"
Though I liked the information in your comment
Alleyup1994USA 2. No. The workers can run a business its called a cooperative. And lennisim is not communist due to it relying on a strict highirchy while in real communism their is no government. Hitler owned a capitalist society due to most industry belonging to private parties. And my knowlage of Mao is garbages so I won't talk about him
Alleyup1994USA Hitler also invented privatization. So much for being Socialist.
Speaking seriously though, he wasn't free market, he just supported big German companies.
Labor theory of value is horribly flawed.
1. Labor isn't necessarily valuable - if a person digs and fills in a ditch repeatedly no value is added. Labor is used though.
2. Resources matter. The world ends if all the world's resources are destroyed. The entire environmentalism movement is effectively predicated on LVT being incomplete.
I take it you're an avid socialist 😂
Socialism is the best economic system there is, just look at all the great examples throughout the 20th century where countries have prospered as a result...
1. Yugoslavia - no longer exists
2. U.S.S.R - no longer exists
3. Democratic Kampuchea - no longer exists
4. East Germany - no loner exists
5. Laos - Widespread famine, poverty and political oppression
6. Vietnam - Widespread famine, poverty and political oppression
7. Venezuela - Worlds largest oil reserves, political oppression, economic recession, worlds largest murder rate per capita, food shortages...
Now lets have a look at the countries which have been oppressed by the greedy bourgeoisie throughout the 20th/21st century as a result of capitalism...
1. U.S.A - worlds largest economy
2. Japan - worlds 3rd largest economy
3. Germany - worlds 4th largest economy
4. Britain - worlds 5th largest economy
5. Australia - Melbourne (2nd largest city in Australia) has been ranked the worlds most livable city for 5 years in a row with a total of 4 other cities in the top 10 each year).
Last but not least, after embracing economic reforms in 1978, China has now surged to the worlds 2nd largest economy and largest exporter of consumable goods as a result of embracing.... yep, you guessed it...CAPITALISM.
*****
Those Scandinavian countries are capitalist, or have you swallowed the "democratic socialism" BS from Bernie too? The Nordic model they operate under is a capitalist economy with a welfare safety net. On the other hand, democratic socialism is where the state owns, regulates and distributes the means of production under a democratic political system... something which would be impossible in the US seeing as you guys are a REPUBLIC. It's kind of sad to see so many young Americans swallow Bernie's lies about something as destructive as democratic socialism because he spews buzzwords like "free college" and "wealth redistribution"... some things that can only be accomplished through government force might I add.
All the problems Bernie talks about in the US have come about as a direct result of government interference.
For example, US college fees are so high because the government created an artificial inflation on tuition by making available student loans to every citizen (might I highlight subprime loaning, which was a driving force behind the global financial crisis), which has devalued college degrees... the more there is of something the less it is worth, simple economics. There are more people going to college and getting degrees now so of course tuition is going to go up in price.
College students are putting themselves in debt for a worthless piece of paper, where 20,000 other graduates will be fighting for a job opening which can only accept 1% of the applicants.
Also with your China comment, China's population living in perpetual poverty halved in the first 7 years of implementing capitalism, from 1978-1975, and their average life expectancy has risen from 32 to 69 when moving from a socialist economy to capitalism.
According to the world bank, China's poverty rates fell from 88% in 1981 to 6.5% in 2012... that's over 1 billion people.
+`Dear maN` Bernie drawing examples from Nordic countries while simultaneously promoting Democratic Socialism is flat out lying because they were different economic systems. Nordic countries are more on the side of social democracy which is where my biggest issue with him lies (he intentionally manipulates uneducated millennials because many can't identify that social democracy and democratic socialism are literally opposite). I'm not American either.
Democratic Kampuchea actually still exist, mind you
Lorde Icarus
No it doesn't. The Kingdom of Cambodia now exists on the same landmass as Democratic Kampuchea did after it's collapse.
Adam Marks
Ah yes, now dominant party and constitutional monarchy.
Oh how John has changed in 7 years
A problem with capitalism is the fact that quality goes down. In theory competition should make quality go up, but there is no competition because all companies belong to a handful of people. This is called monopoly which is illegal, but since they understand how loopholes work they always get away with it.
