CAPITALISM VS. SOCIALISM SONG | Economics & Politics Music Video
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 бер 2019
- ✌SUBSCRIBE FOR MORE VIDEOS: bit.ly/2F48qzK
📩 [FREE DOWNLOAD] 7 SECRETS OF MAKING YOUR OWN SONGS: eepurl.com/geN6WT
🎤 SUBMIT A SONG REQUEST:
→ www.jamcampus.com/submit-song...
🔥NEED A VIDEO CREATED FOR YOUR COMPANY?
→ Contact me now: andrew@waterbearlearning.com
→ See full portfolio: waterbearlearning.com/our-rec...
🎤 MORE JAM CAMPUS VIDEOS
→Watch more Science Songs: bit.ly/2F0FJnb
→Watch more History Songs: bit.ly/2HV8VOf
→Watch more Math Songs: bit.ly/2F0d9GT
📷 EQUIPMENT I USE
→ Canon EOS M6 Camera: amzn.to/2yXPyDP
→ Canon EF-M 11-22 Lens: amzn.to/2KwOHyM
→ Canon EOS M Mount Adaptor: amzn.to/2tHYfMZ
→ Audio-Technica AT2020 Mic: amzn.to/2yYGH4W
→ Sony MDR1A Headphones: amzn.to/2KhHqTY
→ Adobe Creative Suite Editing Software: amzn.to/2KuszF1
✅ CONNECT WITH US
→ Website: www.jamcampus.com
→ Instagram: / jamcampus
→ Facebook: / jamcampus
→ Soundcloud: / jamcampus
→ Email: andrew@jamcampus.com
Lyrics:
Capitalism
Relies on free market conditions
To create wealth and drive innovation
Individuals have control
Businesses, they own
Prices determined
By products, the supply and demand of them
Drives companies to make products as cheap as they can
Business owners they have control
Efficiency is the goal
In capitalism, individuals own property
Markets choose equality
Limited government, lower taxes
Inequality, economy advances
The market drives everything
Shaping the society
The state does not intervene
That market is free
Systems with different ideas, opposite of each other
Both argue they manage production and resources better
But most modern countries use both systems blended together
Mixed economies, mixed economies
In socialism
The state owns control of the production
An equitable redistribution
Of the wealth and resources
Equal fairness
An even outcome
The state controls the labor market
Most people employed by the government
The state plans out the economy
Social equality
Socialism is a political system
Government ownership of all business
Healthcare, food, anything that is produced
Redistribute, all the people commune
The state controls the prices
Ownership is collective
Creating no classes
On the state, people depend
Systems with different ideas, opposite of each other
Both argue they manage production and resources better
But most modern countries use both systems blended together
Mixed economies, mixed economies
Systems with different ideas, opposite of each other
Both argue they manage production and resources better
But most modern countries use both systems blended together
Mixed economies, mixed economies
Lyrics and performance by Andrew DeBell at Jam Campus Education
Instrumental composition by: www.fiverr.com/napbak
Aside from the fact that you described socialism and capitalism completely incorrectly, you still managed to do better than most of the commenters.
socialism is mixed communism isn t
@@rubenvanrooijen8215 Incorrect. Socialism is the common ownership of the means of production.
Communism is a society that is stateless, classless and moneyless wherein the means of production are commonly owned.
@@mr.mintman7545 uh no? Soviet union admitted to be communist openly and they have a state and currency, i think you are reffering to “Communalism” an early prototype of socialism and communism in general, technically existing even before Marx wrote his rant manifesto, used even in the middle ages, an example is the bohemian husite rebellion, their society was stateless since they were a rebellion, and they had no property not even personal belongings, everything was everyone’s, you needed a weapon Now, ask a comrade, he will lend you one! Communism is a state society smartass, communalism is not
He described it correctly Shut up bruh
@@rubenvanrooijen8215 short answer, no
longer answer:
Socialism wants the means of production to be socialized (worker self-management)
Communism wants a communal-based socialist system without a state and planned market in a post-scarcity, classless, moneyless society.
And to clarify, these are the ideologies in their idealistic form, not in practice.
Thank you so much, your videos have been helping me for 3 years now and now i'm in my last year of school. Always loved the beat and your songs are so catchy. I wish you would start making content again. Your songs are so helpful, thanks! ❤
Ahhh such an important concept, JC! Thank you for sharing this!
