SOCIALISM: An In-Depth Explanation
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 05. 2024
- Socialism, explained through its history.
If you'd like to support the channel, these are the best ways to do it:
1) Subscribe if you haven't
2) Share it with a friend
3) Consider a donation on Patreon: / rchapman
If you're interested, I also upload casual/more intimate videos for CZcams members ($1 per month): / @realryanchapman
0:00 Intro
01:23 An Overview
03:48 Early Socialism
13:20 Karl Marx & Communism
29:12 Revisionism
35:15 Vladimir Lenin
42:47 Democratic Socialism
47:01 Conclusion
Sources:
Socialism: Michael Harrington
Socialist Thought: Albert Fried & Ronald Sanders
Socialism 1.0: Edited by Kirk Watson
The Social Contract & Discourse On Inequality: Jean-Jacques Rousseau
A New World Begins: Jeremy Popkin
A History Of Western Philosophy: Bertrand Russell
Proposed Roads To Freedom: Bertrand Russell
Heaven On Earth: Joshua Muravchik
Timaeus: Plato
Phaedo: Plato
The Metaphysics: Aristotle
The Open Society And Its Enemies: Karl Popper
The Philosophy Of History: Georg Hegel
The Communist Manifesto: Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
The Poverty Of Philosophy: Karl Marx
A Contribution To The Critique Of The Political Economy: Karl Marx
Karl Marx: Jonathan Sperber
Communism: Harold Laski
Critique Of The Gotha Program: Karl Marx
Capital: Karl Marx
Reform Or Revolution: Rosa Luxemburg
Evolutionary Socialism: Eduard Bernstein
What Is To Be Done?: Vladimir Lenin
A People's Tragedy: Orlando Figes
The Primacy Of Politics: Sheri Berman
Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman. Video notes below.
This video dealt with the concepts of socialism and liberalism in the broadest sense possible (historically and geographically). So I was concerned with enduring concepts seen through a global lens. You might have noticed that I didn't even mention the US in this video. The US didn't play a major role in the development of socialism. The most remarkable thing about it, according to my research, was actually the lack of socialism developing there. It was the major country that seemed to defy the trend when the rest of the world was somewhat turning towards socialism (around 100-140 years ago). The US has the Democratic Socialists of America now, but they are small players in both American politics and socialism abroad. From my understanding they're currently closer to Marx and Fabian socialism (having an end goal of 'complete socialism') than democratic socialism typical elsewhere, like Europe. So they, to some extent, defy the generalizations I made of democratic socialism in this video, but they still generally insist on operating in properly democratic political spaces. Categorizations are historically pretty messy within socialism (socialists often claim labels mean things that conflict with other labels that other socialists use, both in other movements and other points in time), and like I said at the end, democratic socialism means different things to different people. If you're looking for one modern authoritative statement of democratic socialist thought, the DSA is not the association to provide it. The Labour Party's updated Clause IV is a better bet (which I read in the video), and yes the Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. Tony Blair (who oversaw the change to Clause IV): 'The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.'
For those who want to read more about Marx's theory of historical development, he saw it occurring through the lens of 'dialectics,' (a Hegelian idea) which is when you interpret the world through conflicting, opposite forces that resolve into a greater, more perfect whole. That's why both Hegel and Marx thought the world was becoming more perfect over time. 'Stages of the dialectic' were being passed through, and things were being resolved into greater and more perfect wholes over time. That's also why Marx's analysis was framed almost entirely through the conflict of two classes: the bourgeoisie and proletariat. He saw them as two opposites in conflict that would resolve into a greater whole: the dictatorship of the proletariat, bringing forth communism. So Marx believed dialectics provide some sort of penetrating insight into the world, even giving him insight into the inevitable future of humanity. He thought Hegel's dialectics were too mystical by being based in Spirit, and he thought he corrected that by basing his theory in matter. Both dialectics and Aristotelian essences are ideas that modern philosophers (like Russell) call 'scholastic.' They're inherently vague but nonetheless treated as precise by academics/theoreticians. That being said, I recently read an excellent biography on Marx by Jonathan Sperber, and he claimed that Marxists historically overemphasize the importance of dialectics to classical Marxism. That's something I've thought myself and I agreed with him. Marx himself rarely and usually only indirectly discussed them. I think the aspects of Marx that I covered in the video are the more important points and dialectics is the next level of detail if you're interested in understanding his underlying logic.
You might have also noticed in Lenin's quotes that he used the term 'social democracy' for his style of socialism. It's a term that Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, and democratic socialists all claimed to describe their style of socialism, making it pretty meaningless in the context of socialism at the time (why I ignored it). I think there's more agreement now that it means something akin to what I described as democratic socialism here, but that in turn has led to endless fighting about whether or not there's a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. Bernie Sanders, for example, announces himself as a democratic socialist, and it leads to fighting over whether he's a democratic socialist or actually a social democrat. I think it's an unnecessary and messy distinction, and think democratic socialism covers the concept well enough. If you ask the question: 'what single term covers all socialists who vow to work within properly democratic systems?' The answer is democratic socialists. The term social democracy is too fraught to be that single term. It's been used historically in too many loose and contradictory ways. That being said, you can use 'social democrats' to describe democratic socialists and people will now generally understand you.
Others say social democrat means you specifically want a mix of capitalism and welfarism, which seems like it's a line socialists further left have taken to claim that any socialists that endorse any privatization aren't actually socialists (they argue that they're correctly called social democrats). By that logic the Labour Party and Swedish Social Democrats aren't socialists. Why? Because they don't want to completely abolish private property. The same goes for Chinese, Cuban, North Korean, and Venezuelan socialists, again, because they all endorse some amount of privatization. So this paints socialism in a pretty tight box, which defies the overwhelming trend in socialism in the last 100 years or so. From there your perspectives are 1) the one I laid out in this video, which most socialists around the world more or less agree with, or 2) socialism is now a small movement (made up of those who still want 'complete socialism') with few modern political successes, who have to somehow claim that all these self-described socialists around the world (like Bernstein and those in Europe) are in fact labeling themselves incorrectly. To me this is akin to saying that the only 'true' liberals around the world are classical liberals (wanting small government), and anyone who deviates from classical liberalism isn't actually a liberal. You have to let political philosophies evolve with the times, and socialism has done that (as has liberalism).
On that note, democracy wasn't consistently used as a meaningful term by socialists until democratic socialism came around. Before then, it mostly was used by socialists to indicate a claim that their policies represented the 'will of the people,' a legacy that came from Rousseau's Social Contract. For one, that alone doesn't work as a conception for democracy. Even for a basic definition of democracy, power needs to be broken up beyond just the commanding majority. Think of what can happen if a majority can do whatever it wants to a minority. The other problem is that socialists at the time didn't tend to articulate a method for proving that their policy actually represented the will of the people. They just said it. The only methods that I'm aware of to date for establishing public opinion are polls and elections, and for either to work as a gauge for public opinion, they can't be held in a context where the population is under political duress. If disagreement or criticism is punished, then you can't expect to learn what people actually think. It was democratic socialists that insisted the word 'democratic' be used meaningfully in the context of their socialism, (meaning political opposition isn't suppressed, elections are open, and freedom of criticism is secured) making them the first to consistently use the word correctly in the tradition, at least to my knowledge.
Last note - some say the video became biased when it covered Lenin, apparently thinking I was too harsh on him. He is heavily propagandized in some circles and is heavily villainized in others. In such circumstances it can be hard to tell who he really was and what he was really about. For our purposes here I wanted to give a straightforward explanation of his main contribution to socialism (Marxism-Leninism). If you think the way he came off was too harsh, I'd recommend researching the period I described in the video when he set the standard for repression in the Soviet Union shortly after coming into power. It's called the 'Red Terror.' I tried to give Lenin some humane nuances but that's the man we're dealing with. He used authoritarianism to bring about socialism, making it suddenly and for the first time an official ideology for a major world power. That was his main contribution to the subject.
- Ryan
Democracy used to be the brightest banner for socialists (esp those from the Soviet Union) for a long time after Marx, but was later stolen by the bourgeois to occupy the moral high ground and serve as their camouflage by twisting and narrowing its connotation to mean only electoral/parliamentary pluralism
Hey Ryan I love your video and I think this is one of the best political videos on CZcams at the moment. *That being said I do have criticism that I think could benefit your work for yourself and us your audience.* You didn’t differentiate between “democratic socialism” (or as I think it is better put: “Fabian socialism”) and “social democracy”. I think it is tragic to conflate them as it only benefits Marxists trying sneak themselves under the umbrella of socially acceptable in order to push the Overton window towards Marxism.
Although certain parties may call themselves Democratic Socialists in their party name they’re still social democrats in ideology. Social democrats as I understand are still capitalist in ideology however they want social reforms so capitalism can better for the ordinary working person. Whereas a genuine democratic (Fabian) socialist in ideology only has the one intention: to bring about totalitarian socialism through democratic means. Fabian/democratic socialism and Leninist socialism to me is like the difference between riding a bus and riding a bike to work: the bike (democratic socialism) might be slower and physically better for you than the bus (Leninist socialism), but at the end of the day you’re still going to the same place (Hell on Earth).