I wish everyone stopped using the Delacroix painting to represent the French Revolution since it depicts the bourgeois Orleanist uprising of 1830.
I wish people depicts human without hands because they are used to kill others
But don't worry america, although you feel socialism a bad word, we will just rename it, hope you don't notice, and implement it everywhere for everyone because enlarging state power throughout history is obviously the solution to all problems!
- Progressives
***** i don't understand, are you saying a free market is like a mafia? Or.. Maybe you are saying whenever there is a criticization of socialism it is capitalist propaganda and not credible
Benjamin Dover It's already happening man. America has 50 states yet the central government has the true ultimate power, and ours is just a method of control. Make the people think they have real power and they'll be content. It's not good.
Benjamin Dover Socialism =/= state power, it's a stateless egalitarian society where the means of production are under the control of the workers.
Gray Beard And how do the workers come to own the corporation?
Parneli Jones Many different ways, although in socialism there are worker groups rather than corporations because there is no a State to enforce that legal privilege of corporatism. Starting one together, collectively buying it from the previous owner, through a State mandate (which is only partially socialistic since it uses a State), or a revolution to overthrow the rulers (either peaceful or violent).
I would PAY GOOD MONEY to hear the audiobook of you reading the manifesto! Please someone make this happen!
You would "PAY GOOD MONEY" to hear someone read the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO? :thinking:
@@harmstrongg we live in a capitalist society dude. I dont get your problem.
@@nl7837 of course you don't lol
Google free communist manifesto audio book and you get a CZcams video
@Air Get better lines, who doesn't have a job in this economy? Oh, right, communists.
When he said bourgeoisie I immediately thought....
“The birds your for the bourgeoisie”
Work
I think you didn't speak fast enough. You should try speaking much faster so that people would actually be able to understand you.
You can actually slow down the video
Lmao this is fast to you? Where are you from a swamp in Mississippi
...they’re joking..
I am a Democratic Socialist much like Bernie Sanders, he hits on every point and I'm voting his side in 2016!
vidhead85 Please look up Milton Friedman or Thomas Sowell. Don't just vote for Bernie because what he's saying sounds nice. Sowell and Friedman completely destroy any point Sanders makes and they are some of the most respected economist, authors, and professors ever
GawdGFX I acknowledge your point, but I'm going Bernie all the way. He HAS ideas unlike many of the candidates running and the idea of universal healthcare, tuition free schooling, mandatory paid vacation (for workers apparently) and I believe paid maternity and paternity leave is a must for new parents
What he's saying doesn't just SOUND good, it IS good for the mental health and well being of our country
I respectfully disagree with you, and I've heard of these individuals before
vidhead85 Free stuff means you like govt to go out and take other people`s money, and go buy shit for you. You are no different than a common thief. You just want to elect Bernie to do it for you.
Parneli Jones A common thief doesn't work a job, pay his/her texes and expect that they be used to further society
A common thief doesn't think about what will benefit others, only themselves, and the things I cited above like universal healthcare, childcare, education, mandatory 2 week vacation and paid time off. sick time actually HELP peoples' mental health
NO one who works should work themselves to exhaustion and a bad state of mental health.
That is all I need to say
vidhead85 If you think free universal healthcare is great, that govt is giving us something and you have a right to it, you are a thief.
Because in order for Govt to "give", it must TAKE. It takes from those with incomes, and gives to those without. Giving and taking money creates incentives.
It rewards those who fail, and penalizes those that do not. This is a set of 2, opposite incentives, both making society as a poorer.
It slows good behavior and actions, rewards failing ones. Thats like beating your kid when he does great in school, giving him a trip to Disneyland for failing.
Only a fucking moron would think that makes sense.
So, true capitalism/liberalism and true communism/socialism haven't been truly tried in big scale, but rather a weird mix of them both with a state in the middle?
I love and hate this topic. John barely explains socialism and communism, unfortunately, which kinda makes it feel like the video is biased.
I love it because it's interesting and still a good thing to think about today. It's about everything that we do everyday in our lives.