You da best, The Urban Veg!
imagine actually being a capitalist or a socialist
this post was made by anarcho-syndicalist gang
Goosche we obey none but mother anarchy comrade
Ancom gang rise up
Yea, because that not an oxymoronic term at all!
Can you please make a karaoke song of Love your Cell by everyday science please i need the Lyrics for my project
the beat tho
hi i got this channel from my school
Great!
same
for an inspector calls homework
Luv you bro
Thank you!
Jam Campus damn didn’t even say it back :/
There should also be a song about the Carbon Cycle or green house efect, global warimg and stuff like that♾💯
Love the since song videos their sooo catchy. Better learning technic✔✔💯💯
Thank you very much! Yes, I've been wanting to do something around global warming for awhile. Thanks for the suggestions!
@@JamCampus your welcome and i'll be
waiting for a video like that 💯
Uh, no?
@@xoutsideraspakavinatigo2650 what do you not believe in global warming or something
real socialism has never been described by this song
(for real tho)
Ahh, the common socialism quote
@@mightbeahuman3442 just cuz you’ve heard it too much doesn’t mean its false
Yea because it’s not like it has ever been tried.. But I guess if you (the only one that truly understands Marx) would be in power, you would manage to forcibly redistribute people’s property without having to use the force of the state.
Said every socialist ever. They all end the same, doesn't matter how you start it or plan it. Tried and failed time and time again
@@ethiird im pretty sure Cuba and Vietnam didn’t fail. And besides, im pretty sure there’s this thing called “learning”, where you look at one’s mistakes and you improve yourself to try and do it better. The only reason capitalism is (mostly) global is because lots of small capitalist societies were created, each capitalist society learned from the previous one’s mistakes. The capitalists probably said “that capitalist state wasn’t real capitalism, i will make my own and it will be better” and the feudalists/monarchists probably said “said every capitalist ever, every time you try capitalism, it will just fail”. And that’s just the same right now, lots of socialist states need to be created, so other socialists can learn from other socialists’ mistakes. And there have only been just a small amount of socialist states in history, but that isn’t enough for other socialists to learn from their mistakes.
Socialism - Cuba, China (before 1976), Soviet Union, North Korea, Venezuela - famine and failure
Capitalism - Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany, USA, South korea, China (After 1976) - prospersous and successful
Socialism bad! Off course the workers shouldn't own the means of production, and poor people in the Soviet Union, they had to endure job security, good wages, good social programmes, stability, a state that supported the workers instead of the capitalists, no unemployment, the most educated population on earth, free education and housing, free healthcare. Ah, poor people.
@@dario8728 Every single thing you have mentioned is welfare NOT socialism. Socialism means worker's owns the means of production, it doesn't mean free education etc. You can have all those free welfare things in capitalism as well (Sweden).
2) Capitalism with strong welfare (Social democracy) is way better way to help poor people, than socialism. Because socialism just strips away a huge amount of innovative potential by abolishing private ownership. I think, if workers want to own a company, they should create it first, not steal it from others.
@@vere9652 I agree. It annoys me when people describe socialism as a statist, welfare society with all industries nationalized and capitalism as a libertarian free-market society with a private economy.
@@vere9652 Cuba is still socialist. Also the Soviet union was improving under the rule of Gorbachev. I feel like a combined mix of Socialism and Capitalism is the best way forward also heres a list of terrible capatlist country's Cuban Republic (Capatlist Dictatorship that stopped existing after the communist overthrow it), South Korea (dictatorship in the 1900s), Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russian Federation, Turkey, Syria, Isareal (commits mass slaughter on Palestinians), Sadia Arabia, Twain (in the 1900s), South Vietnam, Jappense Empire, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Fascist Spain, British Empire, Mexican Empire, French Empire, Dutch Republic, Belgium Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Libya, Yemen, Oman, Chile's far right Dictatorship in the cold war, Kingdom of Iraq, Panama's dictatorship in the cold war, Ottoman Empire, Austrian Empire, German Empire, Vichy France, Singapore (police state), and the Russian empire.
@@rickyluman3915 You are right, I totally agree with you, they were terrible, but not because they were capitalist, but because they were dictatorships. Allowing people to own companies wasn't the cause of suffer, it were the dictators who caused it.
Also you can't have mix between Socialism and Capitalism, you either allow private ownership, or prohibit it. There is nothing in between. But you can have mix between right wing and left wing welfare policies, like in sweden.
Communism?