Hopefully you hear this criticism and make a video on it. I don’t go into the same depths in my research as you do so if my understanding is wrong it would also be great if you could make a video to disprove it. Either way I think a video on the topic would be super. As I said I could be wrong. I wish I could provide sources and books on the topic that I found enlightening however I can’t remember them. Also I believe that the terms democratic socialism and social democracy were both created by the same person, but I can’t name him. If they were first coined by the same person then that person might be worth mentioning as well.
If you find it irritating when audience members give you topics then I do sincerely apologise.
Most importantly though, thank you for making this video. Your work is incredible as always. 😊😄😎🔥
Would you be willing to reveal your political orientation/ideology? I’m just curious. If not, no pressure. Your life is your life. Appreciate the great content though!
I love your work and just want to say - rather off topic - that your being rather handsome helps the lessons go down too ☺☺☺
You are awsome, man
Keep up the incredible work that you do.
You have a legacy soked with greatness ahead of you, for you to create
You are and will be highly appreciated by many for decades.
I wish you only the best.
I have a masters degree in theology, and a PhD in psychology and I have rarely heard anyone present such complicated ideas with such clarity. You have a gift.
You're basically what I want to be, I want those degrees at those levels, I just don't know if I'll ever actually go to or get there
Two of the most useless degrees possible. Complete waste of time and money.
Don't be so negative@@ForeverStapleton
@@ForeverStapleton Infinitely more useful and respectable than the weird degrees some people get today.
@@ForeverStapletondon't be so honest with others. 😢😢😂😂😂😂 BTW, NAILED IT
Explaining both Aristotle and Hegel is crucial to beginning to understand Marx. Rarely do people (or professors tbh) do this. Great video!
@@Magic4599 They built the foundations of which dialectical materialism is built upon, what are you on about?
@@fatguy6153 I'm not sure what your question is.
@@Magic4599 what? Aristotle was a materialist, too. He argued that should we should examine our material world as it stands now and base theories off of that. This was counter to Plato’s form of universal statements that could move through time. There are tons of articles and books about the similarities between Marx and Aristotle.
@@scottydo0081 Aristotle is definitely not a materialist at least not in how we think of it. He definitely believed in a God. And there was a mystical dimensions to his observations
@@MrJMB122 @Joel Bridge Thanks for mentioning the possibility of freedom from all "blood and soil " and solar panels too.
why doesn't this guy have more subs? Calm, coherent, easy to follow, no silly gemmicks. Just pure intellectual diamond
The ADHD brain like silly gimmicks and memes
Yeah listed the things that create subs
this is the most straightforward and digestible understanding of socialism i've seen yet. it really helps to explain the different ideas and manifestations instead of trying to tie it all into a single definition. thank you!
You say unbiased yet the wording used is intentionally demeaning towards those who may hold a socialist or leftist viewpoint.
This video just seems like clever repu propaganda
Socialim, marxism and communism are "buzz words" thrown around a lot
@@slevinchannel7589 i am leftist myself and didn’t find it demeaning. while i was disappointed by other videos on his channel that are purposefully demeaning (specifically the CRT one), i think this video did a pretty good job
@@sunny-rs3mrthe national socialist German workers were likewise lefties
It's 50mins long 😂
@@Cherry-pu4mxthe point is that it takes 50 minutes to describe and not 50 seconds or 5 minutes.
I'm 22 years old, and am COMPLETELY clueless regarding politics. I don't have any political opinion other than "I hope we can all get along" and have felt pretty ashamed of that. This year when my country was voting for a new state minister I couldn't vote for any party since I didn't feel knowledgeable enough. Your channel has really helped me in grasping the fundamentals of politics and ethics, so that I at least can understand the different terms political representatives like to say a lot. Your channel is educating a whole generation of people around the world, thank you! :)
Think by yourself and don't listen to bloggers, all of them spread propaganda. I used to be like that, I used to listen to bloggers and repeat their words to my friends so they would think that I'm into politics more than them(I was like 14 yo lol). Nowadays though I don't trust anyone and don't believe anyone in terms of politically related information. After the start of this war everyone started to spread straight propaganda and none of my previous information channels didn't tell independent opinions. Everyone was either on Ukrainian side or on Russian side. The only independent man I know was my friend who didn't give any shit and just kept his grind. And I simply started to not give a shit either. Considering I live in Russia if I would have been following all the news since the start of the war to this day, well, I would simply become insane
Blood stain
The fact you didnt vote, says more about your intellect than all the dumb people who should not vote, but still do it! 😅
A lot of political thought has gone on over many centuries to bring us to where we are now. Different improvements in technology has also influenced where we are now. If you find yourself fascinated with the actual study of politics, people can major in political science. But if you are interested in self education, the nice thing is a person can do that now using the Internet. Good luck with your learning.
First young person, thank you for the actual courage and self awareness to state your known limitations in experience. Very few people who comment in public media are willing to do that. Good luck on your quest to find and embrace understanding.
As someone with socialist leanings, I really appreciate the nuances and lack of overt bias in this video. Where some people go instantly to moralistic terms, you take a rationalist approach; which I admire.
Edit: something something warzone in comments yadda yadda
National Socialist leanings ...
@@barry2521 🙄
He litteraly said its government ownership, which is fundamentally WRONG.
Socialism is the workers owning the means of production
@@tyrvinodinson9790 he didn't say it was the government. He said it was the workers owning the means, but how it was done is the question. Marx, Lenin and arguably engels all sought to do it through a dictatorship of the proletariat. They wanted to use the State to establish communism and break it down to a perfect socialism by the end.
@@tyrvinodinson9790 it has always puzzled my why self-proclaimed socialists don’t start practicing what the preach already yesterday. Register business as a coop > sign any new worker up within said coop. BANG! You have your little “workers own the means of production” structure going. See how long it lasts.
This is the best description of socialism I have ever heard. Tracing it back to the roots and exploring how it evolved through the various schools of thinking is the perfect way to build a well-rounded understanding of such a complex term. Thank you so much Ryan for this incredible content!
i love when youtube algorithm decides to throw at you these pearls and let you discover wonderful smart people from the other side of the world. This is how I wish history and politics got explained at schools. Thanks from the bottom of my heart.
I love this introduction to writers in this context instead of the common “here’s the explanation from my perspective”. This can then be a jumping board to reading those people directly or learning more about them. It’s really refreshing to see.
DUDE!!!!!!! MARIXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE THAT WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC SCIENTIST USES THE SUBGJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!!!!! MARXIST/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST/NEO-MARXIST ARE ALL SCIENCE-DENIERS!!!!!!!!! :D :D
I agree
highlighting some of the writers words this is most helpful, especially if you pick out really key passages.
Just remember communication is responsible for over 100 million people starving to death
I was really lazy in school and never really studied because I was so addicted to my phone & now I'm 23 and suddenly find history and how society/economy works really interesting. 🙏 Watching your videos makes me feel a tiny bit more educated and makes me really happy. I appreciate your work so much! ❤️
Economic/Political Theory is an incredibly vast, unique, and interesting topic. This is definitely the channel to learn from 😁
Check out the Tom Woods podcast and the Mises Institute. Both are a wealth of knowledge on those subjects and convey it in an entertaining format.
I didn't do well in school either, because I didn't see the point in more than half of the things I was "taught" of which I actually don't use anything to this day. It also never helped me figure out what career path suits me most, it was just an exercise in unproductivity.
School subjects about society, economy also never taught me anything useful like a lot of CZcams videos and books I've read outside of school did, history has always kinda interested me, but the way school teaches history is basically fast food history. It's worthless.
And that's because public schools don't exist to teach you anything useful, the system they use was designed to produce factory drones who are smart enough to operate the machines, but lack the intelligence to think for themselves. That's why those places are so mind numbing and soul draining.
They make you memorize dates in history, that have no meaning. And gloss over the dirtiness of real history that makes it so interesting. Also schools changing history books to suit their narrative. Texas refuses to use California history books.
If you're wise, you will realize that your education never ends. The internet is a wonderful place for the curious and hungry.
A little late to The Party (see whut I did thur?) but I can't help but notice the part about the dictatorship of the proletariat and how Marx never "clearly articulated what that means or what that looks like" followed immediately by showing a highlighted quote that ends directly prior to exactly that: "The proletariat organized as the ruling class." A Marxist "state" is one that is organized by and with the interests of the working class as it's primary aim, "wresting, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie" and laying the groundwork for the transition from socialism (sometimes termed "early-stage communism") to communism (sometimes termed "late-stage communism" or the "second phase of communism"). It begins with the socialist organizational maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their work," and, following the withering away of the state (no need for a state to appropriate the means of production when it's already done that and there's no bourgeoisie to struggle against anymore), "From each according to their ability, to each according to their *need*.
To contrast, a capitalist state is organized with the interests of capital (not capitalists specifically but the very concept of capital itself) and it's reproduction and maintenance (through organized and systemic violence) as it's exclusive aim, constantly ramping up it's repressive aggression and stripping away the rights and freedoms of the individual to counteract the ever-growing and inevitable sequence of crises resulting from capitalism's in-built contradictions that will, inevitably, lead to it's destruction.