I hate because there is so much misinformation. So much people that "know" everything about it spilling their passions as truths. I'm not pro communism but I must admit I see that A LOT in the pro-capitalism side. People in this page defending child labor and inhuman conditions so capitalism gets strong enough to be good. Or fear mongering about communism and its many dictators and genocides (like that would have been called communism by anyone but capitalists). The list goes on and on...
I have to wonder, though, about one specific point. Power and legitimacy.
There is NO legitimate power. Power always begin accumulating by force and coercion. We try to make it legitimate so we can live in peace, but it is never legitimate.
Capitalism is often referred to as a somewhat just system because people have "equal" opportunities to succeed and accumulate wealth. Truth is we all NEVER were equal. The first capitalists were rich already. If anything, it made possible social ascension, barely.
On the other hand, communism does look like it's not practical on bigger scales.
I'm yet to see a interesting discussion in this subject without people saying why one is better than the other and without tons of crap in between
MrFista69 Nope. And they are exceptions to the rule, anyway.
I'm saying that, when "capitalism" started powerful people used it to remain powerful.
A simple farmer, for example, could never have the means to get money enough to buy the means of production. At least not without working so hard that he'd already created a fortune for another guy.
Bruno Siqueira The reason for that is the government overtaxes the poor farmers.
***** In my opinion the same problem happens with capitalism over time. Or you don't think police brutality is coercion? Not the only form, either. Coercion will always be "needed" to maintain a government, as it's a form of domination (ruling), and because people disagree a lot. Maybe it's variable, but it's there.
Bruno Siqueira NAP
Bruno Siqueira Respect, bro! Clear thoughts and minds. I suppose in the USA is some kind of fear of communists (many years of propaganda and nuclear war hazard, I suppose), and people just cant think clear. Communism is too hight and hard system for us now (we are too selfish and just cant think about eatch other), when there is another sistem like fascism (absolute power of rich guys who have a treatment witch workers about good enough conditions for them). After the fall of communists there is nothing what can fight witch capitalists and gooverments for the rights of the people (and people just cant organise themeselves).
I just can say you one thing: communism is the highest point of humans development, when everyone is happy and free (and there are not any propaganda, wars or evil empires)
I'm from Hong Kong!
This city is one of the most capitalism and we have people suffering! Capitalism made the city unlivable because people have to work for 30-50 years for a house!
Capitalist lovers are either rich or never live in the most capitalist cities ever!
HKBoy123 You are wrong, working 30-50 years in HK can only buy you a cage which can barely fit in a bed and a desk. (Living in HK too)
Capitalism is doing whatever maximizes profit. If exploiting poor people, keeping them strategically impoverished, polluting and destroying the environment, breaking laws, etc. makes money, it will be done.
Puglous First of all, your comment doesn't actually make sense. I suspect you typed something wrong.
Second, I never said it was a form of government. It is however, an economic game with a set of rules backed by government force. The prescription for success in capitalism is "maximize profits, consequences be damned".
Puglous Totally wrong. Businesses themselves are merely operators in the capitalist economy. Its pointless to blame them directly, one has to look at the broader system. Capitalism *does* force people to submit to labor through a "gun to the head" scenario. You either find a way to sell yourself as a laborer or create a product, or to get to starve to death. This is particularly hanus given the fact that much of the labor within the economy is unnecessary for survival and is totally disconnected from human health or social functionality, and even more so because large amounts of the current labor force could be automated.
Puglous Honestly it is so obvious you are an ideologue who doesn't want to listen to reason, and you seem to follow practically every comment I make on the subject, each response more time-wasting than the last.
You don't seem capable of looking at things from a systems perspective. If I create a game in which you have to work or you die, then that is coercion. Its not businesses themselves, its the overall fucking system. The fucking system is coercive in nature. There are endless alternatives... but thats a long and complex subject that I doubt you are ready to handle.
I love your videos! These are fantastic!
From now on I will be referring to mustaches as “face caterpillars”.
I am no expert, but I learn so much from your 10 minute pieces. Big fan.
There's so much new perspective you throw on things, like in this case, i never thought of what businesses should be taken care by the govt and which ones by the individuals. My country is still figuring which ideas to choose.
Also, was shocked to see that roots of socialism lied in french history. Very new to me.
