Young people believe in socialism because as children they were always on the receiving end of the idea of sharing. They don't understand that sharing means giving, too.
@@soulcapitalist6204 That's your (or maybe received - from charlantans like Shapiro) definition of socialism which has nothing to do with facts or history.😂😂😂I think Chomsky already debunked this nonsense which JP is spewing. All with facts and logic.😂😂😂
Want to hear a Joke, Two brothers, John, and Bob, who lived in America and were members of the communist party, decided to emigrate to the USSR. Even though they didn't believe the American media's negative reports on the conditions in the USSR, they decided to exercise caution. John would go to Russia to test the waters. If they were right and it was a communist paradise, then John would write a letter to Bob using black ink. If, though, the situation in the USSR was as bad as the American media liked to portray, and the KGB was a force to be feared, John would use red ink to indicate whatever he says in the letter must not be believed. In three months John sent his first report. It was in black ink and read, "I'm so happy here! It's a beautiful country, I enjoy complete freedom and a high standard of living. All the capitalist press wrote was lies. Everything is readily available! There is only one small thing of which there's a shortage. *Red ink."*
@Pynky II I believe this joke was originally about Germany in the late 1920s when the Versailles Treaty prevented them from making certain weapons. It's a historical fact that they secretly re-armed until the nazi government were confident enough to publicly tear up the treaty.
One of the problems is language. Because "social program" and "socialism" are similar words, they think they are the same thing. So socialism attempts to high-jack the positive social programs as their own and gain credit. It doesn't help that the far right makes the same mistake and reject all social programs because it's socialism.
@@gizel4376there is a difference socialism and social democracy. Every top OECD country has social democracy. Capitalist countries with good social policies. The US is the odd one out. Because Americans cant tell the difference between social democracy, socialism, communism, marxism. Its why they use the last three interchangeable on policies they dont like.
@@alanfairbrother890 social democracy is a really dumb name for social capitalism, which is a slippery slope for America because our corruption is already so widespread..
@@justinryanvalencia05 i agree American politics is corrupt and dysfunctional. Still living in 1776. Unwilling to change because "the founding fathers" blah blah. And in the GOP always a bogeyman for their base to be afraid of.
I very much doubt that even the Far-Right is against ALL social programs. And certainly your average Right-Wing citizen is not. Maybe some extreme, fringe, Right-Wing nut cases are against every social program, but I think those are few and far between.
As a South African I've experienced that inverted correlation regarding violent crime. Our media went silent on the way to "achieving" the third highest murder rate in the world.
Then it is interesting that East Germany had almost no poverty or crime! The power of socialism! On top of that W. Germany spent more money than GDR to spy on their citizens and was more reppressive if they found a opponent to their system (communist)! They made sure that he/she wouldn´t get any job!
If you are South Africa maybe you'll know that you live in an incredibly resource rich country that was sold off to the highest capitalist bidders along with the help of central banks to the highest bidder and that is a major reason why the people are so poor, unequal and living in desperation so often. If the people really had co-ownership over the major means of production, do you think they would have sold it off and shipped it off to the Americas and Europe without first taking care of their own people? I think not. Money is the problem. Markets makes it unsustainable. System change is needed. Ubuntu Contributionism, for example, is a viable system change idea that people can learn about and join if they want to contribute to building a better, more sustainable and free society.
Some of us are aware of the situation and are very sorry for the inability of our governement to stand up for western values such as justice and security, when it comes to white people and christians.
@@coolioso808 When a western country sells its resources, the income and wealth creation is immense. Look at Australia and Norway. When African countries do it, they fail because they are both corrupt and socialist. The solution is free enterprise, low corruption and general westren cultural outlook. "people have..co-ownership over the major means of production" is socialism, has been tried so many times and failed miserably. It is a formula for poverty and starvation.
Mileage will vary Bruce. Plundering is biological, animal, human. I have zero doubt that the capitalists also plundered. The "isms" have less influence over human behavior than our own biology. Humans, are are vulnerable and easily manipulated. Politics is theater that relies on an ignorant population. As the people of this planet become more informed traditional forms of manipulation are failing. I see progress.
It was incredibly sad to watch that transition. My step farther is from Harare, he was in the special branch of the police, I think it was called "bmp" but could be wrong. The reason I say this is watching him watching the news was like watching someone loose a bit of his soul. By this time he had transferred to South Africa but I could see how much it hurt still. However sometimes when we look back on our memories even the bad ones now somehow feel like teachings, accompanied by a small smile. Rest in peace Dad
best 2 things i learnt from Jordan Peterson is the difference between individual responsibilities and collective responsibilities and how they co exist and what they do to eachother. the second being how people are so afraid of alienation, they can and will change a form of their own beliefs for the sake of virtue signaling im order to look good infront of their friends rather then conform to their own sense of comfortability. wish people actually took the time to listen and understand what he says at times, he has alot of good answers to alot of questions. unfortunately alot of the answers mean alot of people have to take a good look at themselves and understand they are the problem but we seem to live in a world these days where taking responsibility and accepting punishment as appropriate to the situation is just to difficult to stomach
The biggest problem though is that this is often not applied evenly. Usually workers are made to shoulder both personal and collective responsibility while capitalists can dodge both. In a lot of propaganda the worker's "personal responsibility" is twisted to mean he should take in those of his superiors too. For example blaming workers demanding wages equal to the average for the failure of a company. That's shifting the blame from the incompetence of the boss to the actions of the workers. In today's society "personal responsibility" mostly exists as a lie to shift responsibility or disguise bad intentions. For example to have workers suffer with student debt while forgiving all debt that corporations take out.
@@greglongphee2034 Right now the only responsibility they have is towards their shareholders. That's why the economy is going to ruin since they benefit the unproductive shareholders at the expense of everyone else and that just doesn't work.
The problem though is that "personal responsibility" is often abused by lazy politicians to not solve problems. After all you can write off any kind of problem to "personal responsibility" such as having a lot of car accidents. If you attribute it to a lack of "personal responsibility" that means you don't have to impliment regulations or change some aspect of the road. If you call the problems with homeless people "personal responsibility" that means you don't have to impliment reforms in the housing market and organize housing and integration facilities. If you consider the working poor "personal responsibilities" that means you don't have to change the minimum wage or impliment better social services. So while personal responsibility is itself not a bad thing we always have to be very weary when political or corporate leaders use the term as they often use it in bad faith.
@@MrMarinus18 Peterson's ideas are that his group of capitalist intelectual professors are "know it alls" writing novels and whose good manners and personal responsibility makes history.
I'm 71. In 1966 my Social Studies teacher explained socialism in this way: Socialism is a perfect society. Each person gives according to his ability and takes according to his needs. Unfortunately, there are no perfect people to live in this perfect society.
The one word conspicuously absent in this concept is "voluntarily." Enough people take "according to their needs" the greater the "needs" become - and those with the "ability" become fewer in number with less money to have confiscated by the government to give to someone else. Soon thereafter, collectivism becomes shared misery, because _everyone_ is left with need and no one left to provide for it.
@briane173 correct. The idea is based on the reverse of what's possible. It is necessary to make individuals economically resilient and then you have a solid foundation to build on. If you do the opposite, which is to make everyone dependent on everyone else, the system crashes under its own weight.
If your history teacher really said that he's just wrong or more likely going from a wrong textbook. That's communism. Socialism means balancing out the power of capitalists to better society. Though at one point even capitalism meant government regulations. Our current model of "capitalism" where everything is sacrificed to make capitalists as rich as possible was something Adam Smith actually fiercely opposed.
@@MrMarinus18 Everything you typed was soooo stupid. 🤣 If you want to see Socialism in action, just visit Venezuela, as opposed to the fantasy world in your head.
I’m pretty old. I remember a show called ‘The Courtship of Eddie’s Father’. They young boy came in excited about the idea that all of the toys were taken and put in an area where everyone could play with them. That way everyone got a toy. The dad only replied with , ‘what do you think of that?’ (This was so long ago that fathers were funny, intelligent and also parents). The child said he was going to try it. It sounded like a good idea. A few days go by. The dad asks how the experiment went. The child was a bit depressed. It didn’t go like people said it would. He said, ‘the only people who wanted to do it didn’t have any toys , and the kids with lots of toys left them home and played with everyone else’s’
People can be generous. However, what people definitely don't want to be, is taken advantage of. Socialism lets people take advantage of others. Everyone sees they are getting away with it. So Socialism fails as soon as it begins.
I know this is supposed to be a criticism of socialism but it is not. It is a criticism of people. Socialism requires all the people to buy in (no pun intended) but if some do not by wanting to gain power or by not putting in the required effort it will fail
@@claytoncourtney1309I'd argue it should be a criticism of both. By your logic, socialism relies on people's will to comply and not use the opportunity to gain power from it, which can never happen, because people are humans.
@@teodze3432 Specifically my response was directed at Debbylou and the comment, from the story, of "He said, ‘the only people who wanted to do it didn’t have any toys , and the kids with lots of toys left them home and played with everyone else’s’" I was making the point that it was the inability to execute socialism that caused the failure. My logic would say that the concept of socialism does not rely on "people's will to comply and not use the opportunity to gain power from it" , the implementation of it does. If I understand you correctly you are saying that people will not be able to do what is needed for socialism to work so therefore that is also a problem with socialism. I am able to separate the plan from the execution
My family came from the USSR. I heard many Uni students who believed every piece of Soviet propaganda. They did not comprehend that shops could have empty shelves. They did not believe that government factories would produce faulty, poor quality products to meet quotas. The West does a terrible job of exposing propaganda even now. How much do we know of what is happening to ordinary people in Venezuela ( even with massive oil reserves), Brazil or North Korea.
Ahaha, that’s why my Soviet era Photo camera still works fine, because of poor quality. Thanks for studying me about Soviet propaganda. And what about the fact that corporations are now designing deliberately poor durability to encourage repeat purchases? I guess you think it’s absolutely normal. And do you want a joke? There is a plan for any normal production, even capitalist ones! Wow, you don’t know the history of your family Motherland, and you don’t know how modern capitalism economic works, congrats
Wow where do you get the film for your soviet era camera . Oh and how is your soviet smart phone working. Did your family live in the USSR ( not foreigners with US $ or high party members who could buy from special shops)@@johnr96
It's because young folks never studied about socialism, I heard about it from my high school teacher about capitalism, socialism, feudalism, and communism. But I never knew what it was all about, so I had to self-taught myself...
Schools have become so left wing that they don't even teach about it honestly anymore. They just focus on the problems with capitalism and "gently" guide them into believing the grass is greener with a "diverse" staff composed entirely of socialists. When I was a kid they taught us how to spot a dictatorship forming. Places like Canada and the UK clearly don't do that anymore either.
there are those of us who understand Socialism and have seen it in action as well as learned of it's history. There are only 2 types of people who support Socialism: those who want to profit from it, and those who are ignorant of what it really is and what it leads to.
Do you really though ? As a European , I lived all my life in a country with a big underlying sosalist structure , please do not confuse socialism with the extreme left , communism . And I dont know about you , but if the top 1% of people own 80% of all wealth , I cannot help myself in thinking that capitalism has taken a turn for the wrong . And when 3 people have a net worth , bigger than many a small countries GDP , something is not right .
@@Maverick21491No one is stopping anyone to become the top 1% hence the list keeps fluctuating. And these 1% give employment to almost the entire world. Get your own business idea and you become one. No one is stopping you. For socialism to get to communism is not a leap it happened in many countries. Plus not a even country has been able to apply this system and was successful.
@@Maverick21491 socialism is just a gateway to communism. Every good communist knows this. It's why it's pushed so heavily in countries like Australia. Socialism is about getting the citizens to rely on the government. Capitalism is about getting the people to go and actually work. Communism is about having a small group of elite repress the larger masses and pretend they aren't doing that.
@Maverick21491 What is inherently wrong with rich people having a lot of wealth? Wealth isn't a zero sum game. If people A and B have lot of money, there's nothing stopping C through Z from producing or building something new. This Pereto distribution is natural and arises in many situations. And while the percentages stay the same, who is in those percentages is not constant. There are rich people who lose it all, and newcomers who move in.
@@Maverick21491your european shitty nations were the ones responsible for the creation of both communist and fascist regimes that started ww2. Dont speak.
@@joma5721 I have one in college and know many of his friends and most of them have not defined Socialism properly. Also I have seen journalists interview college students and it's the same. Most simply think it means something other than what it is.
George Orwell's book, Animal Farm should be required reading in high school and again in college. It's an easy read. One can easily finish the whole book in a weekend. If anyone, regardless of age wants to truly find out the results of socialism in the 20th century, Jordan Peterson made a great point: 100 million people died due to socialism in the 20th century. Most of them in USSR, China and North Korea. For people who don't like to read but prefer movies should watch Dr. Zhivago, the David Lean version (1965). Take a good look at how quality of life changed in Russia from the beginning of the film to the end.
@@3xampleDeaths under capitalism can not be measured in the same way since capitalism affords people to make their own choices, which communism does not. Keep in mind that American capitalism has been affected with socialist programs and institutions for decades now, which themselves may be responsible for the deaths you are implying. You have not specified an argument with examples, so we can only assume, but it does seem you are setting yourself up for causal fallacy.
@@Wodenson5150 As far as I'm aware socialist policies don't withold excess resources to starving nations simply because it's not profitable to do so, capitalist policies do so. Socialist policies don't pollute and destroy the climate leaving tens of millions displaced or dead, capitalist policies do. Capitalist policies will start wars and regime changes in other countries in the name of profit killing tens of millions. Capitalism is far more insidious than you realise, it will literally always prioritise profit over a human life unless socialist policies are implemented.
@@3xample You're a dolt of the first order: Everyone "dies" under every system. When we speak of death under socialism, we mean directly as a result of the State's policies, and before their normal time.