There's also some conflation between shared ownership of the means of production and collective ownership of products themselves. It's not the products themselves that are owned collectively (personal property) it's the things necessary to create the products we need (_private_ property) that would be collectively owned and democratically operated. Nobody's going to come take your home or car or toothbrush or whatever because you didn't pay your rent or lease or fine or fee or whatever meaningless contrivance some capitalist can cook up to hide the fact that their claim to _your_ property is spurious at best and downright theft at... Well, always. It's always theft.
I think the section on Lenin would have benefited from even the briefest mention of Marxism-Leninism taking one of the most agrarian, poor and underdeveloped feudalist societies on Earth and, at a time where it was under siege by what was effectively the world's strongest and most advanced military force, pushed them all the way back to Berlin, crushed the Nazi war machine, and then oversaw the protection and development of the only other superpower in the history of mankind, produced higher average levels of quality of life than it's capitalist counterparts at equal levels of development (libgen.li/ads.php?md5=f32a35c1b94844ed2e5d9c60aa9ba5fe) and led to a wide variety of scientific advancements (especially aerospace) all while the capitalist nations that'd had centuries to develop (the majority of which was the result of literal chattel slavery and colonial exploitation) did everything in their power to sabotage and destroy that society.
I think it's also telling that a similar society, though far smaller in size, managed to not only _survive_ both the economic sabotage and even direct, full-scale military invasion from the most powerful capitalist nation on Earth but, even after inflicting damn near every one of the most heinous war crimes imaginable from large-scale, civilian-targeted violence, widespread use of chemical weapons, torture, etc., successfully _pushed their shit in and threw them out on their ass._ And it certainly wasn't bourgeois electoralism that made that possible.
I'd recommend for anyone who really wants to do their own research to check out "The Principles of Communism" by Friedrich Engels to start (it's practically a pamphlet and can be accessed online for free) and then move on to "Value, Price and Profit" and "Wage Labor and Capital" by Karl Marx (also free, though definitely more substantial). I'd then try to slog through Das Kapital if you can manage it but the previous works should be sufficient to provide at least a foundational knowledge of dialectical materialism and scientific socialism.
Thank you Ryan for such a comprehensive overview. There are not many 45 minute+ educational videos that can keep me engaged throughout its entirety. You've added to my understanding of socialism immensely.
Then i have just the video-essays for you, friend: All videos with 'Poor' and 'System' in the name
by CZcamsr Some More News.
Could you do a comprehensive video for Capitalism? I feel like there is nuance in both Socialism and Capitalism that conversations these days miss. One's totally good, and the other is totally evil. You do a good job at hitting an objective tone in your videos.
I agree with a video on capitalism.
also how about distributivism? is it related to syndicalism or more agrarian?
What is evil about the one?
@@josephcoon5809 depends on who you talk to. I was being vague because it could refer to either, because there are people who treat their preferred social theory as sacred and the other as completely terrible. Instead of understanding how they work and why they prefer one over the other, "socialism never works" or "capitalism is the source of all ill in society" etc etc... That's why I love the break down of these theories. If people understand them more, they can articulate better why they like certain things or disagree with other things.
@@zacharyclark3693 How do you understand something you don’t put into practice?
A hypothesis is only as good as its interaction with reality. Words don’t prove veracity; examples do.
The problem with these arguments is that it is prelude to relinquishing the application of the theory to a government with almost no oversight from those that authorized such power and responsibility to a faceless entity.
It’s a great setup for, “Well, it didn’t work because they did it wrong.” or “Ot would have worked if THOSE people didn’t corrupt it.”
These conversations should do ONE thing, and it isn’t to justify one’s voting habits which is nothing more than abdicating personal responsibility for proving one’s own ideas. These conversations SHOULD attract like-minded individuals to one another so they they can pool their resources and efforts to collectively build EXACTLY what they imagine so that there is no question to why it failed.
And if it didn’t fail…then they have something better than words to support their arguments: reality.
I truly appreciate your video essays. Your insistence and persistence to report, summarize, and or critique without a clear bias has helped me to understand political and philosophical ideas that roam and inform the society around me. It has also helped me to stay calm and find the humanity in others I engage in lengthy and intensive debates with. I appreciate you.
A New Dialectic
"A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
I don't normally watch American history youtube vlogs because the Americans always take so long with silly introductions, trying to be funny, liking the sound of their own voice, but this guy is brilliant.
I really enjoyed this, no BS, straight to the point and explained in a simple and entertaining way. Well done Ryan. You are a great teacher. Keep up the fantastic work
Population can, at any time, be tested to be extremly misinformed and clueless about socialism and capitalism
But this changes right-now, then spawning aptly-named videos like "more and more people lose faith in capitalism" by 'Second Thought'
And of course one of his videos litearlly has the word Beginner in it, sooo maybe watch that one
even before that 1. Oh, and isnrt one video literally named "Youre already a Socialis,t you just odnt knowww"?
As an American I know exactly what you mean, I have to skip through the video lots of times, it's very aggravating
Pffff get over yourself 🙄
Americans doing extra unnecessary talking? No way never lol
Best example geography now
Great video breaking down a very nuanced topic. It may have deviated a bit from your succinct explanation, but it would've been great to hear you touch on anarchism as well.
Thank you. I am 67 and have been interested in politics all my life, but evidently I still have things to learn. Your presentation of the roots of socialism was brilliant and added to my knowledge.
Same here dear Mr. Holmberg. I am 58, and consider myself a libertarian socialist. Read considerably all my life, but still unable to express the whole issue in such a concise and intelligible fashion as this wonderful young gentleman (Ryan Chapman) did. 😍
@@abicaksiz Yes. Being humble and hungry for more knowledge is crucial. Let’s do what we can to encourage that state of mind.
@@abicaksiz libertarian socialist... oh god.
@@jonnyholmberg @abicaksiz people like you are what make me hopeful the world can change.
@@jainasimpson Thank you.
I think I’m becoming addicted to your presentations. Your methods and articulations and the level you present them in is extremely thoughtful and concise. You presented way that doesn’t necessarily lean, but informs all the same. These concepts and their misinterpretations have evolved to the point of rhetoric. The education you provide and the subsequent clarity is very much appreciated. Extremely well done, sir.
I’d like to think if the public school system weren’t always under attack and left to its own devices, we would have history teachers that would mimic Ryan’s ability to convey information, thus engaging with nearly all students.
In lieu of standardized testing and static grading.
I suggest swapping addictions with pornography. Slowly ween off. Careful you don't develop a complex addiction and get addicted to both!
I never comment on CZcams Videos but this has to be one of the most precise, well-informed and thoroughly crafted videos I have seen in a while. Finally some objective explanations instead of egotistical opinion sharing when it comes to these topics! Kudos to you
The summary at the end is the best I have ever heard. This whole video on socialism is the best that I have ever seen. This channel on social history is the best I have ever found.
If Socialist-CZcamsr is too much for you yet to digest, fine, Youtubr Cody Johnston has countless videos
with rich, poor, capitalism, incentive or other words in the name
As a philosophy-major, this is the most unbiased coverage I've seen. Please, please, please tell me you'll professionally translate this for Spanish, Chinese, and Russian speakers.
make sure you learn the 5 basic philosophical assumptions most philosophy majors never learn them
@@GODHATESADOPTION what are these 5 assumptions? Tried looking them up but not much came up
@@CStrik3r epistemological or how do we know what we know, ontological what is a being, axiological x and y axis on a graph, methodological like science. unless you want to be reduced to the absurdity of solipsism you have to take a leap of faith in order to presume certain a priori truths tautologically.
Why do Spanish, Chinese and Russian speakers need it? They have plenty of their own experience in building and experimenting with socialism to go off of.
@@MAGICatBEN Because this is one of a few American's attempted-unbiased analysis of socialism and historical communism. Most native-English resources are heavily biased in either direction or appear to be straight-up. radical hocum.
Your format is pretty awesome and made me instantly subscribe.
Man, that was fantastic Analysys!!! I listened to lots of lectures, Yale etc. But your analisys is just another level. Fresh mind, own understanding, not just academics repeting same old stories, the way they was always told. You are todays intelectual!!! Respect and Best Regards!! Inspired!! Thank You!
If I could criticize one thing, it would be that I wouldn't use the term "Democratic Socialist" to describe the rise of the liberal parties in favor of social welfare in post-WWII Europe. Like you explained, their prominence was in large part due to their social stability and democratic rule within a capitalist economy. The better term would be to call these parties by how they describe themselves: "Social Democrats".
I’m a Social Nationalist
Isn't Democratic Socialist what the Communist Parties used to call themselves?
Anarchists often say that the reason you can't participate in the State is that it will change you more than you will change it. Seems like a good example of that
Of course Lenin was a supposed member of the socdem party that wanted moderate reforms a month before he decided to take over power during the early months of the Russian democratic provisional government.
It wouldn’t make any difference because republicans have made socialism the big bad wolf without defining it. I noticed they refused to condemn Mussolini, Hitler and fascism because they literally are fascists now. Reagan’s “neoliberalism” has evolved into hateful, narrow minded, authoritarian, white nationalism. Just like we warned it would.