Much love from India.
Y'know, child labor was a ubiquitous thing since long before the industrial revolution. Ironically, it's the advances brought about by industrialization that eventually allowed more families to subsist without having to put their children to work.
A little perspective goes a long way.
Actually, it was political reform taking up a large portion of 19th century England that brought an end to child labor. This is important because production and industrialization don't actually have anything to do with child labor being stopped. Social reform, hastened by the pains industrialization brought upon people, is what actually caused the evolution of labor laws, including child labor.
Yeah, no. Life got quite a lot worst for the average person after the industrial revolution. That's a pretty damning fact for capitalism if, under their system, automation and efficiency actually lowered people's standard of living. It may be true that before the industrial revolution it was common for children to help plant crops, gather eggs, milk cows, but after the industrial revolution it was pretty common for children to get arms and fingers ripped off, or just be killed outright by machines. "Child labor" as the horror we think of it as today didn't exist at all before the industrial revolution.
The only thing that ended child labor was socialist policies, regulating businesses, labor unions. It's not like our standard of living has gotten higher and higher as we've deregulated more and more. As we've regulated more, put in more socialist policies, funding for science, free education, a safety net, progressive taxes, our society has advanced more. When we deregulated we got rivers so polluted they caught on fire, a lending crisis, monopolies, and an economy propped up by overseas slave labor.
@captainmanacles I remember my first socialist indoctrination beer...
@Matheus Barcellos I know that automation increases production, I said that outright in my post. The problem is that the consequences of automation as you imagine it, do not happen, in practice, under a capitalist system.
What ended up happening is you have this aristocracy, even when that is abolished, they still own all the land. When things started to automate, the land owners were the only ones able to build factories to increase production. They could produce more with less workers, which meant more people were out of work. They could lower wages as low as they wanted, make work as dangerous as they wanted. No one other than the land owners could save money. The more money they saved, the more absolute their control, the wider they could make the gap between themselves and the poor.
This is just a fact of history. Most people worked in more dangerous conditions for less money after industrialization. It wasn't until minimum wage laws, mandated 8 hour work days, work safety laws, free education, progressive taxes, and other socialist policies, did the standard of living for most people start to rise.
@Matheus Barcellos The aristocracy/land owners/bosses didn't need the state to maintain their privileges ie. owning the land, machines (= the means of production) while the workers don't. So it's not necessarly corporativism.
Automation does make people unemployed thus there are less workers, you seem to agree on that. But if i understand well, you say that it's actually good for the workers since they will each have more wealth/their wages increase because not only there's more wealth (thanks to production being faster and cheaper) but also there are less people to divide the wealth with, right ? But a true capitalist whose first goal is profit would keep the wealth to themself (either for consumtion or (more likely) for investment in more machines to have even less wages to distribute etc) so i think automation is a virtious cycle for the capitalist's profit (and a vicious cycle for the worker's employment and wages).
(in response to your 4th paragraph) Automation can indeed be a good thing for workers when demand (of employers) > offer (of workers selling their labor) but that's only for a certain category of workers : the qualified ones whose labor can't be replaced by machines anyway and for who the capitalist compete by proposing the higher wages and best working conditions, as you said, and in that particular case, they can't follow their capitalist's goal i referred to earlier (which is profit) because this is qualified labour that capitalists need, that can't be replaced and that could be taken by their opponenent. That's why, in reality, we encourage young people to follow stem majors or medicine, less at risk to be replaced. But for the unqualified jobs the demand (of employers) < offer (of workers selling their labour), there's little demand since automation is a threath for workers and capitalist can play on that by making them compete endlessly and (leaving the theorical discourse here for bit) this is what is happening in our reality with big corporations buying cheap labour in third world countries.
as for minimum wage and minorities, i don't understand the link between race and labour service cost, you can be black with a high labour cost and white with a low labour cost. Maybe that was a shortcut to say minorities in america are poorer thus have to propose cheaper labour service ? which is indeed true. But a minimum wage would not change this fact. If without minimum wage, Jason would cost 100$ and Joe 300$, with a minimum wage of let's say 200$, Jason would now cost 200$ and Joe still 300$. Jason still costs less than Joe.