Social media only gives you what is common other things are hard to find, some things are near impossible and then combined with censorship makes some things totally unavailable
1) Socialism rewards sloth and makes working hard pointless. If everyone gets the same benefit, only fools work hard. Or at all. 2) It destroys any efforts to improve efficiency or production. Why invent something to make a process more efficient when you, yourself, get no added benefit from it?
3) It is the most easily corruptable and abused system to control every aspect of people's lives and openly silence and oppress whoever the government wishes
capitalists quite literally take the value of your surplus labor (the value of your production minus your hourly wage = surplus labor value). They're already taking your money and doing what they want with it. You're lucky if they even want to be a philanthropist
@@cutecowsleeps The surplus labor value theory was debunked as far back as the 19th century, Labor contributes only a fraction of the value of products. Capitalists pay for all plant, equipment, rents, utilities, marketing, distribution, interest, materials, organization of production and management and much more
@@josephwalsh7546 it doesn't matter who technically reaches into their wallet and personally pays for all of the production equipment. The cost of production equipment, etc, it comes from the wallet and at the expense of all of the people involved in the enterprise. If you work for a company that profits $100/month, it doesn't matter how that $100 is sliced up, it's still $100 to which a portion of which is reinvested into the company and the workers. The thing about arguments against critiques of capitalism is that they almost always still look at the economy through the dogma of capitalism. They see the organization of capitalist businesses as rational because of certain myths like "the owner takes on all the risks" and so to them it makes sense that the owner alone should decide how to slice up finances. But it makes no actual difference to what is happening, which is that an individual is choosing to take ownership over what a group produces together and give themself more. When you bring up how cooperatives are generally better business structures for worker-consumers, capitalists say that traditional business structures grow faster, but to me, that's almost as bad as a slaver arguing that plantations are more efficient.
The idea everybody is Equal is bs. I believe everybody is vastly different, but laws should be applied equally. People have a wide range of talents and IQ's. Everybody is Unique.
The idea of socialism is that everybody should have equal chances. That everybody should have access to the same education, healthcare, housing, etc., so that no one ends up in a ghetto. Capitalism says that those who are born rich deserve more because they already have more, and those who are born poor are guilty of being born poor and it's their problem that they don't magically get accepted in Harvard. And we're not unique. It's a silly and dangerous idea. When everyone's special, no one is. We're all human, and we're alike in many things. Western individualism produces loneliness and hostility, makes you see differences first. I'd rather see similarities, things that unite us all. No one is that unique and special, and we're all replaceable. Even in love. And it's great. It means that you're not alone, not isolated, not "one against the world". There's people just like you out there, people with similar ideas and tastes. People who you could befriend or even make a part of your family. Don't set yourself apart with your "uniqueness". Humility begets wisdom.
@@kamchatmonk If you needed Brain surgery would you want to have every person in the world have equal chances of performing it? No, you say not everybody is equal when it comes to brain surgery. This is because people should not have equal chances.
@@northyland1157and you can bet your ass if the brain surgeon is making the same as the guy flipping burgers at mcdonalds the brain surgeon is sure as shit not going to give two fucks about the quality of his work. Enjoy being a brain dead vegetable but hey its cool, you get the same as the brain surgeon for being a vegetable, equality for all!
@@northyland1157 So, if you're born in a poor family but have an incredible talent for medicine, you don't deserve to become a doctor? Got it. American dream is dead.
@@kamchatmonk ITs called student loans.. Anybody can get a Student loan in USA.. I paid for my Degree that way. Even the poorest kids can get a loan for school. Your being brain washed..
I spent a year in a nation absolutely ravaged by socialism (former Yugoslavia). In these societies, everything is meant to serve the state, including people. Everything is a resource to be used and consumed however the state sees fit. That's why you have an incredibly huge open pit cole mine right next to Tuzla, a city of 120k.
So, I ask you, why even use the term "socialism" if, by definition, it is rarely accurate? Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." It is much more in theory, historically and currently, than in practice, isn't it? Because when has the community actually owned and operated the means of production? Not in Soviet Russia, not in China, not in Ukraine, not in Canada, nope. Is Canada a "socialist" country because we have single-payer healthcare? That would be a loose definition. The community doesn't own the hospitals and make decisions about funding, that's higher up jobs. We don't own the major telecommunications and energy companies and then all co-profit share from them, do we? We don't decide to have a big clothing company and ship resources overseas to be assembled in sweatshops in Southeast Asia then shipped back to Canada for purchase, do we? Until we actually build a better system that is for the people, by the people, to make the current unjust and unsustainable system obsolete, I'm sorry, but our local and global problems are just going to get worse. Try looking at One Small Town Contributionism. How would that model work for your community? Voluntary and free, but see what the benefits would be. Why not?
@@coolioso808We used to have that. It kept everybody living in mud huts. The trouble with everyone being in charge, is that no one is in charge. That's just one more reason why socialism fails.
You know many anti-socialists actually describe the current capitalist reality pretty clearly. In how things are now everything is meant to serve the almighty god of the market and nothing is sacred from it.
I think you're mixing up your definitions. Socialism is just a large umbrella of multiple philosophy and economic model that aims to reduce inequalities of life quality. Communisme is a specific socialist government that in its applied form centralized the means of production and shared ressources according to peoples needs.
😢😢I used to work at an office that everyone was paid the same based on job title plus a bonus for years worked. It did not matter if you worked really hard or not; You just had to meet the minimum quota. The end result was that hard workers stopped working so hard. We were even told by coworkers not to mess with the curve because the quota would get raised.
My parents told me In my country in the 80s and 90s the try socialism at first it lead to free education ,increase pay , free health. Then nationalisation companies started to collapse government was losing money fast but still had all these social programs debt increase the government had to started privatization but it was to late the currency collapse.
On the subject of win vs. loss. A statistics professor did a study of professional golf putting statistics and found that more birdie putts were short than par putts of the same length. He phycological colleague postulated that is because people inherently would prefer to not lose than win. They subconsciously were trying to ensure that they didn't miss that par putt (loss) more urgently than making the birdie putt (win).
Poor hypothesis, unless you're talking putts on a flat, uniform surface. In the real world, an on-target putt that is given insufficient energy will generally advance you toward your goal. Even rolling back will not leave you farther. A putt with excess energy can leave you farther from your goal, by placing the ball into a realm that might slope away from the cup.
@@Dudemon-1 You would have to understand statistics to understand the study as well as the premise of the study. If you use too much energy, it doesn't matter if it is a birdie or a par putt. The study was to look at why people use too much energy more often with a par putt than a birdie putt.
I suggest Jordan himself as the storyteller of humanity for the 20th century, if only for his phenomenal public speaking skills. He's not only the best narrator to tell it, but he's probably one of the very few individuals educated & wise enough to understand and interpret it in a relatively accurate manner and put the story into an appropriate historical framework. Incredible WISE of him to sprinkle his positive advice with warnings & specific cautionary tales of why this or that ought to be avoided (e.g. the dangers of the radical left using 20th century examples).
Sure hes good at telling one sided stories and cherry picking facts to support his contentions. He is basically just a recycled cold warrior. Who uses Solzhenitsyn novels as the definitive proof for all his contentions. The outrage of the Imperialist Professor who almost destroyed the world with nuclear war just to save capitalism. Just imagine how disheartening it must have been when Truman realised that the Soviets having the bomb prevented the laying waste of Chinese cities that MacArthur wanted to do Korea for this well dressed Canadian counterevolution Imperialist Professor. .
@@kimobrien. My sympathies lady, but your sentimentality before pragmatism is the cause of why/how you will not prevail. Also, are you saying JP almost destroyed the world with nuclear war??? If so, it's blatantly false. JP has no access to or ANY involvement of ANY kind with nuclear weapons or any ability to start a nuclear war.
@@lolwuffidoggoshiema7605 Petersen didn't but Kennedy and Truman nearly did. He covers up that whole history because it doesn't suit his anti communist theories of Communism bad Capitalism good. The man is so blinded by hate that he can't even read the Communist Manifesto without treating it in the way a biblical scholar does who has to reinterpret words to get what he wants for a meaning in the bible when god orders or engages in bad acts. In the case of Petersen he needs to go off on tangents where conspiracy governs reality for proof that Marx didn't mean what he said but something else. His whole Act is one where he Howls at the Moon over Stalin and Mao. . .
My god, as a militaria, toy soldiers collector and someone that enjoys military history along with geography, I can say “people are unbelievably ignorant in history” is dead on. If any American knows anything about any war other then movies, I am shocked. Including the Ukraine war. Ask a kid who their hero is and they will mostly likely say a sports player. Not Audie Murphy of course. Someone mentioned a tiny country next to Germany and I said, “Luxembourg.” He was astonished that I knew that. I don’t even think that knowledge is impressive to know. This is America today, also Canada. But the full line up of a team which plays a game for millions, most people can name each guy and their position. I guess so can brag about how much tv they watch, while at a bar.
Before TV & radio, Americans actually read daily newspapers & books, the former a way to stay connected to the present, the latter a way to actually become educated. Everyone's been tricked by marketing in the last century to run their lives at the pace of communications ---> attention/popularity---> $$$$.
@@Sweethands4 but maybe it could be a good thing. One day I run into another person that’s heard of the Franco-Prussian war. We can have a conversation and people will think I’m intelligent. lol
@@lexevo Unfortunately for those who appreciate knowing things, intelligence doesn't matter in the jungle of life. Only willpower (i.e. ACTION) does. And as an intelligent person who understands intelligence/knowledge/education, I think you are intelligent.
@@Sweethands4 I just appreciate he knew the right way to say it in regular speech. Amongst many other things I’ve heard him say. That’s all. I’m not going to sit here and list all the things I’ve studied and know. I’m comfortable in conversation and make mistakes myself.
I'm always amazed and impressed with Jordan's ability to frame issues with such clarity and common sense. He's a true intellectual treasure of our time. PS I know he's not always right (that's true of all great thinkers) but he's spot on the vast majority of time. Only those in idealogical bubbles truly hate him.
Exactly, common sense, which is not real analysis and scientific socio-historical analysis. For some people is common sense that the earth is flat mate. Peterson is complete bullocks.
@@costanrgpowerI understand not everyone agrees with everything. That would be terrible. But insulting someone without elucidating that thought and without giving any reasons for such a statement is absolutely „bullocks“
@@maxweinbach3996and you do, right? Peterson mixes apples and oranges, marxism, socialism, anarchism, liberalism, sindacalism... everything under the label of either "cultural marxism" or "socialism", simply because ha has no idea of what he is talking about, and how to distinguish intellectual ideas that are beyond conservatism and traditionalism, which I highly respect, btw, I used to be conservative myself and perfectly understand it, along with the very good intentions behind many conservatives, as well as I blame and despise many leftists which became intolerant and obtuse. But what Peterson does is blindly accusing people he believes belonging to a particular credo (in reality they're as diverse as people on the right side, from fascists to conservatives) having absolutely no idea how that same idea is structured, or differentiated. That's just intellectually WRONG man. I don't blame conservatives as conservatives. I blame particular ideas about conservatism that I find problematic.
He's not wrong about the media and there never ending supply of outrage news. We want fairness by nature. So of course the uninformed will be outraged and believe it.
This is what is so nefarious about socialism & other Marxism based governing styles. They play directly on our desire for fairness. Who doesn't want to see those who are suffering have a better outcome?
@@Dang3rMouSe Ironically it's the Marxist system creating the bulk of the suffering; they're just spreading it across the entire population instead of just a select few, because....well....collectivism & shit....
The problem is that the powerful will redirect this rage towards scapegoats to maintain their own power. Historically this scapegoat was the jews but while it's not gone away entirely using Jews as scapegoats has been more frowned upon since the Nazi's took it to the extreme. Now usually Muslims are used as scapegoats instead.
I'm pretty sure that's not true, though. You could argue that they're just being nostalgic, that they're seeing the past through rose-tinted glasses, but there are definitely people who felt things were better back then.
@PhoonBucgeneMY you know if you speak against the CCP in China you lose your social credit score and can't buy food, or travel, or be employed.... that's the best case... if you have enough reach you're thrown in jail. Funny no one spoke out against stalin when he was in power either
I lived in Norway, and I loved it. Now what? Taxes are rough, but if anyone were to lose their job or need surgery, there is help to get. Free surgery and help covering bills if needed. Hospital queues are long too, but if you want to pay to get in faster, you can through private sectors. Average salary per year is around 60 000-650 000 USD. Nothing is utopia, but Norway is close to it.
I graduated from college knowing nothing about history. Then I started homeschooling my kids. The difference between historical ignorance and proficiency is night and day in the way you view the world.
He seems to claim there is a danger to socialism but there really are no examples of that. There are examples about the danger of oppressing socialist movements like in China or Russia but for countries that accepted them like Denmark, Austria and the US they have mostly just seen success from it. There is also a very long history of countries being undermined by an aristocracy like Poland, Netherlands, late 19th century US and various dynasties of China. I would say right now the US is again being undermined by it's oligarchy that is stagnating the economy and creating massive amounts of social unrest.
@@MrMarinus18 3rd Reich was an example of dangerous socialism. All socialism is dangerous because socialists are too ignorant to know 3rd Reich was an example of dangerous socialism.
@@MrMarinus18 no examples??????????????? I guess, since you can type, you can claim anything you fancy. There are more examples of the utter & miserable failure of socialism than you can shake a stick at. But you just go ahead and keep pretending you live in a cave 6 miles deep.
After the Cold war, schools started to remove studies on socialism out of their curriculum. My generation and the one before saw the horrors of socialism.
There was a qoute i read i believe it said to bring down democracy is to take away from those willing to work and giving to those who arent willing to. Growing up we are trained to be good workers through rewards; when you are older and dont get appreciated or rewarded for that hard effort and then told this is how life is deal with it, then we arent motivated to work as hard when others who do less recieve the same compensation.