Capitalism vs communism?
You did not describe well but did fine
you literally got the definition of socialism wrong
Equilibração
☭
$
☭ 🚩🏴
capitalism is the way to go
No
cool👍
Very good.
Ill stay a Socialist thanks, because I don't like having masters (capitalists and government) like capitalism provides us. The problem with capitalists is, they want to put a price on freedom, instead of realizing like Socialists do, that true freedom is uncountable. Back to point, community Socialism is by the people, for the people without the need for a monetary system. This includes the public owning the means of production. Any other system that deviates from this plan is in direct opposition of the founding ideals of Socialism.
A socialist who doesn’t like having masters, don’t make me laugh. You understand that socialism is realised by *central* planning of the economy, you know, _governmental_ ownership of goods and services? Also, telling me i may not make my own business from the ground up and that if i do i get it stolen from me seems rather dictatorial to me, wouldn’t you agree?
@@ChurchillJhnsn Socialism as per Marx, is fundamentally 1) NO government 2) NO monetary system, and 3) The method of production being owned and operated by the people collectively. So if there is no government to control me, and there are no capitalists to bow down to (like there is in present day capitalism), and I own everything collectively with everyone else, where are the masters exactly?!
@@nevadataylor Okay, and how do you expect to take away somebody’s property without central authority? Hope they just hand it out, or by means of government coercion? Understand that telling somebody what they can and cannot do is “governing” their actions. This so-called fantasy cannot exist without a government forcing it onto it’s people. Also, what you’re referring to sounds to me like anarcho-communism. Socialism is the public funding of industries, communism is the communal ownership of industry by the workers, although in theory this would be anarcho-communism due to the lack of governance which is blatantly unrealistic, which history has proven to us on multiple occasions.
@@ChurchillJhnsn You really dont seem to understand Socialism. There is personal property under Socialism, but there is no private property. Dont worry, we wont be sharing our underwear or toothbrushes LMFAO~! You have your home under Socialism, but you cant have 3 homes under Socialism. Get it? Maybe you might want to read a book on it first? Or maybe a book is pretty hard for your level of education? How about this video then ->
ua-cam.com/video/yAOWoV9_2SQ/v-deo.html
All your so-called evidence for Socialism not working, all include 1) A government 2) A monetary system, and 3) The method of production either owned by a rich elite or state. You might be fooled by that, but sorry not me. Do you have an example of a failed Socialist state where there was 1) NO government 2) NO monetary system, and 3) The method of production owned by the collective? Im all ears!
Besides, dont even get me started regarding the ever so many horrors and incompetencies of capitalism!
@@nevadataylorI understand socialism enough to know why it doesn’t work. The problem is that you don’t. If you understood socialism, you wouldn’t be a socialist. You’ve yet to make a rebuttal to my point on who would take my private business from me in a community which lacks government, and who would make the decision to take it in the first place.
What about community Socialism in contrast to state Socialism? :)
That’s a social commune within a capitalist system. You can try it right now, see how it goes.
@@louisa.520 How does that save the planet exactly? We need out of capitalism, or it will possibly be the death of the human race.
@@nevadataylor Look at a real world socialist country and not your imaginary utopia. How are they handling the environment? Under capitalism you have the power to not support organisations that do bad to the environment. You also have property rights so you can start a company whose goal it is to help the environment and if people think the service you are providing is worth they’re money then they will support you.
@@louisa.520 Our present economic system is destroying our natural habitat in every part of the world, because it doesn't take into account the need for preservation. Not to mention, problems with poverty (still), cronyism (still), slave wages (still), the list is too long ... plastic oceans, poisoned land and air, deforestation, species extinction, all in the pursuit of mythical capitalist profits!
ua-cam.com/video/p76YZUOlcIc/v-deo.html
The corruption that capitalism has resorted to is unprecedented. Panama Papers anyone?
You are definitely not a Science-minded individual. I suggest you stop looking at capitalism as if it were your religion, and start actually waking up to the reality.
@@louisa.520 Here is what an actual Scientist, says about your fairy tale ->
ua-cam.com/video/dzv73Iz_mCE/v-deo.html
I mean a planned economy is communism, socialism is the workers controlling the means of production....but it wasn’t a super biased song so you beat my expectations. I can’t expect everyone to be read on theory.