@@janea4777 Ah yes, because stopping mass immigration in the millions and opposing fringe ideas about trans people or gender or race privelege is white nationalism.
Better tell the KKK and even communists of 1920 that not being down with the gay cause or ideology means they're white nationalists now 😆
As someone who lived in one of the versions of Socialism (Yugoslavia) I completley agree with Ryan. Socialism/Communism implemented in Warsaw pact countries was quite different than what was in Yugoslavia (Non-Alaigned movement) and Stalin in particular hated the fact that Yugoslavia didn't wanted to become a member of Warsaw pact.
Warsaw pact was formed after Stalin's death. Yugoslavia betrayed the Cominform.
While it was benefiting from Cominform, Tito and his group proudly boasted as "stalinists" but they secretly plotted against Albania and Hungary (known as the Rajk consipracy) wanting to take control over them in a big "Balkan Union" project that would become a buffer between socialist east and capitalist west. This plot failed because Cominform became aware of their plotting and when they invited yugoslav representatives to explain themselves, they just didnt show up and instead strated to cry "soviet imperialism". In 30s Tito claimed that trotskyists are basically fascists, in late 40s he was interviewed by trotskyists where he claimed that Stalin was a revisionist. He was just a political opportunist.
In 1948 Tito claimed the following: “As for the first theme, the national question, I am not referring to it because of its being a problem in our country, in one form or another, today. No, the national question here has been settled, and very well settled, to the general satisfaction of all our peoples. It has been settled on the lines of Lenin's teaching." The way our country fell apart 10 years after his death, precisely on national grounds tells you how much Tito was wrong.
@@crniskadu9881 Best thing they ever did, Soviets were great at experimenting, but were shit at implementing, that's why they ultimately fell back on state capitalism.
@@Lobanjolom Today i learned that collapsing a country into a bloody civil war was a great thing. Yugoslavia was the first country to fall to capitalism (although TItoists marketed themselves as market socialists, which is nonsense). After Stalin's death, Khruschev and co did everything they could to undermine previous achievements and slander socialism, modeling themselves after Titoist policies. So no, i dont see how your logic holds true by any metric. Yugoslavia was shit and we have to live with its consequences today.
Warsaw Parc was founded in 1955 in response to Join, West Germany to NATO. and Stalin was dead 2 years ago. Read the basic history of idiots
@@crniskadu9881 When the Batista regime was overthrown they discovered that Yugoslavia had offered to sell Batista arms after the American Imperialist had stopped selling them to Batista.
This was brilliant & I loved your revised definitions at the end! Thank you so much for creating this explanatory masterpiece! *Cheers from MI* 🍺
What a great video! You have illuminated much. Clearly and with precision. And without bias or a cajoling tone.
It’s really good to see you growing. You deserve it. Can’t wait to come back in a year or so when you have half a million or even a million subs. Great work bro. Love it.
The YT algorithm actually did good in recommending your channel to me. Very objective and well stated videos so far from what I've watched. It's a shame that more people don't take time to fully understand the terms they throw around. It's interesting to see that a lot of the more failed versions of political and economic ideologies seem to be linked to absolutism.
Any debates around capitalism, socialism and communism are pure absolutism. Policy isnt made based on how socialist or capitalist it is. Its made in response to current events and special interests. America has many socialist policies yet we are reffered to and seen as a capitalist nation.
In real politics these isms are used to demonize or radicalize and nothing more. Outside of real politics its just intellectual acrobats
@@progrockmorelikefrogc0ck157 Whats is "many socialist policies" in America? You mean USA?
A New Dialectic
"A New 🎟🎟 🎟 Deal, germinating nearly a century prior, expended public 🥽🐿 works while placing checks and balances on 🗒️🗿 capital markets through a politically punctuating dynamism," 🐀 "and the voters 🐿💀🗿🐓 apex 🗳between - 🧸Soviet Communism, a German dialectic materializing into a monastic 🕯️corporation that puppeteered the collective with 🥖 bread, 🎏 spectacle and 🪑other means. An obtusely 🗄 orthodox oligarchy, and - 🍎American £ibertarianism, 🌱 sprung from the Magna Carta as a belief in private property without government 🏛 oversight, within a framework of laws gravitating invariably towards individual liberty. Before being captivated by the 🦋🌻Great Society dialectic, its corporatization and subsequent foundational erosion of the 🏛️ Republic itself. This neo-dialectical putsch will inexorably punctuate into" 🐿️ "🎏🗿 Cultural Anarchism, a dialectic catalyzing 🏚️ deconstruction through the 👁 metaphysics" 🗿 🧃🧃 🧃 "Juice Drinks!"🎏🐀 📻🌻🐛🌻🦋 "of collective narcissism!" 🐿️ 🐀🛹🌻 "And/or- 🪖🐿️ Cultural Nationalism, a dialectic catalyzed 🥁🐓 to 👑crown 🍔McChrist through the 👁 metaphysics of collective retribution!," 🗿 "Or- total 🌎 ecological catastrophage!" 🦝 📻 "iz what i'iz" ☕️🐿 ☕️🐀 🧸🌻 "Humpty didn't." 🍳🐓⛺️
Same
They don't because our American, (assuming you're American), so called educational system TEACHED very little, least of all how to think analytically or in depth. And in recent decades the institutions that should teach rigorous or at least how to analyze, are completely controlled by delusional, parasitic Marxists. Mass media as well.....aka "cultural marxism".
I am happy I stumbled upon this channel. This seems like a place for free thought and critical analysis of ideas while also taking from primary sources. Good job!
This is great! Its really nice to have the facts laid out without giving opinions. Its a really good feeling to draw my own conclusions without interference :D
😊
A video is always biased just remember to stay critical and never take anything at face value.
@@adamlagerqvist8111it’s not biased when the work and facts are being laid out first and foremost. He didn’t comment his views in there he commented their own views. Now the only thing that could be biased is who he chose to represent it and frankly these men are the great thinkers that put this ideology up front.
@@bricesuire5072 there are many different interpretations when it comes to stuff like this. Of course it's always good to be as objective as possible but you can never be fully objective you are always viewing things from your perspective. All im saying is we should not blindly trust youtubers I thought that the video was mostly fine though. Don't take it as an attack is all im saying just want people to have better media literacy.
I love speeches in which very single word is exquisitely chosen to make perfect sense. You're gifted at the craft of weaving ideas into a sort fabric of rationality.
Careful, making sense and it being morally or culturally a net-positive is not the same thing.
Example: a drag queen can do a excuisitely coherent speech on how he would groom and fornicate with children in a manner that "neither causes harm nor distress"...
Even if his speech is a linguistic masterpiece of perfect sense and procedere, it will never be moral nor a net-positive to any society, nor will it be not bias. And him will never be not deserving of extreme measures to keep people like him from children.
So just keep in mind that the most effective, explanatory and persuasive essays are written by a linguistically trained hyper-biased writer, that managed to persuade you to take his side on x argument.
Flawless delivery of a well-organized, eloquent discourse without bias and full of fact. Kudos!
@@ragmarsegundo7866 too many descriptive words boss.
@@ragmarsegundo7866 incredibly without flaws, egregious in a positive form. Informatively informational, eloquently accurate with no mention of trans or gender roles in society as .1% should dictate culture to have the much needed attention their mother either poured in them. To point of lying. And a father who either was secretly anally endulged or non existent in the child’s formative young years
I don't like that cause it indicates propaganda.
An honest speech is sloppy and somewhat repetitive cause that's how humans talk. If you have a perfectly flowing speech where every word is carefully choosen that means it's a script and therefore very likely false.
Ryan, you’re one of the best orators/lecturers I’ve ever had the pleasure of listening too. Your summation skills are excellent. Thank you for these videos.
The "best performing" articles are written by persuasive people, for when an article seems unbiased all it did was to persuade you to take the writers side.
DUDE!!!!!!! MARIXISM USES THE LABOUR THEORY OF VALUE THAT WAS PROVEN FACTUALLY WRONG 150 YEARS AGO!!!!!!!!!!!! EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIC SCIENTIST USES THE SUBGJECTIVE THEORY OF VALUE!!!!!!!!!!! MARXIST/SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST/NEO-MARXIST ARE ALL SCIENCE-DENIERS!!!!!!!!! :D :D
@@NowioART This is a very dumb argument you’re trying to make. Are you saying there’s no such thing as an unbiased article? If so I’m here to tell you you’re wrong. There are plenty of articles where there is simply no side to take-the writer simply tells you what happened, giving uncontested facts that both sides of the argument would agree with, and then presenting the arguments each side made in response. Word-for-word, direct quotations of what both sides has to say about it. Such an article has no “side,” and it is not biased in any way. I know it’s super cool and edgy to go around saying “I trust no one, every writer has an agenda, every article has a bias,” but it’s also the attitude of a cynical 15 year old and simply not true. Take the time to learn about and recognize different types of writing, and you will not have this problem.
@@therainman7777 fellow presumably smart human, what you are talking about is called a "report", which is different from an "article".