Replace democracy with capitalism and then you have a point. A democracy provides control to who gets the political power, so when people try to beak the system or do illegal things in the name of the country, they get prosecuted and have to pay a price.
Thing is doesn't that describe the capitalist system we have right now? It's taking from the productive workers and giving to the non-productive capitalists. That excessive concentration of power in non-productive capitalists is indeed destroying democracy. Also exactly how this notion of equal wages has anything to do with how much power capitalists should have is a mystery to me. Most socialists are against the excessive power of capitalists to dictate the allocation of resources to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. They believe there shouldn't be individual who can block your access to healthcare unless you pay them astronomical amounts.
@@stewartkingsley For me the weird thing is that I often feel people are describing capitalism when they talk about how much they hate socialism. Capitalism is all about taking from productive people by less productive ones. That's the whole idea. The ones who get rich in capitalism are not the people producing value but the people who own the means for that.
@@MrMarinus18 Non-productive capitalists? Have you EVER tried running your own business? You have this fantasy vision in your head of some CEO who just hits a few buttons on their keyboard every day to send money places. That doesn't exist; where it does, they are quickly no longer CEOs. Even the people like Elon Musk who own gobs of money are working very hard, far above "fulltime" 40 hours a week.
1:30 "...primary compassion..." AKA altruism. No one has better clarified the peril of altruism as "empathy trumps individuals" than Ayn Rand. If interested, her book on it is "The Virtue of Selfishness."
Ah I love the quote related to negative news focus, “Well, you can only be so happy. Or you could be dead. Dead’s not good. And there could be a lot of misery on the way to that end.” So so so true and so good
We are watching this probably because we love JP. And he has broadened my mind yet again. Can we also give a big shout out to Genevieve Wood who asks some very brilliant and well timed questions here?? 👏
Not all watching are in love with JP. Some are watching to see other perspectives that we don't necessarily agree with, because they have factual errors in their logic, but we wish people would be open to rational discussions and progressive change. People are lead to JP for some reason. Just like people are led to Trump or Biden or Musk or Alex Jones, etc. The cult of personality is real and it draws people in, unless they are willing to question everything, do their own research and practice critical thinking. I have and I hope others will, too. If people can sit through this Jordan Peterson talk, then hopefully they can sit through a fair critique, like on TZMOfficialChannel with Peter Joseph entitled "Critique of Jordan B. Peterson (vs Slavoj Zizek: "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism")" What are your thoughts after watching something like that? You are free to disagree, but what are your counter points?
This guy is an advertisment for wall street and not your culture. Socialism is nowhere near like communism and to suggest so is patently wrong and blatant misinformation.
@@coolioso808 This comment would be more valuable on the speech Peter Joseph is critiquing. I watched the first ten minutes (the length of this Jordan Peterson video) and had to turn it off for its lame "analysis. He doesn't counter any of JPs points, only says they are wrong, and that JP (paraphasing) "muddies them up with false nuances", for example. Grant it, I didn't listen to the JP speech. A couple of appeals to authority, and even restating JPs words and acting like when he says them they mean something different. To watch 55 minutes of that drivel is a waste of time. Please provide timestamps of points you would like to support, but so far I did not hear any actual refutation of JP's remarks other than to say he is wrong. Hard to argue against "I'm right and you're wrong." For example, saying that people having capital vs people not having capital is not a fair comparison to biological differences. Of course it is. Capital can take many forms. Someone who is smarter or more inventive can be said to have more intellectual capital than those who are not as smart. Which means, all other things equal, the smarter one is going to likely be more successful than the less intelligent one. Same with physical strength. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, some acclimated to our environments better than others. Another, calling the Soviet Union "Government capitalism is just ignorant. Define his term if you can. Capitalism is believed by Marxist, or at least Marx, as inefficient as the means of production grows, and leads to class struggles. Marxism believes socialism is the ultimate (and desired) end result of those class struggles. So saying the Soviet Union was Government Capitalism is just making stuff up to sound intelligent to those who know no better. Government capitalism is socialism, ie government control of capital and the means of production. Many believed that it was a necessary step to the ultimate utopian goal of communism. However they leave out the fact of human nature, which is that people will always look out for themselves first, their family second, etc. and this applies to government bureaucrats as well. This is ultimately why Marxism and Socialism fail, and why Capitalism has been so successful at pulling people out of poverty and improving everyone's lives. You can believe it is a terrible system, but it is better than all the others. BTW, before you start, the US has not practiced capitalism in a very long time.
@@danielmyers112 See, you already couldn't watch the entire Peter Joseph video because you thought there wasn't any good points made. But there were. Peter Joseph countered every point Peterson made when he paused the video to explain. You just are disagreeing with the reasoning Peter is bringing up, and that seems to be where your confirmation bias lies. You even admit your view is that "This is ultimately why Marxism and Socialism fail, and why Capitalism has been so successful at pulling people out of poverty and improving everyone's lives. You can believe it is a terrible system, but it is better than all the others. BTW, before you start, the US has not practiced capitalism in a very long time." If you believe this and no facts or reasoning can change your mind to believe the truth, then what is the point of even discussing this further? In fact, capitalism 'bringing people out of poverty' is a key point that Joseph responds to near the last 5 minutes of the JP video. There's your 'timestamp' go to the last 3-5 minutes and watch from there. The Maltuhsian Trap chart will be brought up to help explain why it is science and technology that actually advances human society forward, helping alleviate poverty. However, the capitalist structure: Private ownership of the means of production for profit, means that a large group of poor and working class will always exist and debt will follow them and make them easier to exploit and oppress. That's system science and anybody who understands system science can connect those dots. It isn't actually socialism, communism or capitalism that is the base system here, it is the Monetary-Market system, which is propelled forward mainly by capitalism, right off an ecological, economic and social cliff. But you don't believe USA has practised capitalism for a long time, eh? Funny how you move the goal posts to make your case work. I'm sorry, but that's not how definitions or facts work. You can believe whatever you want, but you aren't correct unless you can provide evidence that could be peer-reviewed and verified as true. I think you'll find the next 10-20 years very frustrating, I must say, if you don't seek the truth about the systemic rot of the monetary-market system. You'll keep blaming other things as conditions get worse. I hope you do seek the truth sooner rather than later, but that will be up to you.
@@coolioso808 First off, I don't blame others, I blame the increasing control of the government on the economic conditions. I challenged you to provide me an actual argument Peter Joseph (PJ, as opposed to JP) made, yet you deferred. Likely because he doesn't make any points, just babbles on and on. He makes appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks, rather than attacking the JP's arguments. You don't just get to say something is a fact without backing it up, which PJ does all the time. I don't disagree with his reasoning, he isn't making an actual argument. Ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority are not arguments. When I wrote "this is why Marxism and Socialism ultimately fail", I was pointing out the historical record. Please name me a mostly socialist country that is doing better than the US. Of course facts and reasoning can change my mind. Please provide me some facts, or some reasoning that doesn't amount to ad hominem attacks. You appear to be the one who does not want to change their mind. Your Malthusian Trap is nonsense. Do you even watch the video critically? JP states three facts about growth, and PJ doesn't even address them, just brings out this non-sequitor about how incomes rose so fast in some countries but not in others? Why? Technology? OK, then explain why those other countries didn't benefit from technology. (Could it be they did not have free market capitalist systems? If it is accurate, please explain why the US, with free market capitalism during 1800-1930, expanded so much more than Europe, when arguable Europe had a much greater technological advantage. And at the end of that period, US also had the technology advantage. You cannot. The technology argument doesn't hold water because it is a result of expanded wealth (created by free market capitalism), not a creator of it. I will explain why. Free markets and capitalism encourage risk taking and frugality, while socialism encourages waste and risk adverseness. This is because the potential to become wealthy encourages people to save their money and take risks with it. Entrepreneurship is a powerful wealth creator. It also encourages innovation, for the same reasons. Which is why the US overtook the European powers. You want to talk about poverty? Name me a socialist or Marxist country that has no poverty. The difference is that in free market capitalist countries, the potential of getting out of poverty in a single generation is much greater. There are stories about it all the time. Even Biden talks about how his father was working class, and now here he is, President.. Those in the bottom quintile in 1990 are more likely to be in the top quintile today than they are to still be in the bottom quintile. Research it. THAT is the greatness of capitalism, even as poorly as we practice it here. Since the 1930's the US has become seen out free markets eroded by more and more regulation and government involvement. 100 years ago, you did not need a degree to work as a doctor, lawyer, or anything else. Now, licensing requirements are in place to cut someone's hair. Then there are regulations about how many people you can have working for you before you have to provide healthcare, etc. This is increasing the barriers to entry, keeping the lower classes locked out of the entrepreneurship which could rapidly expand their wealth. We practice more of a corporatist capitalism now, with big companies lobbying the government to provide them effective monopoly power through regulations, fees, licensing and zoning laws. As government gets more involved int he markets (socialism) it gets harder for the poor to flourish. In short, socialism increases poverty and stagnates countries. It has everywhere it has been tried, and still is today. I will let you have the last word.
10:00 When a problem is everywhere and always, it's not news, and people don't talk about it. As the problem begins to get solved, instances of the problem become news (in some places sometimes), and people start to hear about it and talk about it and perceive it as a serious problem that demands the government solve the problem (even if the government created the problem and the market is solving it).
That was going to be my response. One mustn't make the assumption that the do-gooders in government _want_ to solve problems; on the left especially, they have no intention of "solving" anything. To solve a problem means they're no longer necessary, so where none exists they'll _create_ a problem so they have something to campaign on during the next election cycle. They need issues to campaign on more than problems to solve, which is why it's like watching the _Hallmark Grievance of the Week._ The left will find a "victim" under every rock, behind every bush, around every corner, if it means they can create an issue on which to run for re-election. The far left and Democrat Party have been making hay with this strategy for about 60 years now, and they're not stopping -- because it works. AND because it's probably the most fundamental tenet of Marxism -- "oppressed vs oppressor," aka "proletariat vs the bourgeoisie." Aggrievement and resentment is intoxicating; look how many people come out of the woodwork to proclaim their identitarian victimhood when the opportunity presents itself. "Woe-is-Me" groupthink. And just think -- all these folks need to give up is their self-respect.
Socialism promises a fair distribution of wealth, and women by their evolved nature are attracted to that idea. Add to that an increasingly feminised male population and you have fertile ground for socialism. The fact that socialism does not provide the aforementioned utopian society is a matter that only becomes an issue when it's too late.
Yep, yep, and yep. The push for socialism is never going away, I don't care how much individuals or entire countries prosper from capitalism or free enterprise. The lust for power over others is too great, and the left will come up with every grievance and "oppressed vs oppressor " narrative they can invent to extol the virtues of collectivism and govt ownership/control of everything, even if they have to dig back 500 years into (selective) history in order to contrive a grievance. But we all know that the only people who do well in that system are the ones running it -- who will never go without, no matter how thoroughly they starve the masses.
True, and socialism trive in good times. And on the in the absolutely opposite. Socialism will never be a solid solution, just as democracy is only upheld by the sword in one hand and the pen in the other. Figurative speaking..
"Means of production" definitions are inadequate to describe these systems. Every Western country practices every ism in many forms, depending on how you prefer to semantically dissect the scenario. Does a worker "own means of production" when their name is on the business registration as owner, yet their business is heavily regulated, so that they can only operate that business in a way that is dictated by government, and production (money) is generated for and to the government, to be distributed at the discretion of the government? What about a business who extracts resources that must effectively be purchased from the government(oil)? Who "owns" or "controls means of production"?
It's not difficult. Individuals own/control means of production, which is capitalism. And if the State controls/owns it, it's Socialism. Next question.
@@willnitschke - A common definition of socialism is: "workers own/control the means of production". Another is that: "the entire community owns/controls the means of production." Are you sure that you grasp things so simply?
In my opinion the best form of leading a country will use parts of all systems to make the most balanced form of gouverning. One that is the best for the peoples their own interests and for the interests of their country.
Government doesn't have a great track record of bringing in social programs at cost. One thing you can count on is as long as the need grows greater, the need for revenue and taxation grows greater -- providing government with a built-in incentive to make the _problem_ greater and more widespread. I've never known a government poverty program that came close to eradicating poverty; to the contrary, the % of the impoverished grows, once people know that if they aim right they can stay within the limits of those government programs and collect more for doing less. That might be good for politicians, not so good for the overall social construct.
But there would never be balance. Government have a tendency of growing every year and every year our freedom are reduced. Ppl in government want to think their job are important, so they continue to push for more power and resources. More power leads to more corruption be it in public or private. The problem is that in the private sector, corruption are resolved quickly while corruption in government takes decades if ever to ever be fixed. fix will never come from government . It requires outsider to come in to clean house, because insider want self preservation and will never change
Great. Now...WHO DEFINES what's in their "best interests"????? Here's my great wisdom, to add to yours: "everyone should be good, and then everything will work out for the best." Let's see you top that one!
My children hate socialism because I’ve helped them with starting their own businesses at very early ages, and they made good money doing them. They understand, through experience, that solving other people’s problems can be very profitable. So, socialistic ideas make them angry.
Socialism is just a new word for "robbery", but since it's done by the legal authority, it can be called, and understood as something else....something "legal" and therefore acceptable. Everyone recognizes crime, and what it consists of, but there are people who don't mind as long as it benefits them. They are ONLY opposed to it when it does NOT benefit them. We normally call them "criminals", but there are so many ways to commit crimes while getting around the blatant appearance of crime. Just insert enough via's, turns, twists and apparent legalities in between the crime and it's consequences, and you have things like socialism. "Legality" is an interesting term as well, and often means something that is only a crime if a citizen does it, but not if the government does it, especially if it's in behalf of other citizens. Then it appears as if it's not in the interest of those committing it, and therefore not criminally motivated, and therefore not a crime.