1:19 socialism is great! Everyone gets equal slices of bread, isn't that good? (P.s. state gets the middle slices)
No not really because the amount of share is usually low since it has to be shared evenly so it wasn't fare for many. The government also rules most the money so that gives u lower control
And if your socialist there’s s chance your country could be poor/corrupt like Venezuela
Not with community Socialism, where the people own the method of production, without any interference of a monetary system.
@@cianb8741 So, if I understand your ideology, somehow being an an-cap you can imagine a world without interference of government in your worldview, but then say it is impossible to achieve in Socialism? In case you haven't noticed, I live in a world of capitalism against my wishes, although I can prove that capitalism is much much more destructive and worse for society as a whole than Socialism. Not to mention, there is nothing voluntary about capitalism either. However Socialism is congruent with nature and the environment, something that capitalism can never be. What I find with minions like yourself (Im saying minions not to be rude, but because capitalists always need a master), is that capitalism is already dead. It has ended in monopolies just like the Socialists have been declaring since the early to mid 1800s. The oligarchy which rules us is a form of monopoly, and in addition, ever industry on the planet now has its 'kings of the hill' making mom & pop shops impossible to get a foothold in the economy. Every industry has 2 or 3 corporations, and the only reason they cannot merge into 1 big corporation is because of the last remaining laws to keep them from doing that. But they agree to keep each other alive to bypass the anti-trust laws to disspell monopolies! What a laugh! And you want to uphold this blatantly silly system? I could go on and on... plastic oceans, poisoned land, seas, and skies, deforestation and the burning of the Amazon ... the world is a mess because of capitalism! And if you are one of those capitalists whom say "that's cronyism", well if cronyism derived from capitalism, then why is not capitalism responsible for cronyism?
All in all, I say that if we are going to have a world economic system, then that economic system should be held RESPONSIBLE for everything economic under it. I hold Socialism to no lesser standard either. As a man of Science, I have no idea why we continually give a free pass to capitalism with all of its so many incompetencies. Unfortunately, there will be Socialism whether you like it or not. The destruction of the planet will probably push our numbers down greatly, and the remainder of us Im sure will need to bond together for our survival, under Socialism again, like we have been doing for the past millions of years before capitalism even existed. Mother nature chooses Socialism for us, everything else is just a fantasy. Not Socialism vs capitalism, its either adapt or perish, that's your choice.
@@cianb8741 Humans are not extremely selfish in nature ... only capitalists are.
Besides, us Socialists don't have to, as capitalism has done a fine job already at creating a huge number of Socialists quicker than any time to date! You are just late in catching up with the times maybe?
Look, you really don't get the gravity of the situation, like most minions I speak to here. There is nothing left of capitalism, IT HAS ALREADY DIED. Ill say it again, competition no longer exists since the monopoly 'kings of the hill' govern every industry out there. Walmart, Amazon, Google, etc ... there are no mom or pop shops coming to the rescue, they will never be able to compete with them. In 2016 the percent chance of a startup succeeding was 16%, now it is down yet again to 11% ->
www.amazon.com/Myth-Capitalism-Monopolies-Death-Competition/dp/1119548195
The bailouts of the rich in '08 prove that they already have economic Socialism, while we struggle, and are left with cut-throat capitalism.
Democracy has been purchased from out under us ->
ua-cam.com/video/5tu32CCA_Ig/v-deo.html
The Fed keeps pumping more money into the economy to keep the this charade going, and of course to keep the rich elites in power ->
markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/fed-repo-pumps-75-billion-into-market-continuing-injection-streak-2019-9-1028553196
Every country in the world continues to crumble in this ever so slow train wreck, not to mention the havoc that is being unleashed on our environment, which might just be irreparable now. I say better off red than dead ->
ua-cam.com/video/p76YZUOlcIc/v-deo.html
Scientists keep continually yelling at us too, that we need Socialism, but we have too many minions like yourself, that are anti-Science. Ill let world renown Evolutionary Biologist Richard Dawkins, explain it to you ->
ua-cam.com/video/xBJu1j2Mh3E/v-deo.html
“I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.” ― Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?