And if we actually get to the bigger picture does it really matter ? Cause we have Jason who costs 200$ in america but with capitalist globalization and the run for profit in our modern world there's still a Kevin who only costs 50$ in China ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I like how you left the questions open-ended. You didn't act like anyone knows the answer, but provided important context and explanation. Good video.
Man, your presentation is incredible
Socialism and captialism have purposes. There must be a balance between the free-market and state-sponsored programs! :p
As these two are often seen as a projected duality (like the age-old and stupid left vs right question), I'd suggest to read up on alternative strategies for social arrangement, perhaps think a bit about voluntarism and libertarianism. I highly recommend reading "the most dangerous superstition" by Larken Rose and go from there. Also "On Truth" and "Universally Preferrable Behaviour" by Stefan Molyneux, both available as free download e-books or even as an audiobook here on youtube. After reading / listening to these, look back at what you just wrote. I guarantee you that you will very much enjoy these intellectual exercises.
I agree, I support libertarian communitarianism.
of course you're right and how the balance should work is the defining question of our political discourse at the moment, theres no doubt that laissez faire capitolist economics lead to booming economies (such as in the 1920s or the early 2000s), in a way communism has not yet done yet however the profit doesn't trickle down as much as Ayn Rand and ronald reagan would have you believe. so to a certain extent we need a strong government to regulate business and use it to ensure equality through minimum wages and other social security policies. how much power to regulate and how much the state should put into these programs is what politicians and governments have argued over for a century now, and your stance defines whether you're right or left wing in the modern sense of those words, finding that balance is difficult though and no nation has found it perfectly yet so the political debate must go on
The lack of regulation is not the problem per se, the states intervening at all is. Something like the financial crisis of 2008 would never have happened if the perps hadn't known beforehand that they will be bailed out by their buddies in the political arena. So in essence, government steals ("taxes") the shit out of the general population and use that money to bail out the banks who fucked the population (and each other) as well. Yet all the protesters went to wall street and nobody occupied the lawn in front of the white house, which is mind-boggling to me.
It is said that you can't make sense of anything without the context that goes around it, therefore capitalism is not a problem in itself, politics is not necessarily a problem in itself, wannabe dictatorships and the interlinks between politics and finance are the problem. Just apply the rules you would have ordinary people follow to banks and governments and see where all the problems lie...
So if the banks were reckless cos they knew their buddies in congress were gonna bail them out, then thats a problem of corrupt congressmen befriending banks, and the problem lies as is the case so often with politicians rather than politics itself.
If you look at capitalism and socialism from the perspective that humans are primate mammals, and capitalism and socialism are just descriptions of primate social behavior involving possession of objects and territory in their environment, you can trace the evolution of both concepts through human evolution. Both behaviors have an innate, instinctive element as well as some aspects that are learned, cultural behaviors.
Ramen
NebulaGFx The noodle?
Eric Johnson its delicious, but why i use it here is it is the atheist way of saying amen
***** correction:lack of belief, atheism is a lack of belief. what i was saying is that it has the same definition as amen, but atheists dont use religious terms
***** no, it is not belief there is no god, it is lack of belief in a god. the difference is that a belief in no god would be a religion, which atheist by definition cannot be apart of, a lack of belief in a god just means that i havnt found any evidence of a god
5:15 repeat until satisfaction
This pops up in my recommended now?💀💀
I really appreciate your videos but I wish this would explain Capitalism as an economic system more clearly. But you are an amazing blogger and historian and my favorite author of all time. Thank you for creating characters that are brilliant and rebellious and obscure, characters I connect with. And thank you for your informational videos because being the nerd I am, I watch it not just for my classes but also for my own entertainment. You have helped me accept my role in this world as a deep thinker and proud history buff. Thank you
Under socialism, everyone is equal...ly poor.
That describes capitalism perfectly. Americans are becoming poorer every year with half the population under the poverty line, and there are billions of people in the world who live on less than 1 dollars a day.
Hello there The world isn’t capitalist though.
Most of the countries of the world are capitalist to some extent. And even those that aren't capitalist are many times negatively affected by capitalist policies which is all about maximizing profits for the wealthy.