I explained it to my daughter. FYI, She graduated No1 in her class. I asked her if she deserved better grades then the other kids but to be fair they should all get C's no matter how hard or how little they worked. She did not like that idea and that what I told her socialism is like.
I was not really comparing that to socialism, as it is defined, but more what it becomes in many cases. It was what it means to be a capitalist. You work harder than everyone else you get, not everyone, the benefits from it.@@johnr96
@@johnr96 Tell us, oh wise one. What are we missing? As Yuri Bezmeov pointed out, the 'demoralized' can't see evidence for anything but what they want, no matter how real, how visceral, how devastating or how often it happens. They live in a perma-state of denial of reality and human nature.
Explain to her, that, thanks to capitalism, there are a few people that get all A, by being parasites and leveraging the work of others thanks to privilege they were born with or by paying slave wages and praying on desperate people born in third world countries. While everyone else get F even if they work super hard. She won't get a pension, she won't get any job because AI and automation owned by corporations will do them. She won't be able to get married in her fertility window, as people in their 20s can barely earn enough to look after themselves due to wage slavery, let alone build families and have kids. The environment will also be destroyed, and whatever job she chooses to do will be sent overseas at 1/10th of the cost. The capitalist will also buy all the properties and sell them to her at a 300% premium, and the interest on top of that will double what she will end up paying for the house. That's what capitalism is like.
The video didn't really live up to the title, so here is the explanation: Few people read "The Social Contract" by Rousseau before they describe themselves as Socialist. They want the sharing and equality elements of TSC, but don't understand the Terms and Conditions of the contract: Despite the slogan "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood", it involves a serious sacrifice of liberty. Socialism - in Rousseau's terms - is NOT liberal at all. Read the book, and the history of "la Terreur" and Pol Pot's "Year Zero" to understand how the Devil is in the detail. ... and another thing: Rousseau also wrote about national identity, which was needed to sustain The Social Contract. This led to the modern concepts of nationhood and Nationalism, which developed in France, Poland and across South America. This ends up with an interesting consequence - combine Nationalism and Socialism, and you get a very toxic mix which emerged in Germany in the 1930s. Throw Marxist Communism - which is an economic admixture - in, and the ideology becomes equally toxic. So it is that Rousseau's ideas have led to both left- and right-wing extremism. The Social Contract is thus a deal with the Devil when you read the small print.
1. Now you need to read Rousseau to be a socialist? 2. I thought the definition of socialism was what was needed in the video (and what the critique is about that definition) 3. The first killed under the nazi regime was the socialist (yes there were socialist leaning people who supported the nazi’s in the beginning but they were killed of pretty quickly ones hitler got power)
'combine Nationalism and Socialism, and you get a very toxic mix which emerged in Germany in the 1930s' Misled and misleading. First, the term 'national' does not mean exactly 'nationalism'. Let's concentrate on Hitler. His political aims and ideologies were: - Revisionism and revenge for the 1919 Versailles treaty - Fight against 'internationales Finanzjudentum' as well as Anglosaxon capitalism - Fight against Bolshevism - racism - antisemitism. The political type of all developed countries is now unequivocally 'national welfare or sozialstaat', based on rule of law, democracy, free but regulated markets, capitalist companies, distribution of wealth, state-led institutions in infrastructure, education, health. Not socialist, because only comprising about 40% of the GNP.
Because they aren't taught definitions, history, economics or the philosophy behind fundamental rights. Worst of all, people have been taught erroneous ideas of what equality, fairness and selfishness are.
Money was invented as a means of enslavement by priest-kings, thousands of years ago. Still used that way today, in a technological age of surplus producing machines and co-operative, creative people. Any critique of the monetary-market system? Do you think it's sustainable, just or healthy to continue on much longer?
@@billmelater6470 sure just deny it without researching it yourself to see that it’s true, that’s one option that you decided to take. Or think critically. That’s another option.
@@billmelater6470 Ok. So, you are saying you were brought up to believe in the Austrian School of Economics? Does everybody in Austria have to believe in the same thing? I'm from Canada and I'd give you 10 guesses if you think you can guess what 'school' of economics I believe in based on your judgments of Canadians.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:13 📚 People, including the speaker, admit to a general lack of knowledge about the history of socialism and radical left movements. 00:51 ⏳ The fall of the Berlin Wall is seen as ancient history by the younger generation, leading to a lack of understanding about the implications of socialism and the Cold War era. 01:44 ❤️ The emotional appeal of socialism often stems from compassion, which is a primary human motivator. 03:22 ⚖️ People can tolerate inequality as long as they perceive the system to be fair; otherwise, it becomes a recipe for unrest. 05:54 🌍 There are substantial positive economic improvements happening around the world, especially in developing countries, but this news isn't widely known or celebrated. Made with HARPA AI
Students of American Schools don’t teach any history K through 12. I lived in Hawaii for 30 years to 2018 and was horrified that a great percentage of teenagers there didn’t know about Dec 7, 1941! The kids didn’t even know who JFK was. Many of the children didn’t know when Hawaii became a state. This comes from a state that spends more $ per student than any other state.
Even more important, did they know about Charles Martel, and Charlemagne? We have them to thank for halting the destruction of Europe in the eighth century, and the founding of the university system, among other things.
Yeap, 0% distribution to the workers, and 100% to the collectivist boss. 99.9999% of the population have the same distribution of wealth, as in none. 🤣
An argument young people can understand--- Socialism is the _exact_ same thing as slavery. The only difference is that the government is your master and they are the ones entitled to the fruits of your labor.
Keep in mind, though, this is what most of them want. They want someone to care for them after their parents die. Of course, this is not what they will get.
They think it's the other way around, and see themselves as "slaves" of their employer, or "the system" - AS IF they aren't getting paid to work. The problem of today's youth, is that they have nothing to compare their experiences with, other than their cushy life experiences, and they actually think they're "suffering". There will always be a spectrum in one's experience, no matter how narrow, and it will only be compared against itself, unless they can read and imagine the experiences of others. Still, those "other's" experiences don't seem as real as their own. They're "depressed" because they have such limited experience that there is nothing to compare such comfort and carefreeness with. When everything is at your fingertips, always, there is nothing to contrast it with, so they begin to compare with each other - and thus you have the tiktok World of insanity.
One system is approached as a zero-sum game; the other is not. It's not really the excesses of capitalism that is the problem as much as the excesses of _corporatism._ It's _corporatism_ that requires guardrails (like enforceable anti-trust legislation), along with a tax system that doesn't penalize small business for being small.
Capitalism is far from perfect but also far better than the alternatives. There's a reason why, given the choice, more people choose to live in capitalist countries than socialist ones.
Big part of it is the concept of money and what the central banking allows government to do. If government can finance what they want and send billions of dollars to foreign countries, it is natural to imagine that money is an abstract concept that can be distributed at will. We need to educate people about money and about the scam of central banking.
As a former Fed watcher who understands central banking, it's hard to follow your logic. We no longer pan money from stream beds. Our "scam" money created by debt and our own and the government's creditworthiness by spending the cash and issuing an interest bearing bond to the creditor. The national debt is not a ticking time bomb, rather it is a measure of our net financial wealth in the form of Social Security and Medicare, public and private pensions, and our strong financial system including the central bank, among other creditors. The majority of our debt is owned by Americans. Not China.
Whether it's a "scam" or not, central banking is here to stay; there's no free exchange across borders without it -- unless one wants to become a hermit economy that only trades with itself and no one else. That said, the Fed has a responsibility to stabilize the currency, IN SPITE OF government's predilection for profligate spending. When our Treasury begins to rely solely or even chiefly on the Fed for its supply of money, that's when the dollar will lose its status as the reserve currency of the world and Americans will begin to feel what it's like to live in the Wymar Republic. Don't expect politicians to care; they've got theirs and always will; it's We The People who have to care, and we can only care if we understand the system as it is, not what we want it to be.
What you are saying is actually how it works. Money is arbitrary and just an expression of the power of the government to enforce it's will. The US government can print infinite amounts of money to buy whatever is for sale in dollars which includes everything within the territory it claims sovereignty over and much more besides.
@@MrMarinus18 Yea, that is true in theory. In reality, spending is limited by law, inflation, and the bond market. The US could, but is not allowed to, print as much money as it needs. It must match spending with tax revenue and borrowing. That is, issuing debt as a credit worthy safe asset the bond market wants to buy. The primary dealer banks are required to bid at auction, but not necessarily buy though someone will make a winning bid. However, the yield will likely be very high and the price low. That can become troublesome, especially with a credit rating downgrade. Too much money in circulation can cause an imbalance of the money supply relative to GDP thus asset or consumer inflation depending on whether it is invested to buy goods and services. Taxation can temper that imbalance.
@@RoobieRhoo The whole idea of the money supply actually isn't really based on any evidence that I can see. The country that has printed the most money is suffering devastating deflation. The connection between inflation and money seems logical but also just not real. Rather inflation is about power and resources. What is demanded for something because of the power of those that control it or it's scarcity.
7:06 Based on the UN stats, absolute poverty is going down as a whole, but forest area and forest area as a proportion of total land area are both decreasing. More areas are being protected, but this doesn't seem to align with "ecological news is positive"
So you think pollution in Western countries is worse now than 50 years ago???? And exactly where is that forest area being lost? Not Western countries either. In places that try to be Socialist, right?
@@willnitschke I’m just pointing out the fact that there is a “partial truth” to what Peterson’s bringing up. I do think as a result of the increase in businesses, people, building, etc, from 50 years ago to now that yes, pollution is worse in Western countries than before. I could definitely be wrong but I haven’t seen any stats immediately disproving me, maybe you could pull them up rather than taking the woke ‘moral high ground’ approach you abhor? And again, the loss of forested area is a statistic relative to the world, not to any particular country. It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily western, but it also doesn’t mean it’s necessarily socialist either. And just to point it out, I’m not a fan of socialism as a governing force. Socialist policies sure, but trying to replace capitalism when it’s been so fruitful overall doesn’t make sense to me.
@@alvaradoac21 Yes you are totally wrong, Western pollution problems these days are mostly non-existent. What's worse you admit your belief is based on zero information, which means you're just talking out of your bum, aren't you? I also didn't write anywhere that Socialist countries cause all the pollution that is still around. It's almost exclusively poor countries in addition to Socialist states such as China and countries that remain poor because they try to be Socialist. But India has its pollution issues also, for example.
As I understand what he says is that young people don't have the understanding to realize what is possible besides socialism. They have been living in socialism all their lives because their parents gave them everything to include room and board, education, entertainment, etc. Thus when they go into the real world and have to earn a living themselves they want somebody to give them all those things even though they put out very little or no effort. They don't understand that they have to earn everything they want. It's a shock.
You all tell them I’m so tired of trying I can’t……..1000’s of years of history and they can’t figure it out….freedom is only for a responsible and moral people
I remember in the early aughts, a young man asked me, and a far older man, too, what communism was. I said, in an ideal world, communism and democracy are the same thing. In an actual world, they are polar opposites. Simply put, if you believe the government should direct everything, then you believe in a communist philosophy. If you think government should be much more limited, while the people have the right to decide, you believe in Democracy/Republicanism.
hmm the problem is when crimes arent reported to the police which is becoming more frequent because the police are showing they dont respond means that the official stats will show less crimes, however a good place to look is at businesses and insurance figures which show a marked increase in crimes leading to big retail stores leaving certain areas and cities due to theft losses and staff attacks
If you gave people who wanted socialist programs the programs they desired and the only caveat was that ONLY THEY had to fund them and only they participate in them without debt.... they wouldn't do it. They only want the programs if EVERYONE ELSE does them as well.
@brucemc1581 its called a public option. I'm here to tell you like all social programs, they all fail and crumble under their own weight like the ponzi schemes they all are.
Not really. The basic idea of socialism is participatory decision-making, both economically and politically. That’s why the left leaning people support various grassroots organizations and talk about inclusion so much. Whereas having a progressive taxation scale is not so much about socialism as it is about social democracy. In socialism you can tax people only if all people subjected to taxation agree through participatory decision-making to be taxed
@MinimaAmoralia socialism always fails for the same reasons. More people on it than paying into it. Germany has a public option for Healthcare. It is the best system
If my boss said that he would give the company to the workers instead of selling it too some rich guy (which he is doing) so the workers could elect how we wanted to proceed then that would be pretty cool and also the definition of socialism
I genuinely don't understand what the "draw" towards socialism is. It's the same principle as slavery. You don't own your labour or yourself, your 'master' - the government does and 'redistributes' it based on what it thinks you need, while assuming full responsibility for your life thus controlling every aspect of it. Genuine compassion is charity - either financial or simply helping out your neighbour when they need it, without expecting anything in return. There's nothing compassionate about socialism - it's pure evil.
I think you don’t know what the definition is. Socialism is “the community own the means of production”. It doesn’t have to be the state who does anything. It could just be your co-workers electing the board in the company instead of the shareholders. Socialism can mean many things. Doesn’t have to be the state owning everything and anything.
I think you're mixing up your definitions. Socialism is just a large umbrella of multiple philosophy and economic model that aims to reduce inequalities of life quality. Communisme is a specific socialist government that in its applied form centralized the means of production and shared ressources according to peoples needs.
Volkaer - it's because they've been lied to and told that socialism is all these nice things, helping people, the fire dept, libraries, etc. They also suffer from the joke of "owning the means of production" which is nothing but a mirage in the real desert of actual socialism. It's too hard for them to resist the concept of something for nothing, and they're even told it's not that. Yet that is it's only real draw, otherwise they know there is no real benefit over what they have now. Because they've been brainwashed in the "truth is relative" lie, they can hold conflicting ideas without feeling the dissonance.
@@lukasvisby1156 I find it interesting that you and someone else who says he doesn't have the definition right, both of you, provide different definitions for socialism.
@@Volkaer socialists haven't participated in government; well they see all the corruption and notice it comes from capitalist, which is correct, and they miss that even if you can point to capitists today socialism can't remove corruption any better because behind all those capitalist still exist working class citizens that believe in those policies. Tldr: you don't get people that all agree.