However, to answer your question, Socialism will provide a better life. The economic system of capitalism is such a low bar anyways, with all this unneeded suffering. And I should mention, Im only a Socialist when pitted in the Socialism/capitalism debate, however the end-all-be-all of all economic systems I wager, is a RBE! Ill stop being a Socialist tomorrow if we focus on constructing a RBE. A RBE is the only economic system that I know of that has Science at its core, which I mean to say is a self-falsifiable system, rather than an unfounded, bias, anti-Science, faith based religion such as capitalism. If humanity would truly wisen up, we should drop capitalism, skip Socialism, and go straight into a RBE. Here check this out->
ua-cam.com/video/XDhSgCsD_x8/v-deo.html
I could go on and on (and on) ... but now my question to you is, why is it that minions always require a master? I mean, why would you want to keep up this silly brainwashed fantasy? ... other than to keep serving your masters? Their game of exploitation of everything that we hold dear, including the futures of all our children, is at stake. Do you have children? Or do you want to have children someday? Why do you want to serve such a hideous cult? ... for personal greed??
"The modern conservative is engaged in mankind's oldest exercise in moral philosophy: the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." -- John Kenneth Galbrath, 1946
T
bad idea, big government is it's own special interest. power corrupts, absolutely!
哇 好好听
all lies!
This is a bad definition of socialism, socialism doesn’t need government in fact some systems have no government
How exactly to you get the people to not engage in voluntary contracts with each other? How do you get everyone to voluntary give up all their property? And how do you organise the redistribution of recourses without a centralised authority?
@@louisa.520 First, in the same way in which we make it illegal for people to sell themselves to pay off debt as indentured servants, I would hope to see it either illegal, or an easy alternative, that people don't have to sell themselves as rented wage slaves. However I disagree with your framing, there is no such thing as a voluntary contract under capitalism in 90% of situations.
Next, it wouldn't really be voluntary, by my definition of voluntary at least, however if you consider someone working minimum wage when they have no better option voluntary, this would be voluntary. Simply, if we got the United States workforce 30% to 50% unionized, they would simply be able to go on strike to seize their workplaces. Historically, when this happens, the capitalists hire mercenaries and the state to crack down on the union members.
As for the redistribution of resources, more organically through a socialist market, if the majority of businesses are owned by it's workers as cooperatives, naturally inequality will reduce.
@@aradicalkiwi806 A higher minimum wage raises prices since obviously you have to sell your products at a higher price if you have to pay more to produce them. This in turn lowers the value of your money thus you end up where you started, only worse since for bigger companies with a higher quantity of production it is often worth it to replace workers by automated procedures. Small business on the other hand often don’t produce enough to make automation feasible. So by raising the minimum wage you are giving the "bourgeoisie" an economic advantage over the "proletariat".
On your redefinition of “voluntary”: I’m not going to pretend that everybody has the mental capacity to work at a higher paying job than McDonalds under the current system but I don’t think the solution to the eternal problem of man being born different is totalitarian collectivism aka socialism. However, under capitalism not only do you have property and can therefore share with the less fortunate voluntarily (believe it or not, capitalists are humans and humans can be philanthropic without having to be forced), but under capitalism, where there is no minimum wage and close to no taxes, there are a lot more jobs. Therefore, increasing the chance that even a less intelligent (or otherwise impaired) person can find that occupation at which they might even be better than the average, and therefor are providing something for society that others cannot, which if society values it, makes them money.
On your point of Unionisation, I reject the state enforcing unions because this dependence makes the unions effectively part of the state system which creates all sorts of problems with corruption but I have no problem with non-law-enforced voluntary cooperation of the workers. The ability of the people to choose not to work aka strike and to organise themselves is actually a quality of capitalism (freedom of the individual). However, what you call seizing the workplace I call theft. Gust because the worker has physically produced a product or service they do not own it (Or do you think when you pay and higher a roofer to build you a roof he then owns your roof?). The Owner of the company has made the investment, taken the risk, had the idea, organised it and so on. If you don’t like it, start your own thing. Under pure capitalism with minimal to no regulations it would actually be pretty easy to start a business and cheap to. Seizing the factory however is nothing more than a dictatorship of the majority. I don’t think anybody in their right mind actually believes in this because if they do that then where was the problem with the German majority (the "Volksgemeinschaft", Hitler’s version of the proletariat) disowning the Jews who in Hitler’s (as well as Marx’s) version of socialism where synonymous with the capitalist "bourgeoisie". Where is the problem with the gulag camps and the disowning and killing of the Chinese intellectuals by Mao?
No capitalist has ever used the might of the state to do anything because what the state does is not capitalism. There is no such thing as “state capitalism” that gust translates to state non state. What capitalists want is less state power, so that exactly that kind of stuff does not become possible.