But if we speak of the relevant medium, which would be an "(video-) essay", which is even more prone to be structured and written to persuade the reader into the authors bias.
"I know it’s super cool and edgy to go around saying “I trust no one, every writer has an agenda, every article has a bias,” but it’s also the attitude of a cynical 15 year old and simply not true. Take the time to learn about and recognize different types of writing, and you will not have this problem."
>> ah yes, ridicule, denigrate and infantilise, a debate tactic LOVED by a certain movement
@@therainman7777 he clearly isn't "unbiased". That little addendum at the end was about trying to put a non negative spin on "modern" socialism. The dictionary definition is the only implicitly neutral definition of the word. Ownership/control of the means of production still informs socialist thought. Universal healthcare, and the "public option" are popular among leftists for a reason. State ownership doesn't necessarily have to be formal legal titles, it's about control. Very high corporate taxes is a form of control, excessive regulations on certain industries is about control.
Might I ask if there is a transcription of this video? I would like to reference parts of it in my writings.
The term "capitalist", meaning an owner of capital, appears earlier than the term "capitalism" and dates to the mid-17th century. "Capitalism" is derived from capital, which evolved from capitale, a late Latin word based on caput, meaning "head"-which is also the origin of "chattel" and "cattle" in the sense of movable property (only much later to refer only to livestock). Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries to refer to funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money or money carrying interest.[20]: 232 [21] By 1283, it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm and was often interchanged with other words-wealth, money, funds, goods, assets, property and so on.[20]: 233
The Hollantse (German: holländische) Mercurius uses "capitalists" in 1633 and 1654 to refer to owners of capital.[20]: 234 In French, Étienne Clavier referred to capitalistes in 1788,[22] six years before its first recorded English usage by Arthur Young in his work Travels in France (1792).[21][23] In his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), David Ricardo referred to "the capitalist" many times.[24] English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge used "capitalist" in his work Table Talk (1823).[25] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon used the term in his first work, What is Property? (1840), to refer to the owners of capital. Benjamin Disraeli used the term in his 1845 work Sybil.[21]
The initial use of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense is attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labor").[20]: 237 Karl Marx frequently referred to the "capital" and to the "capitalist mode of production" in Das kapital (1867).[26][27] Marx did however not use the form capitalism, but instead used capital, capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear frequently.[27][28]
In the English language, the term "capitalism" first appears, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), in 1854, in the novel The Newcomes by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, where the word meant "having ownership of capital".[29] Also according to the OED, Carl Adolph Douai, a German American socialist and abolitionist, used the term "private capitalism" in 1863.
i like Proudhon's 1861 description , because in 2022 that is most definitely the case .
Capital, according to Adam Smith was all of: Knowledge, Skills, Attitude, Energy, Work Ethic, Ideas and the Tools of Production. Read him in the original. He anticipated worker ownership of larger ventures, and despite his times deplored the concentration of land in so few hands (which they would lose in time to capitalist pressures). It's all there. 240 years ago.
I always thought it was the system by which people could invest in businesses or start their own, and thereby reap the financial rewards if it is successful.
@@eddyk564 it's a system that privileges those born into wealth to start business and they are the same people that shape the narrative of the system. The rest are fed the myth of equal opportunity, which isn't true so those people are told to blame themselves.
@@romanbrandle319 The system is undoubtedly imperfect -people can be born into wealth or poverty and that is unfair. However, there is every opportunity to rise up. Some Western countries have an extremely high rate of social mobility. In fact, a number of the wealthy and rich were born reasonably poor (in the US at least). There is no blame on people- it is just the reality of the situation. Some people are extremely talented and have a huge amount to offer society and some don't. Yes, there are some idiots born into wealth and never need to work, but that is a tiny minority of people.
Excellent, relevant and fascinating content. Appreciate all your hard work and research bringing this content to life in an engaging fashion. Keep up the good work!
Thanks for your donation! I'm committed to making these videos full-time, so more will be coming.
I have never seen this type of flair on a comment. What is it?
@@realryanchapman Great video.
@@HMS-sw3ub It's caused by the donation of 50 USdollars$
@@realryanchapman
This video does not represent Modern, Refined Socialism. C'mon, go to the Source, binge a Socialist-CZcamsr: 'Second Thought'.
This was a great look at the history of Socialism, but for me as a person living in a Capitalist world doesn't really answer the question of what it is. Primary how would my life be different? How would goods and services be exchanged? What would determine my role in society? How would I be represented, or would I be represented? What would I be free to do, or how would I be limited? How would we decide who lives where? How would I be compensated for my efforts? What would determine value? The answer is mostly money and democracy in Modern Capitalist countries. What would it look like under a Socialist one? I think those are the questions that are generally meant by people who don't understand it. How would they live their lives in the system?
I think the best way to make a picture of the socialist and eventually communist mode of production one needs to look at past historical examples of such modes. To live under Marxist socialism is to live a life similar to the Chinese, Soviet, Vietnamese, or Cuban examples. The workers and peasants in those societies were paid fair wages, provided their necessities, such as housing, education, transportation and nourishment almost for free by the proletarian government. To answer your questions one by one:
1) How would my life be different?
You and your family would not need to worry about bankruptcy in the eve of an economic crisis. In fact, such crises would be entirely avoided thanks to a democratically planned economy. The uncertainty inherent to the world right now would be erased. Climate change and it's effects would be handled accordingly. Your government would actually represent you. Racism, sexism, genderism, and other societal ills would be erased.
2) How would goods and services be exchanged?
There would not exist free exchange of goods, almost all exchange would be handled by a democratically elected Marxist government to account for the needs of every citizen group. They would stock the stores, give you necessities, and they would provide you with the service of changing your bicycle tires or dentistry or whatever else. This avoid wasteful exchange in which most commodities are simply not consumed and other economic inconveniences.
3) What would determine my role in society?
In a socialist mode of production, the needs of society in general would determine your role, along with your education and experience. If you finished high school, then you would be eligible for factory or field work. If you have a degree in Engineering, then you could be a teacher, the manager at the factory, or whatever else you are suited to, and you would be assigned to the work if the need arises. In a communist mode of production, where automation and general advancement of work techniques allow for more leisure time, you could potentially do whatever you like and devote your time to pleasure, as most work would be automated and people would receive the proceeds to live out life as they see fit. Think Star Trek if you ever watched that show, just scratch out military or navy service.
4) How would I be represented, or would I be represented?
You absolutely and necessarily be represented by a system of work councils or other form of democratic organization. A local work council would be elected by citizens of the community, the representatives would then organize around regional congresses, and eventually reach economic planners. ALL representatives could be revoked by the citizens if the needs arises. Other forms of organization such as lottery representation could be added to further democratize society.
5) What would I be free to do, or how would I be limited?
Similar to liberal-capitalist society, you would be essentially free to do as you please, as long you don't encroach on the liberty of others, or the revolutionary society in general. Ideally, you would be even able to critique revolutionary society, write essays, make art, watch movies, read books or erotic material, travel to other places. You would be essentially revolutionarily free in contra-opposition to liberal society in which you are not truly free, where you are punished if you violate property rights or revolt against bad work conditions.
6) How would we decide who lives where?
In a socialist mode of production, this would based on the scientific needs of society and expediency. If society needs that you stay or move to a new residence it would be because you should be close to a study, council or workplace. In a communist society, this would be decided by you.
7) How would I be compensated for my efforts?
In socialist society, a worker may be compensated with work tickets to exchange at the local store; you or your family could buy food, house utilities, a computer, &c.
8) What would determine value?
Monetary value would be determined by Labour Value, money and thus all commodities would work accordingly. A worker would be remunerated by the value of the work he does, and it will enough for a comfortable life. This is in opposition to current value which is mostly determined by speculation in the market.
I hope I answered your questions satisfactorily, it was a fun exercise for me anyways.
@brandonmorel2658 Thank you for taking the time to answer those. I think it fits vaguely into the perception that I had, so consistency is good. The comparison to other regimes is probably what concerns me the most, since they have been largely corrupt and Authoritarian. Though I will certainly admit that corruption is rampant everywhere and most capitalist societies (as you stated) are not as free as we make them out to be.
In terms of Star Trek I do watch it, especially TNG. That is actually what caused me to question some of the aspects that I thought I understood better. Specifically Picard's brother running a vineyard. I guess I see him more like the Amish of today. Doesn't exactly fit into the modern society and the rest just sort of lets him exist. I do think that this makes the most sense when we get to a post scarcity society, so the move toward it is seemingly inevitable.
The Star Trek world also suffers from the fact that it almost exclusively takes place within Starfleet which is a military organization. The handling of rations, equipment and quarters is not much different in it than in modern militaries.
I still think that a lot of what you are saying is relatively superficial and leads me to many more questions. I am sure if I expanded on what you said you could answer more thoroughly, but to not waste your time are there any books or other content that you would suggest to me to educate myself more on the matter?
@@Biga101011 Star Trek of course suffers from a fascist colonialist military heading society, but at least they do have the post scarcity society which is the aim of communism. TNG is the one I am seeing right now and it's pretty fun, even though the bureaucracy bogs down the adventure and Picard himself is rather authoritarian to the point of being disagreeable.