When you are young you have no perspective because of a lack of living and life experiences. It’s not your fault, but you can learn and develop real life experiences and then come up with a proper opinion. It takes time and being open minded.
Indeed, open-mindedness and critical thinking skills take time to develop and even some adults don't develop them that much. Or they have them in some areas, but gaps or bias in other areas, like JBP. Take a look at: "Peter Joseph - Critique of Jordan B. Peterson (vs Slavoj Zizek: "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism")", a well reasoned response to Peterson with references and visuals. What do you think after you watch that? Or do you resist even looking at something like that?
"This combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces." -- Carl Sagan "Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe, with a fine understanding of human fallibility." -- Carl Sagan "If we are unable to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of authority, then we are up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes along." -- Carl Sagan
Young people believe in socialism because it’s ducking amazing to think of the best scenarios. When we grow up we have to slide in which ever way suits us, and how far suits us depending on where we stand. There becomes an amazing amount of factors that come into it just when we get to the point of moving out of our parental home. And if we’re honest, a lot of those lessons don’t get learned a lot in this day because the children don’t move out and begin ‘their journey’. I suppose in that regard it’s how you judge which angle made this the way…either way, the young ones that are ‘the future’ have absolutely no way of learning how to go on in life indipendantky. It’s these times I’m glad I have terminal cancer I think. I could not be happier that I lived in this day and age. There will not be a better one
What is "independently"? No human has ever made it on their own. Even before history people couldn't survive on their own. They needed help from their tribe to survive. Socialism to me feels like the natural way to do things. To look at things with a logical view and decide what is the best way to do things. Not to do more capitalist no matter how often it fails at what we try to brute force it into. It was brutally imposed on Chile and was a colossal failure in Russia. In both cases it was also imposed upon the people by force and by violently overthrowing the democratically elected government. Also it's the lack of any social safety nets that make people stay with their parents for so long. Scandinavia has one of the lowest levels of adults who live with their parents of any place in the world. While the US has had it's numbers go up as it has dismantled social services. The simple fact is that humans are social creatures and need support. If you take away government support that means people turns towards the family instead.
If you believe anyone made it on their own ever you have really been watching WAY too much propaganda. Success especially after the industrial revolution is entirely dependent on what society wants to give you. The success of the people after WW2 had mostly to do with powerful unions and the threat of communism making government give them a good standard of living.
@@MrMarinus18 it "feeels" does it? See, there's your problem. You're "feels" have ZERO to do with reality. Which means your opinions based on your "feels" are nothing but fantasy.
Capitalism = competition, freedom to choose, responsibility Socialism = envy of your neighbors success under capitalism Communism = theft of your neighbors property due to envy ad laziness on your part
Well, yes, but socialism is also stealing your neighbor's property based on envy and "need". Fundamentally, there isn't much difference between communism and socialism as one would expect since socialism gave rise to communism. Socialism tends to be "nicer" in their theft a socialist will still murder you, same a communist, for not handing over your property, the socialist will be more likely to do it by way of "law" and the communist more likely to do it by way of violent revolution. Either way you're dead.
A good mix of socialism (I mean the real one, not today’s woke bs version of it that some tend to want to turn it into) and regulated capitalism is best. See where the purest form of capitalism has led America (and the world?) 2008 subprime crisis, US: exorbitant medical care costs, people losing their homes, millions of people having to do multiple shifts for earning the vital minimum etc… Socialism has brought good in society in let’s say Europe, specifically, look at France (even though not perfect but which country is): best healthcare system, valuable workers right, etc… And yes the french do strike a lot (but work a lot too, it’s still in the top 10 economies in the world) for good reason: governments want to fuck their hardly earned rights, acquired by courageous workers and leftists polititians in the 20th century. I’ m sorry but americans are f*cked by their governments and are brainwashed enough into a sort of patriotism/work/earn as much as you can/it’s good for your country/be proud, but with little in return. Yes if you manage well you can have a lot of freedom and success but the vast majority of people are living on the edge because >> zero social help, earn money or die. So no, socialism doesn’t necessarily equal Russian stalinist dictatorship; that’s cold war ideology.
That’s a bit of a caricature at best, and way too oversimplified. Responsibility for your own wellbeing yes, but capitalism teaches you nothing about what your responsibilities for someone else are. The way you put this tells me everything about what’s wrong with the American frame of reference. There’s no middle ground to you when it comes to the way we organize our societies. It’s either capitalism or socialism and communism. There’s no middle ground for you people. The thought of social democracy, simply put a social system combined with a free market economy doesn’t even pop into your mind while it’s basically the main form of which European countries organize themselves.
@@kerngezond6953 "capitalism teaches you nothing about what your responsibilities for someone else are. " if you're not my family, I owe you exactly NOTHING, except what I choose to give freely. And I cannot use my rights, to deny you your rights. See, it's very simple. "The way you put this tells me everything about what’s wrong with the American frame of reference. " this statement tells me how stupid you are to not understand what a generalized statement is for. "There’s no middle ground to you when it comes to the way we organize our societies." lies. you have literally NO way of knowing this from teh comment I made. you're making wild baseless accusations. I in fact live in the grey areas, and love teh nuance, and am a true Libertarian in every way (middle ground, give and take). "The thought of social democracy" Politically Correct way of saying, COMMUNISM. "simply put a social system combined with a free market economy doesn’t even pop into your mind while it’s basically the main form of which European countries organize themselves." and we're not Europe, nor do we want to be Europe. look at the problems Europe has. Can't feed themselves, not energy independent, constant wars, currency problems, bankruptcies, dependent upon the US healthcare system for research, dependent upon the US for military defense, no free speech, no right to self defense, lack of due process, etc. Move to Europe if you like it so much, problem solved. And we'll all be happier. You get to live your utopian ideals, and we get to live a life without you around.
Wrong. Competition, freedom in economics is liberal markets economics. People often confound it with capitalism, which is possible but not necessary in such an environment.
capitalism: we are 3 to make a pie, one bring the ingredient, the 2 other cook, then the one that bring the ingredient take the pie and give back a part, or just a bite, depends on the market. socialism:we are 3 to make a pie, we all provide the ingredient and take a part proportional to our contribution. Communism:we are 3 to make a pie, we all provide the ingredient and take a part proportional to our need. and effectivelly the best strategy for getting more pie would be; capitalism: make more pie socialism:make more pie communism: do nothing and wait for the other to make more pie, but since nobody's doing anything it doesn't work, so wait for the state to make rule and do what you're forced to do.
@@gizel4376 You are missing the part where the government takes an ever larger proportion away of the pie and you may or may not ever see a return from that.
@@cattysplat whatever system you have the government always take its share and you never knew if it's gonna fund a proxy war or pay for your child education.
10:03 😯😯😯its almost like technically and greater social accountability have improved safety while aloowing crime to be more visible, who woulda thought
That's not a "stage of communism" That's a feature of dictatorships. It's also in right wing dictatorships. Also unlike what grifters like Peterson will claim there is no example of any socialist country becoming a dictatorship through democratic means. There is examples of socialist countries becoming fascists dictatorships usually because of foreign intervention like with Spain or Chile. But all 'communist' dictatorships like Russia and China were established by force. Mainly because the countries were fiercely anti-socialist and wouldn't accept any compromise.
Socialism cannot work in a high-functioning society. In can work in smaller, more closely knit groups, but for society at large? It is practically impossible without any sort of excessively overbearing authority. And good luck finding an authority that will enforce their power only as far as to keep the system going and not for their own personal gain and detriment to all others. The reason why it is impossible is due to human nature. In order for a socialist society to function, all people need to pull their weight evenly. All of their inputs are pooled and everyone takes out that which they need to survive. Provided everyone does their job to the best of their ability, this would result in a sustainable society fit for all. However, we know that won't happen. It's human nature. Some people will slack off and either not put anything in or what they do put in would severely lack in quality. Some people will indulge themselves in more than what they need, taking away that which other people need to survive. Crime would still exist. If any number of players show up to the game unwilling to play properly, then the game falls apart. That's why you'd need an authority to keep people in check. However, once you go down that route, there is no practical way to limit the powers that authority has. Look at the book Animal Farm. The very fact that the pigs and sheep exist *at all* in that story is proof that Socialism cannot work. Everyone needs to agree to play along. Then, and only then, can it work. But until you get a 100% acceptance, the system is not possible.
Why does it have to be so extreme? Social systems and public companies function just fine. Most of the ideals of capitalism are build on myth. No country grew rich from capitalism and everywhere it's been tried from Chile to Russia to Iraq it's been a massive failure. All the rich countries had massive state involvement in the economy and massive robbing of foreign territories by their national militaries.
Also George Orwell was a very ardent socialist who fought in the Spanish civil war. Animal farm is not about that socialism is unviable. It's about the importance of civic engagement and the importance to be skeptical of what the powerful people in society tell you. He believed very strongly in democratic socialism and he considered it absolutely essential that the public remain politically engaged and not let the elite just do what they want. 1984 actually comes from his own experiences being surveilled by the British government as a suspected communist and his job in India where he had to tell lies and propaganda to pacify the people.
@@MrMarinus18 "......and not let the elite just do what they want." Good luck with that one. You'll need a sh_t ton of luck and a LOT more, especially because socialism REQUIRES absolute and TOTALITARIAN power of the government. Either Georgy was mentally half-baked, or he wasn't really a socialist as you claim - at least not AFTER he wrote the book.
@@jameseverett4976 Extremism requires absolute power including capitalism. The first hyper capitalism was established by force and American hyper capitalism was also established by a dramatic increase in social control. It's not entirely a coincidence that the US has the largest prison population in the entire world and that it's usually the political right that wants to expand the state's power to control people.
@@jameseverett4976 George Orwell was a socialist before and after he wrote the book. That's why he was so angry about the USSR cause he does believe in the people's power and that there should not be some absolute oligarchy. He was even spied on during WW2 as were all other socialists.
9:20 I somewhat agree on the media. However I see the need for real journalists and proper journalism, especially in the wake of October 7. The challenge for old school media is that they did not understand the new communication channel and it’s potential. So they tried the old subscription and ads financing. The new channel opens up for everyone to watch news from all over the world. So you can’t just quote TT or something equal. You gotta find you spot and your customers that are willing to pay. Today even with UA-cam who as you said have everything, the challenge is fake news! I believe that finding new business models in combination with legislation is necessary.
@@jotsingh8917 socialism cannot be "understood". Understanding is a rational process and socialist theory takes an irrational populist approach - 100% of it, ever. People don't understand anything aboutsocialism, but rather people who have heightened envy and authoritarian tendency go along with socialist ideas.
@@soulcapitalist6204 The Military Industrial Complex is enjoying socialism. And so does the for-profit medical industry with billions of subsidies making healthcare in the U.S. 30% higher than in normal western countries. And how about the price gouging fossil industry with tax benefits beyond vomit. Denmark or Norway are a practicing socialism that benefit the most number of people and not some corporate crooks who paid off congress to get these benefits.
I can tell you right now. It was social media. They sold me the lie that socialism just meant working together. It never discussed the fact that capitalism already does that and has the psychological aspect of human nature accounted to it too.
Why? Why is hoarding the fruits of other people's work 'human nature'? Capitalism is indeed encouraging people to work together. The problem is that a tiny subset can hoard the products of the for themselves and deny it to those that worked to create it.
@@MrMarinus18 Because Socialists demand everyone care for them, so doesn't work. Capitalism means before I get what I want, I have to provide a useful produce or service that you're happy with first.
@@willnitschke 🤣🤣🤣🤣 "socialism is when the government does stuff" No its not. You've heard people use the word wrong over and over so you think you know what it means, but you don't.
You could also assert 'Helping younger/old members of the family is not a function of the parents.' Because the state (not the 'government') has taken the role of the family/clan/ethnic group in supporting, with huge advantage. You must live in a dissociated society. If you would live in a monoethnic country like Japan, you would never think like that. Because the willingness to share is the bigger the more monoethnic. In this discussion, it is necessary to know other socioeconomic models as are those of western and southern Europe, Africa, Islamic, east Asia.
@@willnitschkePeople are bad and hate to contribute to charities. This assertion is as much justified. The question is: how much, who, under which circumstances, why? You confound skin colour with ethnicity, or more general, 'the others'.It is a proven fact of sociology that monocultural societies function better, are more collaborative, although they may have drawbacks.
@@HansGrob People obviously aren't bad and hate to contribute to charities because if that was true, charities would not exist. Hence, making up nonsense that is obviously factually wrong is never justified. There are no "proven facts" in sociology, which is not a hard science. (Even if it showed what you claim it does, which it doesn't.) It is very rarely the case that you can separate so called 'race' from ethnicity, but that's an irrelevant point anyway. What people like you are doing is seeking a distinction between "them" and "us" so you can ferment division, and on completely idiotic grounds too.
@@willnitschke You have misunderstood my first sentence. It was a parody. The existence of charities does not disprove the existence of evil. Ever heard of the Bible? Cain and Abel. About 10% of population are Cainites, that means they tend to commit crimes and atrocities. Only the presence of the good majority of people with their societal manners and laws prevents hell on earth. You are not European, because it's here that the effect of modern migration can be studied best.
@@HansGrob The existence of charities only proves that people are not 100% evil. Core logic fail on your part, champ. Approx. 10% of the population are possibly sociopaths. They don't commit crimes or atrocities routinely, although they can be arseholes. Another 5% or less are possibly psychopaths, but they don't routinely commit crimes or atrocities either, although I would not recommend hanging around one. So basically you continue to talk crap. 😉
Socialism works just fine for the rich...they just don't like the rest of the people to have it. Along with understanding that police, defence, infrastructure, firebrigades, hostpitals, schools are all socialist. No one ideology is the answer. Helping people to help themselves shouldn't be a problem.