Hello there Lol, yeah, those capitalist countries have the lowest poverty rates. It makes whoever works hard and takes financial risk richer. Capitalism has pulled more people out of hunger and poverty than anything in the history of the world.
What part of "billions of people live on a less than 2 dollars a day" don't you understand?
This is excellent! Entertaining and helpful.
Home-schooling has me watching these way too often and I love it
Can you do a series on British history and politics?
world history is far easier
+Ben Salis we just want a separate series like the one he did for US History but about European/ UK History
+Ishwariya Gopal Seeing how the channel is based for education, especially to help high school students in the US, I see it unlikely that they do a UK history, however it would be amazing if they did
+Rubik's Cube I mean, they are doing philosophy and games soooo
+Ishwariya Gopal Philosophy is a class in some American high schools but you're right
The amount of blanket statements in the comments is smothering (eh?).
I'm a capitalism-supporter, but it would be stupid of me to claim there were no benefits and detraction's to socialism and capitalism both. What's with all the one sided idiots?
I know, right? People should keep an open mind.
I totally agree with you. I think people like to label things as "good" or "bad" because it is easier, i.e. more simple to understand things that way. Like John often states in his lessons, there is no easy answer to any problems or issues. There is always benefits and costs for every single solution or system. We have to weigh the pros and cons (cost-benefit analysis) for each individual case to make the best decisions.
+luvcheyney1 I don't think he means concrete things like stealing or lying so much as ideas and historical events. We have to acknowledge that not everything we come across can have a label slapped on it and we can go our merry ways. We need to see each side of the issue, and even then, a simple label won't cut it.
Even stealing and lying should be distinguished between "bad" and "condemnable" acts. As in, we, as imperfect humans, have no right to condemn someone because of an act. Disciplinary actions can be taken, though, not saying there shouldn't be consequences for actions.
Addressing the original commenter this time: I emphatically agree. In regards to this topic, I believe in using some socialist principles to structure free markets and capitalism. I value humanity over money, and while this can't really be communicated into law, I want regulation that supports this.
luvcheney1 Because we've collectively decided that we don't want old people to die of treatable diseases. When we are old, we'll rely on our collective children to do the same for us. It's called community, and if you don't like it, go be a hermit.
I'm more confused now than when I didn't know anything slow down green
Unfortunately this video didn't explain either capitalism nor socialism, and I'd probably have enjoyed it more of I knew in advance that nothing would have been said.
Ian Knutson its more of a “history of capitalism and socialism” rather than “what is capitalism and socialism?”
@@danteguardi4459 I mean, the video is a crash course in the history of them. As advertised.
@@magnithorson6568 It's hard to understand history without understanding the historical economic conditions. Without a decent grasp on the relevant economics, understanding events like the Russian revolution or the Great Depression will be quite difficult. Economics is obviously not the focus, but it's important to understand how capitalism is defined by private ownership and how socialists critique that as oppressive to workers in order to understand these events, and it wouldn't take very much time.
Wow, there are actually WAY less capitalist/socialist flame wars in the comments than i expected. Perhaps my faith in human intelligence will be restored...NAH!!!
RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE
Right below this comment was a person starting a socialist vs communist argument
Andy Su most people are idiots, don't put your faith in idiots.
always have a low expectation to achieve happiness...KINDA LIKE SOCIALISM FLAME WAR STARTED
Some Lad 2 much edge 4 me, bro
The whole "socialism vs. capitalism" argument always gets turned into a big government vs. small government argument, which is totally irrelevant. Perhaps authoritarian perversions of Marxism (which is, admittedly, a bit majoritarian unless you assume the individual rights typical of most democratic-republics) result in totalitarian regimes like we have seen throughout the 20th century, but this has little, if anything, to do with their chosen economic system and everything to do with their one-party states and complete lack of democratic accountability. These forms of socialism were more "successful" (if you can call it that) simply because a coup is easier to orchestrate than a popular revolution. All non-Leninist socialists are in favor of democracy of some kind (not "democratic centralism," or intra-party democracy within a single-party state), and some are even in favor of a market economy, just not one that includes the commodification of people or the monopolization of what would be public resources in a socialist economy. What is really being debated is property rights, not authoritarianism vs. democracy. That is a straw man argument created by apologists for capitalism.