On the socialist markets: you will have to explain what exactly you mean by that and how it does not involve force?
@@louisa.520 First, Higher minimum wage doesn't always rise prices, the market is not a fluid response to policy, but even so, that's great because I don't much care about raising minimum wages. I mentioned minimum wage only because I was making a point about how when you say voluntary it means little. I would say a person working at McDonalds is just as voluntary as a person paying taxes, either way you either do it or you die.
As to the strawman you pose, totalitarian collectivism I would say rarely ever is socialism, in fact one of the leading socialist academics, Noam Chomsky, described the destruction of the soviet union as, "A small win for global socialism". Still, people might not have the capacity to work at a better place than McDonalds, nevertheless I think that they are entitled to what they produce at McDonalds. We can find out how entitled they are by getting them to join a Union and go on strike, and we can see how well McDonalds does without any of it's lower level workers.
As to the claims on property, I never disputed any ideas about the philanthropy of Capitalists, however I would say that for say a billionaire, they would have to give away over 90% of their money to make up for the amount of money they stole from the workers that made them a billionaire.
I never said that the state should enforce Unions, I want people to unionize on their own will. As to you describing the seizing of the means of production as theft, let be be specific to what I mean. If 30% of America was unionized, and then went on strike, I can tell you with near certainty that the business owners of those striking workers would send mercenaries to shoot the workers in the street, it is what happened during the Coal Wars, and the Seattle General strike, and it would happen again. Then, I would simply propose the workers defending themselves, and continue working, but for themselves. Instead of giving what they produce to their boss who would see them shot, I think they should keep it. Capitalism is theft, capitalism sees you give away your labour for less than it is worth or you starve, and if you try and organize and get the full amount you are worth, you are shot.
When I pay a roofer to build a roof, actually they do own the roof, until I pay them the amount they ask for, this is organized in contracts, and these contracts are moral because the roofer can say no and find business elsewhere, and I can find another roofer. For the majority of workers, they can't find another job, not another job that pays them the amount they would get if they unionized. If you work in a midwestern factory town there is one job that pays well enough for you to feed or family, and if you don't take that you die.
Next, as to you describing seizing the factory as dictatorship of the majority, yeah it is, aka democracy. If I am a feudal lord and all of my serfs stop working causing me to starve to death, and they then take my property and start running it as a democracy, technically you could call that a dictatorship of the majority, as opposed to a dictatorship of the minority, or just a dictatorship.
Capitalism is a dictatorship of business, the vast majority of the population spending their life in a workplace they have virtually no real authority over, vs, a system in which everyone gets a say in how their life is ran.
As to your final claims, Marx did not view the jews as synonymous with capitalism, that would be pretty weird given that Marx was half jewish himself, and Engels was Jewish, and so was Lenin, and Trotsky, but that is neither here nor there. The Volksgemeinschaft translates to "The People's Economy", the idea was an economy for the people, not an economy ran by the people, big difference.
Fun fact, you know the word "privatization" was first ever used in describing the Nazi economy, privatization was literally invented as a word to describe what the nazis were doing. The nazis didn't support democracy in the economy, neither did they in the state, quite the opposite for both. The Nazis believed a group of elites and strongmen should rule all aspects of life, the state, and the economy, I, and socialists, believe the people, and individuals should rule both the state and the economy.
As to your claim that capitalism means "not state", that is quite funny. Capitalism was literally a word created by a socialist to describe the way in which Prussia, the U.S, and Britain would combined Free Market Liberalism with State Authoritarianism to monopolize control of the economy. Capitalism is not "not state", that is libertarianism, and libertarianism was a word that until the 50s, meant anti-capitalism. Libertarianism was synonymous with socialism, in fact, Murray Rothbard famously admitted this, stating that finally the right had stolen a word from the left, stolen Libertarianism, a word that meant freedom, democracy, anti-statism, and anti-capitalism, into a word that now in America means pro-capitalism to the extent that every company is effectively a state of it's own.
As to a socialist market, I know you are going to say "that is just capitalism" because you don't know what capitalism means, but I will explain anyway.
So one type of socialist market would be a society in which the majority of businesses are run as worker cooperatives, and the majority of people work at worker cooperatives. You will then say, "Well because it is voluntary and has free trade it's capitalism", no, that makes it Liberalism, capitalism is the perversion of liberalism that sees businesses act like states in that workers don't have the ability to truly represent their own value because companies restrict unions and enforce a rigid status quo discouraging unionization.