Can you define socialism, because if you can't, it's easy to move the goal posts when giving examples. Are Denmark or Finland not democratic socialist countries? They rank high on health and happiness rankings every year. USA has almost no social programs, doesn't even have Medicare For All and it's got some of the worst income inequality levels in the world and also some of the worst violence and prison rates in the world. Socialism sucks and capitalism is good? Hardly. Now, it isn't that simple. Because there are still problems with the monetary-market system as a structure, but we can learn from examples that more social support programs do correlate to better health and happiness outcomes than less social support programs.
Scandinavia is capitalist, and it is due to the excess created by their market economies that they are able to offer “social” programmes……they also enjoy a high level of social cohesion. The United States is a third world country with a first world military…..it is a disparate group of highly individualised people who only look out for themselves…..it’s everyone for themselves due to poor social cohesion……socialism never works…..and will never work, regardless of how many people you kill…..
When and where are school children taught the truth about Socialism . Capitalism or any other Ism . I'm 84 and my first school was a National school run by a Labour government . Could have been run by Martians , for all it mattered. Where young people are brainwashed by ideology it is within higher education . Dons , Professors , Lecturers all painted with the same Marxist brush. Socialists want everybody on the same basement floor , except themselves who they believe should be kept at a higher level. This also applies to Capitalists, who wants to join a club where everyone is a member. Teaching history , is very selective , the country where you live in will depend upon the narrative . The Jewish Holocaust is universally known . Why it started gets less publicity , Hitler's racism is the normal culprit . How many none Jews has heard of Tsar Alexander III's " May Laws " an anti Jewish pogrom introduced in 1882 . It was entirely responsible for the exodus of two million Jews from 1884 to 1924 . Mainly to the USA , S.America and Europe. Many of the migrants would harbour Marxist sympathies , even though the Russian revolution didn't happen until Oct/Nov 1917 . Most of the ideology stemmed from the mid 19th century.
The reason socialism won't go away is not because our proclivity towards kindness or compassion it's because we used to live in tribes of hunter gatherers for more than 95% of human history. In those tribes, which were small - not more than 150 people - everything was shared, money did not exist and nobody was "rich". We don't live in that era anymore thanks to the invention of property and money that happened as part of the agricultural revolution. Why people are not taught this I do not know but all resentment based politics stems from this lack of knowledge.
They also did things like abandon old people to die when they could no longer contribute to the community. You should study more of the details of those tribes. Practicality was not thrown out the window, and the harshness of reality always bore down on them, so they did things you would not approve of, because reality is not accommodating of your ideals. But of course you don't want that part known today. You've lived so long in protection from the brutality of the real world, that you actually think your imagination of how it "could be" has some validity.
@@jameseverett4976 well that's a whole lot of projection on your part. Of course old people were abandoned in a nomadic tribe if they could not move. What makes you think I didn't know that already? "did things you would not approve of" - how would you know what I approve of? As for "your imagination of how it "could be" has some validity" that seems to apply to socialism and not my vision which is rooted in reality.
A dumb take. USSR was under severe sanctions, West banned buying anything but wheat from USSR basically. For Stalin there was no other option to make money to buy industrial equipment from the West (Russian Empire left a poor legacy and USSR had a lot of catching up to do in terms of technology) than to take wheat from the communities. And in the 20s, there was a worldwide food shortage. Both those factors contributed to what is now being marketed as intentional genocide of Ukrainians, despite the fact that other regions of USSR suffered no less.
You should take care of yourself before attempting to take care of others. If you are in a precarious position you risk being toppled over by the weight of someone else's problems. Sharing is fine on. Bag of chips but not on resources that are scarce as well as required to sustain you. Share your example to help others. Share your wisdom to help others.
As a socialist I actually agree on this. That's why I think workers should not be demanded to bail out failing businesses by getting lower wages and should not be taxes to give subsidies to businesses. If a businessesmen is too incompetent to make a profit he should be allowed to fail and shouldn't be bailed out. Billionares should also not have a lower tax rate than millionares. They can spare more money so they should. There is a significant case of deminishing returns to money. As a socialist I oppose capitalism because of your reasoning. Capitalists should not be allowed to hoard scarce resources that everyone needs to then sell them back to use at inflated prices. For example I believe the US should nationalize it's oil as the profit margins are just outrageous. The high price at the pump has no justification other than just profit margins cause they have power.
I don't think you ever experienced socialist or Communisme then. China has been one of the most capitalist society since the 2000. Before 2000 it would have been possible, but extremely rare for them to employ foreign English teacher. Even then it would have been in one of the opened economic zone (Shenzhen, shanghai, etc) which would not have used a communist economic model.
@@huguesparadis414 _"China has been one of the most capitalist society since the 2000."_ Wrong. They still have socialism or a mixed economy at best. China has never had capitalism. China has a socialist economy because the government still has a tremendous amount of control over private enterprises. There are private companies that operate in China, and not everything is owned by the government; however, with a single party in power, the government is able to change the direction of the economy significantly with the stroke of a pen. Therefore, there are a lot of companies that are unsure of exactly what will happen in the future because they are at the mercy of the government.
@@huguesparadis414 For what it's worth I lived there in 1997. And it's less the "economics" and more the social control. Like when a Chinese teacher I was hanging out with at a pub tells me to change the subject because the wrong person might be listening to us. Or when the local police shut down that same pub because it "serves too many foreigners" and demanded a bribe in order to reopen. Or when I was followed by the same security detail for a month when I arrived to start my job, and they made sure to let me know they were following me. It's the day to day tyranny that makes it so insidious, not the grand scale economic theft.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. What you describe is dictatorship vs democratic. Capitalism is the selling of goods for money. China does that a great deal these days.
He doesn’t even understand socialism For those of you that are ignorant….. Capitalism= elite control Communism= government control Socialism= worker control Whenever you hear redistribution of wealth they are talking about communism and NOT socialism, Socialism has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth or government control, it’s about worker ownership and workers control and it eliminates the rich elites from a society
That's still bad regardless of intent, you can't fully get rid of "elite" or class or hierarchy. They will and always will exist because it's our human nature. Some people can just be as, if not, better than you over yourself. Or you yourself is better than everyone else to a degree. That is something you CAN'T get rid of. Simply put, we're all created equal but some are equally better than others.
Cuz on paper socialism sounds idealistic and poetically beautiful and everybody gets along and everybody gets a fair shake and so on and so on but inevitably that's not how it works out and some form of cast takes over and some form of dictator starts running the show and then the greed kicks in, or worse ideologies get added into it
@@rpstephans A System with checks and balances is far better than a dictatorship disguised as Socialism or Comunism. No system is perfect, but some are WAY better than others.
What "paper" is that and where can I find it? Maybe Albert Einstein, yeah I don't remember that one fondly Or maybe I haven't gotten to the part where socialism is described as poetically beautiful I do often hear Marxists shit on idealism
Just explain about investment and the forms of return that might be available for that contribution, Tax, those returns not in the form made and or less than the amount contributed constitutes socialism. Not complicated.
@@jamescrydeman540 Yeah that's the other side of the coin. See it all the time. Half wits babbling a lot of technical gibberish to hide their ignorance.
unlikely you had enough information to at that age to learn what most adults cant figure out in a lifetime- the 3 political ideologies that come out of the french revolution 1789 what you would have heard was some biased views which you no doubt still hold due to lack of info and i bet its intentional Peterson doesnt understand and he pretends hes does and hes qualified thou in different field than what he talks on
@@coolioso808 if you can't do the research, that's on you, it's not up to us to spoon feed it to you (unless you sit in a high chair and wear a bib). You have all the information in the world at your fingertips. "What is sustainable about market capitalism?" (because I, coolioso808 can't research this myself because I shouldn't have to use my brain, that's too much work, everyone should just do the work for me while I sit on my ass and expect everyone to do everything for me, while contributing nothing to society) - socialism 101 (a system that BENEFITS dole bludgers while simultaneously STEALING from the PEOPLE who WORK HARD for THEIR money)
@@Time_to_Believe_in_Yourself I guess you are going to be very flabbergasted to find out that I don't actually need you do to any research for me, or anybody else, I've been doing it all myself and I know for a fact that market capitalism is socially, economically and environmentally unsustainable. I asked the question to see if anybody else knows. I guess you missed the memo. Funny how you said "stealing from the people who work hard for their money" as socialism, since what do you think big, wealthy business owners of private companies do all the time? Did you know the biggest form of theft is wage theft? It's been studied, formalized and data is released to the public for everybody to see. Wage theft is by employers stealing money from the workers who worked so hard to produce for the wealthy owner. I don't know if you really want a solution to the monetary-market problem or not. You don't want stealing and you want benefits for your hard work, okay, that's fine, but you are not going to see that happen in any sustainable, just or healthy way if the monetary-market system continues to be the driving force behind the social system we inherited as a species from thousands of years ago. If you've done your research, perhaps you've come across Peter Joseph's Culture in Decline webseries or Ubuntu Contributionism by Michael Tellinger or Dr. James Gilligan's work on poverty, or David Graeber's work on debt.
The problem with psychological literature is it is often conducted by people looking for particular answers, whom use leading questions, in a setting that is rife with untruthfullness. I've not met one person who isn't resentful towards someone or some thing in some way - you simply have to let a person talk and talk and talk some more with little to no interuptions. I've met thousands of people from all backgrounds, mostly in non-clinical environments.
And this is why psychiatrists and psychologists are the worst people to conduct psychological evaluations. It just so happens that they are (mostly) the best at interpreting the data.
Young people believe in socialism because as children they were always on the receiving end of the idea of sharing. They don't understand that sharing means giving, too.
You know many young people are charitable and actually like giving.
@@donel532
Teenagers are and will always be reckless a-holes most of the time...
@@donel532 Socialism is not about giving or sharing. It is about envy and taking and destroying what exists.
@@soulcapitalist6204 exatcly
@@soulcapitalist6204 That's your (or maybe received - from charlantans like Shapiro) definition of socialism which has nothing to do with facts or history.😂😂😂I think Chomsky already debunked this nonsense which JP is spewing. All with facts and logic.😂😂😂
Want to hear a Joke,
Two brothers, John, and Bob, who lived in America and were members of the communist party, decided to emigrate to the USSR. Even though they didn't believe the American media's negative reports on the conditions in the USSR, they decided to exercise caution. John would go to Russia to test the waters. If they were right and it was a communist paradise, then John would write a letter to Bob using black ink. If, though, the situation in the USSR was as bad as the American media liked to portray, and the KGB was a force to be feared, John would use red ink to indicate whatever he says in the letter must not be believed.
In three months John sent his first report. It was in black ink and read,
"I'm so happy here! It's a beautiful country, I enjoy complete freedom and a high standard of living. All the capitalist press wrote was lies. Everything is readily available! There is only one small thing of which there's a shortage. *Red ink."*
That's funny, thanks for the laugh
What did communists use before candles? --- light bulbs.
marsjacobvolta
I believe the joke is that they weren’t actually building washing machines, just being told they were
In America, you can always find a party. In Russia, the party can always find you.
Soviet Philosopher; Yakov Smirnoff
@Pynky II I believe this joke was originally about Germany in the late 1920s when the Versailles Treaty prevented them from making certain weapons. It's a historical fact that they secretly re-armed until the nazi government were confident enough to publicly tear up the treaty.
One of the problems is language. Because "social program" and "socialism" are similar words, they think they are the same thing. So socialism attempts to high-jack the positive social programs as their own and gain credit. It doesn't help that the far right makes the same mistake and reject all social programs because it's socialism.
ah finally someone that get it, nobody knows what is socialism, but everyone talk about it
@@gizel4376there is a difference socialism and social democracy. Every top OECD country has social democracy. Capitalist countries with good social policies. The US is the odd one out. Because Americans cant tell the difference between social democracy, socialism, communism, marxism. Its why they use the last three interchangeable on policies they dont like.
@@alanfairbrother890 social democracy is a really dumb name for social capitalism, which is a slippery slope for America because our corruption is already so widespread..
@@justinryanvalencia05 i agree American politics is corrupt and dysfunctional. Still living in 1776. Unwilling to change because "the founding fathers" blah blah.
And in the GOP always a bogeyman for their base to be afraid of.
I very much doubt that even the Far-Right is against ALL social programs. And certainly your average Right-Wing citizen is not. Maybe some extreme, fringe, Right-Wing nut cases are against every social program, but I think those are few and far between.
As a South African I've experienced that inverted correlation regarding violent crime. Our media went silent on the way to "achieving" the third highest murder rate in the world.
Then it is interesting that East Germany had almost no poverty or crime! The power of socialism! On top of that W. Germany spent more money than GDR to spy on their citizens and was more reppressive if they found a opponent to their system (communist)! They made sure that he/she wouldn´t get any job!
If you are South Africa maybe you'll know that you live in an incredibly resource rich country that was sold off to the highest capitalist bidders along with the help of central banks to the highest bidder and that is a major reason why the people are so poor, unequal and living in desperation so often. If the people really had co-ownership over the major means of production, do you think they would have sold it off and shipped it off to the Americas and Europe without first taking care of their own people? I think not.
Money is the problem. Markets makes it unsustainable.
System change is needed. Ubuntu Contributionism, for example, is a viable system change idea that people can learn about and join if they want to contribute to building a better, more sustainable and free society.
Some of us are aware of the situation and are very sorry for the inability of our governement to stand up for western values such as justice and security, when it comes to white people and christians.
@@coolioso808 Do you also dress up as Bambi ? Commie claptrap goes well with furriness.
@@coolioso808 When a western country sells its resources, the income and wealth creation is immense. Look at Australia and Norway. When African countries do it, they fail because they are both corrupt and socialist.
The solution is free enterprise, low corruption and general westren cultural outlook.
"people have..co-ownership over the major means of production" is socialism, has been tried so many times and failed miserably. It is a formula for poverty and starvation.