It's also very important to compare the ideology to the living-breathing examples of socialism, right now and of the past. Each administration all had their problems, and many times failed to live up to the true example. The Soviets of course devolved into an Empire, invading and sub-developing other nations and The Chinese allowed a capitalist Thermidorian turn with the rise of Deng Xiaoping. Stalin and his clique committed atrocities, and Mao is the same case. There were many successes and many failures. My black Caribbean nation was marred by high infant mortality, backwardness and fascism while those Comrades reached new heights at the same time they failed in other areas. It is only right to compare, to critique the past experiments and learn from them. The doctrine is called Scientific Socialism after all, and like scientists we should make new experiments learning from the already established information.
Regarding documentation and literature, I recommend you read up on the basics: The Manifesto and Marx and Engels' more poignant work; Critique of the Gotha Program, &c. I still am catching up on their literature. I do recommend Mandel's economic treatises, specially his Introduction to Marxist Economic Thought, he summarizes universal socialist economic analyses. He was very lucid. You also can't go wrong with Lenin and Mao too! Of course books are not the only way to learn about true socialism. In this here site there are many socialists explaining and discussing the topic. You should see these people: Hakim, Second Thought, Marxism Today, Bes D. Marx, Luna Oi, Bad Empanada. I know half of what I know thanks to them and others. You should also see this site, Marxists.org, which archives the most prominent Scientific socialists thinkers. Their list is pretty good and there are many articles for each one. If you are into magazines I recommend reading the Kites Journal, which is mainly staffed by hardline communists whom discuss the matter and past examples. Movies are an incredible way to learn the science too: some good ones are: The Hour of the Furnaces, Lulu The Tool (La Clase Operadora Va Al Paraiso) and Young Marx.
@@brandonmorel2658 Haha, it is amazing how much Star Trek fans will try to play down the extreme nature of the Federation. I find a lot of the historical instances to be problematic, but for the exact reasons you mention. I understand the need for experimentation to really find out what works. That would be especially useful in small to medium sized countries if the US didn't get involved to topple every one. Try it there, see what works and use that as a model to expand and progress, or to give up if it fails. It is still worth it to try.
I found much of the original historical literature to be too conceptual and much of the latest stuff (like second thought) to be actively propagandist to try and push people in the direction. Still I have not heard of Critique of the Gotham Program and will at least look into the rest. Lenin and Mao, though I find deeply troubling, would be interesting to read. Thank you for the suggestions!
I found value in this summary. Interesting take on Lenin, not at all the emphasis I usually take from his work and a Trot milieu. Thanks for the background on Bernstein, really helps in understanding the context if Luxemburg's polemic.
I loved how you developed the concept through historical events-shaping revisions, which in turn influenced events and further fleshing out the the more practical concept of socialism. Great content, Ryan. 👍🏻👏🏻 Your channel deserve and need to have more follower. But such is life, bro.
Ryan, I must appreciate the clarity with which you explain political and economic concepts. For many years, I have been reading books on these important topics, often voluminous, and I have not been the wiser until I stumbled on your CZcams channel. You cover massive terrains in each topic, and I had to frequently pause the recording to reflect and understand the sub-topics and terminologies, which in themselves could constitute independent topics. I was wondering whether you are considering breaking up a topic into fundamental subtopics and presenting these as short 2 to 5 minute animations. This will certainly assist many more people to grasp these important relevant issues. Thank you very much for the great job that you doing.
Don't be ridiculous !!! All that is presented here is just a capitalist's biased propaganda. Just look at China today if you want to understand what is socialism. Capitalism is great but only as a tool, never can it be treated as an ideology for that would be superstition. Democracy is the biggest problem in USA and in all those countries who wanted to copy it. USA sucks. China rocks. Good night, America !!! Good morning, China !!!
May the love and the peace of Jesus be with us.
I absolutely love politics and philosophy. And this video is clear and well explained, I learnt more than i already knew by studying, and helped me sort some thoughts!
That was very interesting. I am a scientist, but have a very long standing interest in history. I have never had much time for political theories, and have always found that they tend to ignore history. I also find the idea of there being a single course that history must follow. I think this idea is inherently dangerous....hearing peolple say that they are "on the right side of history" is terrifying to me. As you say, you can justify any act by saying that historical progress is pre ordained. These talks have really made me realise that I have missed something by being too dismissive of political theories. It is also interesting how many of the names you mention were already familiar to me as people who made major contributions to scientific thought.
I believe philosophy is like the seed or birth for what will later evolve to become tangible, practiced, factually grounded and proven science. Kinda like how fiction sci-fi sometimes ends up being the inspiration or imaginings for current technologies. In other words, philosophy is the first stage of science if you will.
Ryan, this is yet another masterpiece of extremely well researched education. Wherever we lie on the political spectrum, it is essential we understand the terms and actions of how we got here, and comprehend at least the meaning of the tools are our disposal. Thank you!
A "masterpiece"? It is good drudge research giving us a basic outline. If you thought this was good, you need to set aside an evening just for reading Wikipedia Articles. But I'm glad he said one thing, towards the end, something like "the world does not exist to fit our definitions, but our definitions should be formed to fit the World". Yeah, every time I argue with anybody on the Left, there is the MEANINGLESS Ideological Arguments that are put forward, with Anarchists quoting Marx or Buchanan the same way that Evangelicals quote their Bible. So, yeah, Ryan seems to be an Intellectual before being some kind of an Radical Extremist Recruiter.
@@leovolont while you’re right in some sense, I’m sure the above commenter was complimenting all the work that Ryan put into making this video.
@@leovolont Wikipedia? Do you watch CNN too? Ryan goes to the original works, whereas Wikipedia filters through a strong pro-socialist bias.
@@theBear89451 Good Morning Bear, (that's a good name for really big male Cats... I once had a 'Big Bear' and now I have a 'Honey Bear') this is what you said: "Wikipedia? Do you watch CNN too? Ryan goes to the original works, whereas Wikipedia filters through a strong pro-socialist bias."
Bear, I just suggested Wikipedia as another sterile dry piece of drudge research, while the Original Commenter was treating a Paper like a 'masterpiece'. You do realize that outside of all the Political Cabals and all the plotting for Revolution, either Socialist, Fascist, Populous, Raciest, or Anarchist (as though Anarchists could ever PLAN anything), there is the Academic Community where objective and unbiased paper are the boring day to day norm, and nobody thinks to celebrate them.
Next, Bear, Wikipedia is not some Monolith, but a battlefield of quarrelling Editors that enjoy erasing each other's input and substituting their own, as sort of an Institutionalized Anarchy, and so one can only rely on Wikipedia when looking up the most uncontroversial stuff. But then the rest of Google is populated with For Profit Accounts. The Universities care so much about Profits that they Firewall all their unbiased information (after all, Knowledge needs to be paid for just like everything else in Capitalism, where it's so easy to forget that we are all pretending that Democracy must somehow work despite all the Ignorance that is overwhelming Society).
Yeah, I'm a bit cynical about Democracy. I have my own Channel and I have two very cynical Playlists: "Revolution from the Top" and "Democracy is a Bad Thing". I suggest ways that Humanity can survive, but what I honestly believe is that we are heading for a Civilizational Collapse where any recovery will be delayed for Centuries as the Earth will have to recover on it's own from Global Warming.
@@nostalgicgirrl6053 Good Morning, Simram, yes, I can understand, after a bit more thought, that being overzealous in complimenting Ryan is not the worst of things. Even I found by the end of my comment that some praise was in order. But it just goes to show how extremist and radicalized the Social Media has become when we begin to bestow inordinate praise for objectivity, which is, or used to be the norm, at our Universities. Then, despite what all the Right Wing Populous or Fascist Pundits are saying about how the Universities are bastions of Marxist Thought, well, I can't imagine any Professor giving top grades to students who would hand in Emotion Drive Paper full of Ideological Agenda, accept maybe in regards to the Black Studies Departments which nobody but Blacks take seriously anyway.
Ryan’s back 💯🌍 - very curious for this one. I want a solid grasp of socialism beyond just economics class. I reckon Ryan will provide such an analysis… let’s see!
Absolutely didn't expect to see you here
Was it to your liking?
Never know Mr Spherical had big brain
Spherical? What are you doing here? Shouldn't you be worrying about the reichtangle invasion?
1) “We must hate-hatred is the basis of communism. Children must be taught to hate their parents if they are not communists.” - Vladimir Lenin
2) “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.” - Vladimir Lenin
3) “Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.” - Vladimir Lenin
4) "The way to crush the bourgeoisie [middle class] is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.” - Vladimir Lenin
5) “Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.”
-Vladimir Lenin
6) “One man with a gun can control 100 without one.” - Vladimir Lenin
7) “It is necessary-secretly and urgently-to prepare the terror.” -Vladimir Lenin
8) “The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses.”
- Vladimir Lenin
9) “Surely you do not imagine that we shall be victorious without applying the cruelest revolutionary terror?”
- Vladimir LenIn
Well researched and well presented, a far cry from the simplistic distortions heard daily from contemporary news/media.