@@louisa.520 hey prices are rising and the minimum wage has barely increased
100 million deaths or unequal distribution of wealth?
the later
1. USSR and China were neither socialist or communist.
2. Those figures are bloated. I don’t even know where you got them from.
@@CosyProlific how about the Chinese communist revolution?
@@mightbeahuman3442 Calling something communist doesn’t make it communist
I think it was the fact that stalin and Mao were just selfish dictators/tyrants, not due to the systems themselves
i think you mixed up socialism with communism...socialism is more focused on more rights and opportunities for the workers of businesses not necessarily the government giving out equal for everything!!!
Socialism is still restrictive, delays progress, keeps parasites living off of those who are actually producing, and is largely dependent on populism, which leads to normalizing mediocrity and leads to more policies based on hate and envy
Socialism’s goal is communism.
Equally poor
@@JackDaniels-ee1fo so being paid more, having more rights, having worked unions, having a government that works to help the working class is a bad thing?
@@rickyluman3915 you obviously don’t understand what money is and how it works. Money is a medium of exchange, and is limited in its amount, which is what gives it value. How valuable each unit of the currency is depends on how much money there is and how often it is traded. When people get paid, a service is expected to be worth the cost. If people are paid more than what they are putting in, then a business would operate at a loss and die out. This is why wages ought to be a reflection of the balance between supply and demand, in order to allocate resources properly. If people agree to work for a given wage, that’s a voluntary exchange that leads to a gain for all parties involved, or else the trade wouldn’t happen in the first place.
The only logically justifiable rights are property rights. Anything else would need to be provided by someone else, so to consider that a right is disingenuous and evil, since you’d be using force to steal from those who have earned their wealth to give to those who haven’t.
Worker unions can only work with the threat of violence, which is unjustified, since all an employer does is make an offer to people for them to provide a service in exchange, if the terms of the offer are unsatisfactory, then you are free to refuse it, but to claim yourself entitled to the property of another is absurd, wrong, and evil. Could you logically claim otherwise?
Lastly, a government should really just focus on enforcing a legal system that protects property rights, for that is what enables trade and individual growth. It’s what enables resources to reach every corner of every nation. It’s why you have access to stores, restaurants, a phone, computers, food variety, clothing, etc. Anything else is either wasteful or detrimental
I love capitalism 🇨🇺 🇨🇺 🇨🇺
Why you using flag of Cuba? Cuba is Communist
@@rickyluman3915 I'm cuban
Actually, in socialism the half loaf bread is for the state. 😂😂
I really love capitalism
Does that hold true for community Socialism? I don't think so. Ill stay a Socialist thanks, because I don't like having masters (capitalists and government) like you do. The problem with capitalists, they want to put a price on freedom, instead of realizing like Socialists do, that true freedom is uncountable. Back to point, community Socialism is by the people, for the people without the need for a monetary system. It's when the public owns the means of production. Any other system that deviates from this plan is in direct opposition of the founding ideals of Socialism.
@@nevadataylor I take your point. However, I don't believe socialism free you. In fact, they control what you earn and they force you to pay huge tax. They don't make money but they prefer redistribute it. The worst part is you cannot choice where they are investing it. If you were totally free you could spend your money where you want to. You can pay your own education, your own heath insurence, your home...
I really don't think we need the state to control us. We just need work and responsability.
@@andresbarrioperez5245 "In fact, they control what you earn and they force you to pay huge tax."
@@nevadataylor Either i don't understand socialism or you are mixing socialism's ideas up with communism's ideas.
In the system you've proposed, there are not a monetary system. Then, how can you guarantee the people get a house or a car? How do we share material goods?
Currency is the only way to get whatever you want and whenever you want.
By the way, as you've said "In capitalism, some persons exploit other persons". I think this is a wrong idea. In capitalism you choice your job. If you don't agree with the condiction's deal, you can refuse it.
The enterprises fight for the best workers. As i said before, you just need to work.
In mi view, the persons who have great skill or work harder should be reward.
@@andresbarrioperez5245 You don't understand Socialism, but you are far from alone on this issue. I don't want to go too far into the history, but from my research, in Marx's day, Socialism and Communism were the same thing... it wasn't until later with Lenin, that the meaning of Socialism changed to a supposedly 'transitional system' to Communism.
"Then, how can you guarantee the people get a house or a car? How do we share material goods?"