I'm from Zimbabwe. A country built by capitalists and then plundered into ruin by Marxist socialists.
A country built by colonialists, who exploited the 'natives'. Quite evidently you cunt. They weren't replaced by marxists or socialists
Your country was destroyed by more than just socialism but it didn't help and it definitely destroyed the currency
Mileage will vary Bruce. Plundering is biological, animal, human. I have zero doubt that the capitalists also plundered. The "isms" have less influence over human behavior than our own biology. Humans, are are vulnerable and easily manipulated. Politics is theater that relies on an ignorant population. As the people of this planet become more informed traditional forms of manipulation are failing. I see progress.
Rhodesia*
It was incredibly sad to watch that transition. My step farther is from Harare, he was in the special branch of the police, I think it was called "bmp" but could be wrong. The reason I say this is watching him watching the news was like watching someone loose a bit of his soul. By this time he had transferred to South Africa but I could see how much it hurt still. However sometimes when we look back on our memories even the bad ones now somehow feel like teachings, accompanied by a small smile. Rest in peace Dad
best 2 things i learnt from Jordan Peterson is the difference between individual responsibilities and collective responsibilities and how they co exist and what they do to eachother. the second being how people are so afraid of alienation, they can and will change a form of their own beliefs for the sake of virtue signaling im order to look good infront of their friends rather then conform to their own sense of comfortability. wish people actually took the time to listen and understand what he says at times, he has alot of good answers to alot of questions. unfortunately alot of the answers mean alot of people have to take a good look at themselves and understand they are the problem but we seem to live in a world these days where taking responsibility and accepting punishment as appropriate to the situation is just to difficult to stomach
The biggest problem though is that this is often not applied evenly. Usually workers are made to shoulder both personal and collective responsibility while capitalists can dodge both.
In a lot of propaganda the worker's "personal responsibility" is twisted to mean he should take in those of his superiors too.
For example blaming workers demanding wages equal to the average for the failure of a company. That's shifting the blame from the incompetence of the boss to the actions of the workers. In today's society "personal responsibility" mostly exists as a lie to shift responsibility or disguise bad intentions. For example to have workers suffer with student debt while forgiving all debt that corporations take out.
What about corporate responsibility?
@@greglongphee2034 Right now the only responsibility they have is towards their shareholders.
That's why the economy is going to ruin since they benefit the unproductive shareholders at the expense of everyone else and that just doesn't work.
The problem though is that "personal responsibility" is often abused by lazy politicians to not solve problems. After all you can write off any kind of problem to "personal responsibility" such as having a lot of car accidents. If you attribute it to a lack of "personal responsibility" that means you don't have to impliment regulations or change some aspect of the road. If you call the problems with homeless people "personal responsibility" that means you don't have to impliment reforms in the housing market and organize housing and integration facilities. If you consider the working poor "personal responsibilities" that means you don't have to change the minimum wage or impliment better social services.
So while personal responsibility is itself not a bad thing we always have to be very weary when political or corporate leaders use the term as they often use it in bad faith.
@@MrMarinus18 Peterson's ideas are that his group of capitalist intelectual professors are "know it alls" writing novels and whose good manners and personal responsibility makes history.
I'm 71. In 1966 my Social Studies teacher explained socialism in this way:
Socialism is a perfect society. Each person gives according to his ability and takes according to his needs. Unfortunately, there are no perfect people to live in this perfect society.
So basically it's just a fantasy inside the heads of stupid people.
The one word conspicuously absent in this concept is "voluntarily." Enough people take "according to their needs" the greater the "needs" become - and those with the "ability" become fewer in number with less money to have confiscated by the government to give to someone else. Soon thereafter, collectivism becomes shared misery, because _everyone_ is left with need and no one left to provide for it.
@briane173 correct. The idea is based on the reverse of what's possible. It is necessary to make individuals economically resilient and then you have a solid foundation to build on. If you do the opposite, which is to make everyone dependent on everyone else, the system crashes under its own weight.
If your history teacher really said that he's just wrong or more likely going from a wrong textbook.
That's communism.
Socialism means balancing out the power of capitalists to better society.
Though at one point even capitalism meant government regulations. Our current model of "capitalism" where everything is sacrificed to make capitalists as rich as possible was something Adam Smith actually fiercely opposed.
@@MrMarinus18 Everything you typed was soooo stupid. 🤣
If you want to see Socialism in action, just visit Venezuela, as opposed to the fantasy world in your head.
I’m pretty old. I remember a show called ‘The Courtship of Eddie’s Father’. They young boy came in excited about the idea that all of the toys were taken and put in an area where everyone could play with them. That way everyone got a toy. The dad only replied with , ‘what do you think of that?’ (This was so long ago that fathers were funny, intelligent and also parents). The child said he was going to try it. It sounded like a good idea. A few days go by. The dad asks how the experiment went. The child was a bit depressed. It didn’t go like people said it would. He said, ‘the only people who wanted to do it didn’t have any toys , and the kids with lots of toys left them home and played with everyone else’s’
People can be generous. However, what people definitely don't want to be, is taken advantage of. Socialism lets people take advantage of others. Everyone sees they are getting away with it. So Socialism fails as soon as it begins.
I know this is supposed to be a criticism of socialism but it is not. It is a criticism of people.
Socialism requires all the people to buy in (no pun intended) but if some do not by wanting to gain power or by not putting in the required effort it will fail
@@claytoncourtney1309 No it's a criticism of Socialism, not people. Any system that requires a broken incentive scheme cannot, and never will, work.
@@claytoncourtney1309I'd argue it should be a criticism of both. By your logic, socialism relies on people's will to comply and not use the opportunity to gain power from it, which can never happen, because people are humans.
@@teodze3432
Specifically my response was directed at Debbylou and the comment, from the story, of "He said, ‘the only people who wanted to do it didn’t have any toys , and the kids with lots of toys left them home and played with everyone else’s’"
I was making the point that it was the inability to execute socialism that caused the failure.
My logic would say that the concept of socialism does not rely on "people's will to comply and not use the opportunity to gain power from it" , the implementation of it does.
If I understand you correctly you are saying that people will not be able to do what is needed for socialism to work so therefore that is also a problem with socialism. I am able to separate the plan from the execution
My family came from the USSR. I heard many Uni students who believed every piece of Soviet propaganda. They did not comprehend that shops could have empty shelves. They did not believe that government factories would produce faulty, poor quality products to meet quotas. The West does a terrible job of exposing propaganda even now. How much do we know of what is happening to ordinary people in Venezuela ( even with massive oil reserves), Brazil or North Korea.
It's sad people are that stupid, but that's reality.
@@user-oe2wk5nu9s Brazil is messed up because of a poorly educated voting class and a corrupt and incompetent series of governments.
@manchen3536 Doesn't stop them from having strong opinions on things they have zero understanding of.
Ahaha, that’s why my Soviet era Photo camera still works fine, because of poor quality. Thanks for studying me about Soviet propaganda. And what about the fact that corporations are now designing deliberately poor durability to encourage repeat purchases? I guess you think it’s absolutely normal. And do you want a joke? There is a plan for any normal production, even capitalist ones! Wow, you don’t know the history of your family Motherland, and you don’t know how modern capitalism economic works, congrats
Wow where do you get the film for your soviet era camera . Oh and how is your soviet smart phone working. Did your family live in the USSR ( not foreigners with US $ or high party members who could buy from special shops)@@johnr96
It's because young folks never studied about socialism, I heard about it from my high school teacher about capitalism, socialism, feudalism, and communism.
But I never knew what it was all about, so I had to self-taught myself...
Schools have become so left wing that they don't even teach about it honestly anymore. They just focus on the problems with capitalism and "gently" guide them into believing the grass is greener with a "diverse" staff composed entirely of socialists. When I was a kid they taught us how to spot a dictatorship forming. Places like Canada and the UK clearly don't do that anymore either.
The devil is extremely generous with other people’s money.
mustang607 “ The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of their peoples’ money” - Margaret Thatcher
And Satan teaches morons it's good to be stingy and sharing is for Commies .
The devil is also really good at hording and exploiting everyone's resources for his own benefit.
Capitalism, by definition, is based on appropriation of other people's money. You were saying?
@@maghrebforever2012 Trump is a capitalist (allegedly), yet he loves spending other peoples money.
there are those of us who understand Socialism and have seen it in action as well as learned of it's history. There are only 2 types of people who support Socialism: those who want to profit from it, and those who are ignorant of what it really is and what it leads to.
Do you really though ? As a European , I lived all my life in a country with a big underlying sosalist structure , please do not confuse socialism with the extreme left , communism .
And I dont know about you , but if the top 1% of people own 80% of all wealth , I cannot help myself in thinking that capitalism has taken a turn for the wrong .
And when 3 people have a net worth , bigger than many a small countries GDP , something is not right .
@@Maverick21491No one is stopping anyone to become the top 1% hence the list keeps fluctuating. And these 1% give employment to almost the entire world. Get your own business idea and you become one. No one is stopping you. For socialism to get to communism is not a leap it happened in many countries. Plus not a even country has been able to apply this system and was successful.
@@Maverick21491 socialism is just a gateway to communism. Every good communist knows this. It's why it's pushed so heavily in countries like Australia.
Socialism is about getting the citizens to rely on the government. Capitalism is about getting the people to go and actually work. Communism is about having a small group of elite repress the larger masses and pretend they aren't doing that.
@Maverick21491 What is inherently wrong with rich people having a lot of wealth? Wealth isn't a zero sum game. If people A and B have lot of money, there's nothing stopping C through Z from producing or building something new. This Pereto distribution is natural and arises in many situations. And while the percentages stay the same, who is in those percentages is not constant. There are rich people who lose it all, and newcomers who move in.
@@Maverick21491your european shitty nations were the ones responsible for the creation of both communist and fascist regimes that started ww2. Dont speak.
I have heard many college students actually define Socialism as socializing,as in being social. lol
E.L.Dorado Apparently you don’t know many college students.
@@joma5721
I have one in college and know many of his friends and most of them have not defined Socialism properly.
Also I have seen journalists interview college students and it's the same.
Most simply think it means something other than what it is.
Yep I’ve had someone try to define it to me that way too. They said “it’s a social way of governing a country, a way of working together”.
That's what happened to Penis Hippie....
Nah bruuh. Roads and firemen are socialism, bruuh.
- collegiate genius
George Orwell's book, Animal Farm should be required reading in high school and again in college. It's an easy read. One can easily finish the whole book in a weekend. If anyone, regardless of age wants to truly find out the results of socialism in the 20th century, Jordan Peterson made a great point: 100 million people died due to socialism in the 20th century. Most of them in USSR, China and North Korea. For people who don't like to read but prefer movies should watch Dr. Zhivago, the David Lean version (1965). Take a good look at how quality of life changed in Russia from the beginning of the film to the end.
How many people have died as a result of capitalism? Zero?
@@3xampleDeaths under capitalism can not be measured in the same way since capitalism affords people to make their own choices, which communism does not. Keep in mind that American capitalism has been affected with socialist programs and institutions for decades now, which themselves may be responsible for the deaths you are implying. You have not specified an argument with examples, so we can only assume, but it does seem you are setting yourself up for causal fallacy.
@@Wodenson5150 As far as I'm aware socialist policies don't withold excess resources to starving nations simply because it's not profitable to do so, capitalist policies do so. Socialist policies don't pollute and destroy the climate leaving tens of millions displaced or dead, capitalist policies do. Capitalist policies will start wars and regime changes in other countries in the name of profit killing tens of millions.
Capitalism is far more insidious than you realise, it will literally always prioritise profit over a human life unless socialist policies are implemented.
@@3xample You're a dolt of the first order: Everyone "dies" under every system. When we speak of death under socialism, we mean directly as a result of the State's policies, and before their normal time.
@@3xample "as far as I'm aware" - the key phrase in your objection.
Social media only gives you what is common other things are hard to find, some things are near impossible and then combined with censorship makes some things totally unavailable
1) Socialism rewards sloth and makes working hard pointless. If everyone gets the same benefit, only fools work hard. Or at all.
2) It destroys any efforts to improve efficiency or production. Why invent something to make a process more efficient when you, yourself, get no added benefit from it?
3) It is the most easily corruptable and abused system to control every aspect of people's lives and openly silence and oppress whoever the government wishes
People who believe in socialism have a boundless capacity to be generous and compassionate -- With Other People's Money !!
capitalists quite literally take the value of your surplus labor (the value of your production minus your hourly wage = surplus labor value). They're already taking your money and doing what they want with it. You're lucky if they even want to be a philanthropist
@@cutecowsleeps The surplus labor value theory was debunked as far back as the 19th century, Labor contributes only a fraction of the value of products. Capitalists pay for all plant, equipment, rents, utilities, marketing, distribution,
interest, materials, organization of production and management and much more
@@josephwalsh7546 it doesn't matter who technically reaches into their wallet and personally pays for all of the production equipment. The cost of production equipment, etc, it comes from the wallet and at the expense of all of the people involved in the enterprise. If you work for a company that profits $100/month, it doesn't matter how that $100 is sliced up, it's still $100 to which a portion of which is reinvested into the company and the workers.
The thing about arguments against critiques of capitalism is that they almost always still look at the economy through the dogma of capitalism. They see the organization of capitalist businesses as rational because of certain myths like "the owner takes on all the risks" and so to them it makes sense that the owner alone should decide how to slice up finances. But it makes no actual difference to what is happening, which is that an individual is choosing to take ownership over what a group produces together and give themself more. When you bring up how cooperatives are generally better business structures for worker-consumers, capitalists say that traditional business structures grow faster, but to me, that's almost as bad as a slaver arguing that plantations are more efficient.
@@cutecowsleeps not only this but literally encroach onto peoples commons and usurp populations to expand capital in crises of overaccumulation.