Thank you so much for this, Ryan! Especially for clarifying the difference between the ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Labour Parties in the UK. As a UK resident from a traditional Labour area, this is very helpful.
This is a wonderfully accessible video. I love seeing the threads of these philosophies laid out like this. It really helps me to see how we’ve ended up here. Your channel is a godsend
Yes
Can you elaborate I’m genuinely curious. Socialism has failed every time it has been tried?
@@stuckinthemud4352 because it hasn't been fully implemented without the US intervening.
@@sameerdodger that is a pathetic argument the us gets involved when human rights start getting violated. What you actually mean is socialism always breaks down to a point that it requires violence and then other countries get involved. Let me ask a question why can you start a co-op or union business in a capitalist society but you can’t have non union non co-op business in a Marxist society? Nobody is stopped y’all until you start trying to use the force of the government against its people.
@@stuckinthemud435299% of the time its because its not actually socialism or another country(US) interferes with it to stop it
Outstanding research work and tutorials! Flowing and not long-winded due to your prepareness and clearly exemplifying excellence!
I imagine myself in a library looking at endless rows of books. In them I may find the answers to the when, why and how of the human condition. Entropy has its way with my head and I run out of time. TY for condensing so much into your videos.
It is timely we all need to review all history with an ideology that originated from where, in order to understand to see today’s deep corruption in all entities and governments.
Thanks for a good summary.
this was unbelievably good, thank you so much for summarising and simplifying the definitions and history of socialism!
Of all the political analysts I have found on this venue, I find your attitude of calm objectivity married with thorough research to be the best.
It is not just the topic or definition, it is how you put it into words, the perspective and process you gained a subscriber G
It is a total masterpiece. You reconcile here the entire society. There is no need for political conflict in the world with this vision. Brutal, suggestive, absolutely convincing.
Your ability to be thorough and unbiased like this is exactly is why I support you on Patreon each month. Amazing work! Thank you!
Thanks Shauna! Both for your comments on here and Patreon support.
There's absolutely nothing unbiased about this or his other videos. Confused yt liberal ramblings.
@@madprole5361 I would definitely press upon you to educate yourself and read. What you wrote indicates you're on the very wrong side of the IQ bull curve.. You're coming off as, "if it ain't MAGA, it be is libtardism".
@@madprole5361 im curious as to how you see the video to be biased? im watching it rn so i wanna hear ur thoughts
@@kitkatranttv3786 been a while since I watched this and he deletes negative comments, but generally speaking, he has a very strong liberal bias. He half-assed his explanation of socialism which was really a half-assed analysis on Marx and ended with confusing socdems and demsocs, which is a modern no no for moat socialists, since after ww2, socialists generally view socdems as social fascists. If you want to learn about socialism, history, and philosophy, go to socialists and philosphers. Check out Second Thought, Then & Now, and Plastic Pills for introductions to the subjects Ryan covers. There's more to socialism than Marx and more to Marxism than Marx too. He also tends to openly gloss over the important things in his videos that negate or confront him like issues of imperialism, white supremacy, classism, etc that are embedded within capitalism. He'll at best just mention them in passing and move on like it's not a big deal anymore. He also refuses to acknowledge fascism as a capitalist ideology and is misleading about what fascism is in that video. Capitalists are notoriously bad at history and philosophy, except for twisting it to their agenda. There really isn't an outside of bias, tbf, but ones biases should be known and acknowledged.
It's a channel that can remind people history and the humanities are serious disciplines, not just ideological flexing points
I don’t know.I find the people involved in the “humanities” very serious even earnest,and the subjects in the humanities affect us all ,but but as usual all areas of study based purely on human analysis of observation are commonly flawed, so studying these perspectives as an accurate representation of the truth ,can lead to bizarre conclusions.
The humanities are ideologically biased, and emotionally driven.
Well done presentation in substance, austerity and articulation (to mention a few remarkable features) 💥👍
I'm a last year undergrad student of political science and after watching numerous videos on socialism i can confirm that this is the best video on the internet. Many people find this topic quite complicated. But this video contains all the proper infos. I'm so happy that i found this channel
An excellent material, Ryan! Very concise and on the point. It's hard to believe that there was a time when "Das Kapital" was a mandatory reading in school... Anyway, I'm somewhat glad for putting up the effort.
As a recommendation for future videos: I, personally, would be truly glad to see more meditations on subjects within the realm of political psychology.
It was for me.
Though I did grow up in USSR. That might affect it.
I'm out of words. Thank you for your work. Subscribed and will happily contribute financially to your channel as soon as I have funds to spare.
Great presentation, impeccable, objective and constructive. I'm going to watch the rest of the channel because I thought this video was one of the best I've seen on CZcams.
This is a great video! Really enjoyed it. There is however bias by omission on a major part with respective the Lenin’s suppression of the opposition and civil war - the bourgeoisie were fighting to destroy what the Bolshevik’s were trying to build
I'm only 18 minutes in and this is the first video I watch on your channel and I'm already impressed. I love your format, specially how you're showing the source lines of all you sentences, which firstly shows your credibility and secondly makes it way easier to pick up a thought and continue with it, since it'll be easier to find in the source.
Why dont you jusrt go and ask a Socialist?
CZcamsr Second-Thought has so many videos and the videotitles are even often; for your convenience; phrased like questions.
@slevinchannel7589 thanks for the recommendation. I already know and like that channel.
@@hosampb5593 Hmm, then its TIME for something less politlcal: Try 'Zee Frank'
This might sound odd, though I have for some time been curious and had the want educate myself on such ideologies, but funny as it may sound a video game is what finally drove me to learn about Socialism and other types of ideologies like your other fantastic video on Fascism. Funny enough that game was Disco Elysium, a role playing game that involves both socialism and fascism within its setting.
The answer to your final statement would be that in that society, those that excel, work harder, are lucky enough to rise above their fellows recognize their fortunate circumstances see as their moral charge to turn that good fortune to a means raise everyone’s station in life without sacrificing themselves, their progeny, or their own rights.
The problems is that today we have lost that moral compass for all our leaders. We have lost the definitions of what is good and evil.
A lot that has come from those who hold to Socialism and its decendent philosophies.
Anyone know the music in the background of this (starting from the Overview)? It has a really nice harmonic structure to it which I think is mixolydian but I can't hear it well enough to be certain.
Your speaking and teaching abilities are exceptional, and your ability to summarize complex ideas is impressive. Thanks for this one : )
I graduated with 2 degrees almost 40 years ago: political science and journalism. I worked as a journalist for 12 years, then as a carpenter, a few other odd jobs, then unaffordable retirement.
My father was a national union organizer when I was young. I remembered his dinner conversations as I sought part time work, before the pandemic. I got work in the revenue department for two new resort hotels. I was hired at $18 per hour for 20 hours a week. Just what I needed.
The first week I was hired, the supervisor of our small department told me the company, headquartered in Seattle, could pay me only $17 per hour. What could I do?
I soon learned that, at peak season, the 2 hotels together grossed $1 million per month. Everything my father, and what Marx and Hagel said, hit hard. I had little doubt in the theories they had about class, and learned another real life lesson, the others not worth mentioning here.
You sound like living in the unchecked capitalism society...
Yeah, I volunteer as a tutor through our library and I'm always telling kids to research degrees to see forecasted demand and potential salary ranges.
@@jillpatton3432 And sometimes an industry like journalism changes fast and home building pops because of largely unregulated banking. Surprise, surprise.
Supply & demand…100 of other employees getting paid as well…idk I need more context but if you are good and being underpaid…go somewhere else
From Australia, during the pandemic, I found a casual job that paid $34 per hour, later I found out business contractor get pay $45, but as a long-term full-time worker only get pay $27.
You seem to be a great guy and great explainer as well. Thank you and respect. 💯👌🏽
I loved this video thank You. So informative. Yes, I am Cuban! My parents fled communism to the US years ago. Can you talk about the Cuban regime one day and how it went wrong. Thanks!!
I love how you synthesize very complex ideas and make them easy to digest for my tiny brain. Thank you.
If videos like this were on the front page of CZcams for everyone, the world would be a much smarter place 👍
Even if they were, most people wouldn't watch them anyway.
And more aware of the dangers. :)
beautiful explanation, enjoyed it right until the very end. Thank you!
I rarely leave comments, but for this one I will. This is the 3rd video of yours I have watched, and have thoroughly appreciated all of them. Your research is impeccable and shows the highest levels of professionalism with regard to the content. I currently teach AP European History and in the future plan to have my students watch this video to show the roots and longitudinal changes in socialism, especially from Marx to present.
Understanding how most of these groups and the ideology behind them works is crucial to understanding where some actually come from. Very crucial and informative in understanding specifically the western ideology
Well done, Ryan. Good to see a young person doing the kind of critical thinking and deep research you present. Gives me hope.
...This video does not represent Modern, Refined Socialism. C'mon, go to the Source, binge a Socialist-CZcamsr: 'Second Thought'.