There is some truth to what you are saying, in the sense that the goal of a socialist society has often been an inspiration for the increase of state power. However, this is but one manifestation of a more generic problem--those in power using the state to force people to do things, often "for their own good"--and is not something endemic to the idea of socialism. I don't think this condemns socialism any more than the failure of the Soviet Union did. Just because some socialists are okay with forcing socialism on others doesn't invalidate the idea any more than forcing people to purchase health insurance invalidates the idea of health insurance. Socialism isn't the problem, forcing it on people is. A bit of a semantical/normative debate can also be had as to whether expropriation is coercion or liberation, etc. This obviously depends on your perspective.
People may vote for authoritarian, state-socialism/socialists voluntarily, sure, but this only becomes problematic through the state's ability to coerce. Fascists aren't very dangerous when they're not in a position to control other people, either. Economic policy has little, if anything, to do with sexual education or public school menus. Politicians may make socialist-esque proposals so that they get elected, but bringing that change about in an authoritarian manner is not something required of all socialists, by definition. That just makes you an authoritarian socialist, just like religious fanatics and hardcore nationalists are right-wing authoritarians. The left/right political spectrum is overly simplistic, technically these are just economic descriptors that say nothing about social views, be they liberal or authoritarian.
***** // Socialism/Communism are the means by which a Totalitarian Government
That is just not true. I can agree that non-Marxist Communism is Totalitarian, but Marxists today are in favor of a direct democracy which the state only exists to do what the people want; the state doesn't really exists.
Many non-Communist Socialists, including myself, are in great favor of democracy and even a free market.
***** Sovjet Union tried Communism, which is radical/ultra Socialism. To say that Socialism is bad is like saying that right politics are wrong because ultra-right-wingers wants to have dictatorship.
What you are describing is a committee of tyrants. It is immoral, in a nation of 100, for the 99 to claim complete ownership of the labor of 1. It is theft, whether it is done by a totalitarian thug, or a democratic mob of thugs.
I wish i could talk to college John :(
Key take-away from this video: "very hard to take off a shirt dramatically" 😂😂😂
P.S. applies only if you don't want to lose the buttons by ripping it
Your bias clearly shows and you just skim over socialism like it's not still relevant to today. The fact that you speak a good portion about Marx's beard instead of his actual view points or his critiques on capitalism makes it abundantly clear.
+Undertone Socialism is a tried, and dead, concept. It devolves us unto an unmotivated, self entitled people, then into leninism, then into communism, which historically results in the massacre of thousands and the subjugation of millions.
True socialism, communism or marxism never existed. However aspects of it exist until today. The concept of free education and health care must be very foreign to you. You clearly don't know what self-entitled means than. Capitalism is an unnatural system bent on endless exploitation in a system with finite resources. It's unsustainable. And you are talking about totalitarianism, not communism. If you think that capitalism hasn't resulted in the massacre of thousands and the subjugation of millions than you haven't been paying close attention to history. Either that or you are pretty keen on listening to only one narrative or just plain ignorant wage slave.
And unlike you I actually have the benefit of having lived in both systems. That gives me rather empirical evidence. Have you?
+Undertone Empirical evidence? Try anecdotal evidence. Congratulations in an entire paragraph you've presented no real argument against capitalism... only hurl a bunch of insults at it as if your opinion wasn't completely baseless.
+Shane Phelps Anecdotal evidence would be if I was cherry-picking my examples. Learn your definitions please. I'm not cherry picking, I've lived in both systems therefore I can contrast them. Have you lived in both systems? I'm not hurling any insults. If you think wage slave is an insult, you are sadly mistaken. That's not an insult, that's a fact. Unless of course someone has a lot of inherited wealth. There's oddly a lot of correlation between those that vehemently support capitalism and their origin - usually western with a lot of inherited wealth. Real argument against capitalism? Read Marx's critique. Might learn a thing or two.
There are over 10 million millionaires in the United States, and they did a study to find that 88% of them did NOT inherit their wealth.