@@slevinchannel7589 I think that's fair, as the focus was primarily on the birth and development of socialism. Needs a sequel to cover any gaps and modern development ;)
This was such an informative video and helped me gain a much better understanding of communism and socailism. You explainig how Marx arguments expand on Aristotle and Hagels really made it come full circle and appreciate the thought behind the philosophy. Well done. This was a wonderfully researched and educational video.
Ryan’s back - very curious for this one. I want a solid grasp of socialism beyond just economics class. I reckon Ryan will provide such an analysis… let’s see!
Thank you for this very thorough and interesting lecture. Although I have never voted left of center I found it highly informative and rewarding to watch. I will certainly watch a few more of your videos. Greetings from Sweden
I’ve been trying to go back and understand the philosophies which got us here and Ryan Chapman seems very adept at synthesizing these concepts to a level where they are easily understood, how they relate to each other and how they have developed over time. His statement in another video that when you try to achieve equality you by definition have to intrude on freedom is such a key point.
and which intrusions of freedoms are you concerned about?
@@bloodmoonrising871 Freedom of association is one of them. You cannot exactly have a company of your friends and people you trust if the government enforces DIE.
And the name is not ironic. Its intentional, and microsoft did it to companies it acquired and wanted to get rid of. It was the same strategy. You yank a company in enough different directions, and it will invariably be torn apart, so its just a matter of enforcing it on groups you don't like hard enough.
@@shoopoop21 this conservative republican creator seems to have deleted my question under this comment and that is not surprising considering the false narrative of his content and the anti woke pro fascist advertising seen in right wing grifters. Property ownership is not a real Freedom and the only association the government has ever interfered with is during the 1950s under the red scare and anyone associated with communism.
@@bloodmoonrising871 free speech, the right to earn a living, the right to life, freedom of religion, the right to not be discriminated against based on race/sex, etc.
@@The_Adam_Smith_Simp we don't have a right to earn a living because the reality of too many Americans is what they can earn even with a full time and even a full time plus part time job does not meet the needs for a person to live. That means there is no right to life. There is no ability to exist.
You are a great teacher! Thank you!
One thing you said that was flat wrong was the idea that people are "granted" rights. People naturally possess rights. Government serves to be a protector and guarantor of rights, but the rights exist apart from what any government says. As it was stated, so well: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
I find it difficult that someone can make a statement about "liberalism, in which you outline those ideas about individuals being ends in themselves and do so as if there was any alternative to those basic truths. Now granted, the framework of human rights needs the traditional Judeo-Christian value system and moral framework not to become a perverse mess. But the alternative to free market capitalism is free market capitalism modified by virtue, and carried out with individuals who are mindful of the whole. But this is always a negotiated realm. There are no benign dictators, and socialism always ends up as a dictator.
sadly, as humans are inherantly evil. however, better than current america where people work themselves to death so they dont starve
Excellent and well thought out presentation of the roots of socialism and its evolution in modern societies. Thank you Ryan for taking the time to properly research this topic and articulating it so well!!!
Thanks again for your very methodical, calm, rational exploration of these topics. In an age in which political thought is dangerously oversimplified to bumper sticker slogans, we need more discussion like yours and less yelling.
But yelling, buzzwords and catchy slogans move the masses! Vote with Billy Possum!
Solidarity brothers and sisters ✊
I’m a mostly conservative person who at the same time agrees with the socialist worldview. The problem is not the worldview, it’s how to implement this worldview. Which can only come from the workers themselves. Combining their resources and becoming the bourgeoisie. Would be nice if we could discuss this more
“Becoming the bourgeoisie” is a strange concept because the existence of the bourgeoisie necessarily requires the existence of the proletariat to exploit. So what the real goal would be is to make these class distinctions fade away through a process of collectivization and protection against existing bourgeoisie that wish to continue their strangle hold on the proletariat. So that their is no bourgeoisie or oppressor class at all.
Unfortunately with the global reach of the WEF gang and their destruction planned, you can see it in every country, and they are in trouble, the global elite’s are grubby, greedy evils. They want no middle class especially an educated critically thinking middle class! I feel that people in general want a fair, equitable society but as my gran always said some one always wants to be the chief in any group/organization and they don’t care who they destroy to get it.
A someone who still finds ‘worker control of the means of production’ as a good definition of socialism in terms of description of the economic approaches of socialism, I also find your simplified ‘trimmed down’ definition of socialism to be admirable for general use in describing the collective of all socialistic concepts.
Well done, I really wasn’t expecting to find a definition that extended beyond the dogmatic over application of economic, philosophical or social descriptions onto the entirety of socialism. Hoping the dictionaries catch up but there’s still so much confusion on the term that I doubt we’ll see much progress any time soon.
I've noticed that the production values of these videos have slowly gone up, that's quite promising.
Would be interested if more political ideas are elaborated upon in the future. Things like Conservatism, Social democracy, Libertarianism, Georgism, etc.
@14:40 Today i read that a project to read scrolls that were buried during the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius (the same that buried Pompeii )has begun to give up its information and has pinpointed the location of Platos tomb.
Another great video. Well-paced, organized, methodical, clear, and smoothly explained and narrated. And I LOVE that you always show your sources. Your videos rival any PolySci class. Well done.
Kudos for using Heaven on Earth as a source. It's a very interesting book.
The music, the graphics, the transitions... the quality of this video's sound and visuals are incredibly nice compared to your already really good videos on your channel. Whatever you did to change it, good work!
Incredibly well researched and presented in a painstakingly unbiased way. Amazing as always Ryan!
👍👍
@@TheFirstGroover
This video does not represent Modern Socialism: C'mon, go to the Source, binge a Socialist-CZcamsr: 'Second Thought'.
@@nenmaster5218 infact doesn't want to rappresent bu rather explain the evolution and the roots behind this political philosophy.
@@nenmaster5218 I will check btw, thanks
@@TheFirstGroover :)
It's weird to think about how right and wrong every system is, and even weirder how we as Americans hate communism in it's entirety and treat it like a dirty word no matter how necessary it is.
We would follow the majority like how sheep follow other sheep, nothing but a animal farm
Young Man, you do a very comprehensive and easy to understand presentation! KEEP IT UP !
I how you find meaning in your work good sir. If not, I certainly do. I think a certain kind of human wants a deeply researched explanation, not noise. You excel at providing the former, and save me from wading through the latter.
I hope to contribute to your patreon as soon as I am able.
I don't care how long it takes to get a new video, just please keep making content.
This video was incredible and so informative! My only point of confusion is that the final definition of Democratic Socialism just seems like Social Democracy. My understanding has always been that:
Social Democracy = reforming capitalism to have more socialist values
Democratic Socialism = ultimately achieving socialism through democratic means. Which is to say that the end goal is eventually to abolish capitalism
Your definition is correct. Democratic Socialism is still seen as a form of Reformism / Revisionism given the fact that it is not Revolutionary. So, Social Democracy could be seen as a step towards transitioning to Democratic Socialism.
They are the same thing in practice. The intentions may be different, but the end result will be more state power and less individual liberty.
@@joshfritz5345 You don’t know what you’re talking about. The “end result” is not the same for both systems.
Democratic Socialism seeks to establish Socialism (worker ownership of the means of production) gradually over time.
Social Democracy seeks to maintain and uphold Capitalism while smoothing out some of its rougher edges.
While socdems and demsocs may look the same and will advocate for the same policies in the short term, their long-term goals are obviously different.
@@wintermint7 Neither fully embrace free market principles, so neither are good systems. The problem with social democracy is that it tends to be used as a tool for the more revolutionary socialists who come around every generation or two. Those who identify as social democrats may genuinely not intend to have a socialist revolution, but invariably, after enough time, the revolutionaries will take over and try to create another socialist dictatorship.
Oh boy, if you are still on a level of market versus more state, you have to do a lot more brain work. A lot of liberal values are applicable with socialism, I also doubt ownership over certain private stuff would just fall by the wayside, neither do markets in a sense cease to exist since people will still need cars, a roof for theirs houses, bread, what have you. Owning means of production together though means being less dependent on private companies and sometimes outrageous prices, being able to decide where you want to go with certain things in terms of company policy, through vote etc producing for self sufficiency instead of profit and so on. At least in theory. If it would work is hard to predict since we can not set up a lab in the real world and test that under current circumstances and do not @ me with general income or the likes, that is basically still capitalism with state handouts, subsidizing bad wages and working conditions. Real socialism goes much further on fundamental levels than just less versus more state and markets. Some liberals/conservatives seem to be of the opinion under socialism there would be no market anymore or the state/market relationship is a mutually exclusive one in each system. Both need each other I'd argue and even some indigenic tribes have primitive markets in their little sub spaces sort of, trading maybe weapons against food or tribe rights or jewelry or what have you. So the whole socialism = no markets anymore arugment is just plain dumb to me.
Boss, which editing software you are using?
New to your channel and loving it.❤
The only thing we are all sure about is that Ryan has done the search thoroughly, That's why people like me and Conor do not have to do the same research again, that's why I agree with Conor that "this is currently the best channel on CZcams right now"
A big thumbs-up and thank you to Ryan!
I heartily agree!
He hasn't though... A lot of the history he presented was badly over simplified or outright misleading such as the section on bolsheviks.