The idea everybody is Equal is bs. I believe everybody is vastly different, but laws should be applied equally. People have a wide range of talents and IQ's. Everybody is Unique.
The idea of socialism is that everybody should have equal chances. That everybody should have access to the same education, healthcare, housing, etc., so that no one ends up in a ghetto. Capitalism says that those who are born rich deserve more because they already have more, and those who are born poor are guilty of being born poor and it's their problem that they don't magically get accepted in Harvard.
And we're not unique. It's a silly and dangerous idea. When everyone's special, no one is. We're all human, and we're alike in many things. Western individualism produces loneliness and hostility, makes you see differences first. I'd rather see similarities, things that unite us all. No one is that unique and special, and we're all replaceable. Even in love. And it's great. It means that you're not alone, not isolated, not "one against the world". There's people just like you out there, people with similar ideas and tastes. People who you could befriend or even make a part of your family. Don't set yourself apart with your "uniqueness". Humility begets wisdom.
@@kamchatmonk If you needed Brain surgery would you want to have every person in the world have equal chances of performing it? No, you say not everybody is equal when it comes to brain surgery. This is because people should not have equal chances.
@@northyland1157and you can bet your ass if the brain surgeon is making the same as the guy flipping burgers at mcdonalds the brain surgeon is sure as shit not going to give two fucks about the quality of his work. Enjoy being a brain dead vegetable but hey its cool, you get the same as the brain surgeon for being a vegetable, equality for all!
@@northyland1157 So, if you're born in a poor family but have an incredible talent for medicine, you don't deserve to become a doctor? Got it. American dream is dead.
@@kamchatmonk ITs called student loans.. Anybody can get a Student loan in USA.. I paid for my Degree that way. Even the poorest kids can get a loan for school. Your being brain washed..
I spent a year in a nation absolutely ravaged by socialism (former Yugoslavia). In these societies, everything is meant to serve the state, including people. Everything is a resource to be used and consumed however the state sees fit.
That's why you have an incredibly huge open pit cole mine right next to Tuzla, a city of 120k.
...and that's why socialists used feminism to trick women into entering the labour market.
Now replace the "state" with capitalism and that's the reality for most of the world
So, I ask you, why even use the term "socialism" if, by definition, it is rarely accurate? Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
It is much more in theory, historically and currently, than in practice, isn't it? Because when has the community actually owned and operated the means of production? Not in Soviet Russia, not in China, not in Ukraine, not in Canada, nope. Is Canada a "socialist" country because we have single-payer healthcare? That would be a loose definition. The community doesn't own the hospitals and make decisions about funding, that's higher up jobs. We don't own the major telecommunications and energy companies and then all co-profit share from them, do we? We don't decide to have a big clothing company and ship resources overseas to be assembled in sweatshops in Southeast Asia then shipped back to Canada for purchase, do we?
Until we actually build a better system that is for the people, by the people, to make the current unjust and unsustainable system obsolete, I'm sorry, but our local and global problems are just going to get worse.
Try looking at One Small Town Contributionism. How would that model work for your community? Voluntary and free, but see what the benefits would be. Why not?
@@coolioso808We used to have that.
It kept everybody living in mud huts. The trouble with everyone being in charge, is that no one is in charge.
That's just one more reason why socialism fails.
You know many anti-socialists actually describe the current capitalist reality pretty clearly. In how things are now everything is meant to serve the almighty god of the market and nothing is sacred from it.
its an ideology for idealists. everyone must agree or force must be used. it's as likely to work as you are likely to get everyone to agree.
Just like public school.
Every ideology works only in the mind of idealists. Some have better self-adjusting mechanisms, but that's about it.
I think you're mixing up your definitions. Socialism is just a large umbrella of multiple philosophy and economic model that aims to reduce inequalities of life quality.
Communisme is a specific socialist government that in its applied form centralized the means of production and shared ressources according to peoples needs.
and give up privacy and any sort of autonomy@@huguesparadis414
@@sterlingjohnson5147Except it’s applied to adults and not children, which is a huge step
😢😢I used to work at an office that everyone was paid the same based on job title plus a bonus for years worked. It did not matter if you worked really hard or not; You just had to meet the minimum quota. The end result was that hard workers stopped working so hard. We were even told by coworkers not to mess with the curve because the quota would get raised.
Hilarious, an add for Bernie Sanders ran before this video.
M D I didn't get one, but I love Barnie!!
Adrian1018
I love Barney, the purple dinosaur, too. He’s better than Bernie.
YT is fascist. Are we even surprised though? Please don't make fun of Barnie Panders like that mkay?
Bernie "Venezuela" Sanders!
It might be a great thing for them to advertise on vids that spell out why they are completely wrong.
My parents told me In my country in the 80s and 90s the try socialism at first it lead to free education ,increase pay , free health. Then nationalisation companies started to collapse government was losing money fast but still had all these social programs debt increase the government had to started privatization but it was to late the currency collapse.
On the subject of win vs. loss. A statistics professor did a study of professional golf putting statistics and found that more birdie putts were short than par putts of the same length. He phycological colleague postulated that is because people inherently would prefer to not lose than win. They subconsciously were trying to ensure that they didn't miss that par putt (loss) more urgently than making the birdie putt (win).
So you admit capitalism is just a game like golf that the bosses play?
Poor hypothesis, unless you're talking putts on a flat, uniform surface.
In the real world, an on-target putt that is given insufficient energy will generally advance you toward your goal. Even rolling back will not leave you farther.
A putt with excess energy can leave you farther from your goal, by placing the ball into a realm that might slope away from the cup.
@@Dudemon-1 You would have to understand statistics to understand the study as well as the premise of the study. If you use too much energy, it doesn't matter if it is a birdie or a par putt. The study was to look at why people use too much energy more often with a par putt than a birdie putt.
I suggest Jordan himself as the storyteller of humanity for the 20th century, if only for his phenomenal public speaking skills. He's not only the best narrator to tell it, but he's probably one of the very few individuals educated & wise enough to understand and interpret it in a relatively accurate manner and put the story into an appropriate historical framework.
Incredible WISE of him to sprinkle his positive advice with warnings & specific cautionary tales of why this or that ought to be avoided (e.g. the dangers of the radical left using 20th century examples).
Nazis did that in the same manner as him.
Sure hes good at telling one sided stories and cherry picking facts to support his contentions. He is basically just a recycled cold warrior. Who uses Solzhenitsyn novels as the definitive proof for all his contentions. The outrage of the Imperialist Professor who almost destroyed the world with nuclear war just to save capitalism. Just imagine how disheartening it must have been when Truman realised that the Soviets having the bomb prevented the laying waste of Chinese cities that MacArthur wanted to do Korea for this well dressed Canadian counterevolution Imperialist Professor. .
@@kimobrien. My sympathies lady, but your sentimentality before pragmatism is the cause of why/how you will not prevail. Also, are you saying JP almost destroyed the world with nuclear war??? If so, it's blatantly false. JP has no access to or ANY involvement of ANY kind with nuclear weapons or any ability to start a nuclear war.
@@kimobrien.I do not like Jordan!! But still you can’t be speaking as a communist
@@lolwuffidoggoshiema7605 Petersen didn't but Kennedy and Truman nearly did. He covers up that whole history because it doesn't suit his anti communist theories of Communism bad Capitalism good. The man is so blinded by hate that he can't even read the Communist Manifesto without treating it in the way a biblical scholar does who has to reinterpret words to get what he wants for a meaning in the bible when god orders or engages in bad acts. In the case of Petersen he needs to go off on tangents where conspiracy governs reality for proof that Marx didn't mean what he said but something else. His whole Act is one where he Howls at the Moon over Stalin and Mao. . .
My god, as a militaria, toy soldiers collector and someone that enjoys military history along with geography, I can say “people are unbelievably ignorant in history” is dead on. If any American knows anything about any war other then movies, I am shocked. Including the Ukraine war. Ask a kid who their hero is and they will mostly likely say a sports player. Not Audie Murphy of course. Someone mentioned a tiny country next to Germany and I said, “Luxembourg.” He was astonished that I knew that. I don’t even think that knowledge is impressive to know. This is America today, also Canada. But the full line up of a team which plays a game for millions, most people can name each guy and their position. I guess so can brag about how much tv they watch, while at a bar.
Before TV & radio, Americans actually read daily newspapers & books, the former a way to stay connected to the present, the latter a way to actually become educated. Everyone's been tricked by marketing in the last century to run their lives at the pace of communications ---> attention/popularity---> $$$$.
@@Sweethands4 but maybe it could be a good thing. One day I run into another person that’s heard of the Franco-Prussian war. We can have a conversation and people will think I’m intelligent. lol
@@lexevo Unfortunately for those who appreciate knowing things, intelligence doesn't matter in the jungle of life. Only willpower (i.e. ACTION) does.
And as an intelligent person who understands intelligence/knowledge/education, I think you are intelligent.
@@Sweethands4 I just appreciate he knew the right way to say it in regular speech. Amongst many other things I’ve heard him say. That’s all. I’m not going to sit here and list all the things I’ve studied and know. I’m comfortable in conversation and make mistakes myself.
@@lexevo JP should be THE role model for everyone born after 1990 as far as public speaking & presentation.
I'm always amazed and impressed with Jordan's ability to frame issues with such clarity and common sense. He's a true intellectual treasure of our time. PS I know he's not always right (that's true of all great thinkers) but he's spot on the vast majority of time. Only those in idealogical bubbles truly hate him.
Exactly, common sense, which is not real analysis and scientific socio-historical analysis. For some people is common sense that the earth is flat mate. Peterson is complete bullocks.
@@costanrgpowerI understand not everyone agrees with everything. That would be terrible. But insulting someone without elucidating that thought and without giving any reasons for such a statement is absolutely „bullocks“
You have no idea what he's talking about, lol
@@ludw1111gno man I do insult him because he's a mystifier, he constantly talks about cultural marxism - the most completely absurd concept existing
@@maxweinbach3996and you do, right? Peterson mixes apples and oranges, marxism, socialism, anarchism, liberalism, sindacalism... everything under the label of either "cultural marxism" or "socialism", simply because ha has no idea of what he is talking about, and how to distinguish intellectual ideas that are beyond conservatism and traditionalism, which I highly respect, btw, I used to be conservative myself and perfectly understand it, along with the very good intentions behind many conservatives, as well as I blame and despise many leftists which became intolerant and obtuse. But what Peterson does is blindly accusing people he believes belonging to a particular credo (in reality they're as diverse as people on the right side, from fascists to conservatives) having absolutely no idea how that same idea is structured, or differentiated. That's just intellectually WRONG man. I don't blame conservatives as conservatives. I blame particular ideas about conservatism that I find problematic.
He's not wrong about the media and there never ending supply of outrage news. We want fairness by nature. So of course the uninformed will be outraged and believe it.
This is what is so nefarious about socialism & other Marxism based governing styles. They play directly on our desire for fairness. Who doesn't want to see those who are suffering have a better outcome?
@@Dang3rMouSe exactly
@@Dang3rMouSe Ironically it's the Marxist system creating the bulk of the suffering; they're just spreading it across the entire population instead of just a select few, because....well....collectivism & shit....
@@Dang3rMouSe and capitalism prey on greed. You are not getting far with this kinda argumentation
The problem is that the powerful will redirect this rage towards scapegoats to maintain their own power. Historically this scapegoat was the jews but while it's not gone away entirely using Jews as scapegoats has been more frowned upon since the Nazi's took it to the extreme. Now usually Muslims are used as scapegoats instead.
Its funny how no one who has ever lived under a socialist or communist system thinks socialism is a good idea
I'm pretty sure that's not true, though. You could argue that they're just being nostalgic, that they're seeing the past through rose-tinted glasses, but there are definitely people who felt things were better back then.
@eyesofthecervino3366 I can tell by your comment you've never met anyone who's lived in a communist state
90% of China says CCP is good idea btw.
@PhoonBucgeneMY you know if you speak against the CCP in China you lose your social credit score and can't buy food, or travel, or be employed.... that's the best case... if you have enough reach you're thrown in jail. Funny no one spoke out against stalin when he was in power either
I lived in Norway, and I loved it. Now what? Taxes are rough, but if anyone were to lose their job or need surgery, there is help to get. Free surgery and help covering bills if needed. Hospital queues are long too, but if you want to pay to get in faster, you can through private sectors. Average salary per year is around 60 000-650 000 USD.
Nothing is utopia, but Norway is close to it.
I graduated from college knowing nothing about history. Then I started homeschooling my kids. The difference between historical ignorance and proficiency is night and day in the way you view the world.
The same can be said about Economics. I'd recommend everyone to read the introductory book "Principles of Economics" by Gregory Mankiw.
Wonder how you qualified to get in? You used to have to be smart with a high GPA.
He seems to claim there is a danger to socialism but there really are no examples of that.
There are examples about the danger of oppressing socialist movements like in China or Russia but for countries that accepted them like Denmark, Austria and the US they have mostly just seen success from it.
There is also a very long history of countries being undermined by an aristocracy like Poland, Netherlands, late 19th century US and various dynasties of China.
I would say right now the US is again being undermined by it's oligarchy that is stagnating the economy and creating massive amounts of social unrest.
@@MrMarinus18 3rd Reich was an example of dangerous socialism. All socialism is dangerous because socialists are too ignorant to know 3rd Reich was an example of dangerous socialism.
@@MrMarinus18 no examples??????????????? I guess, since you can type, you can claim anything you fancy. There are more examples of the utter & miserable failure of socialism than you can shake a stick at. But you just go ahead and keep pretending you live in a cave 6 miles deep.
After the Cold war, schools started to remove studies on socialism out of their curriculum. My generation and the one before saw the horrors of socialism.
There was a qoute i read i believe it said to bring down democracy is to take away from those willing to work and giving to those who arent willing to. Growing up we are trained to be good workers through rewards; when you are older and dont get appreciated or rewarded for that hard effort and then told this is how life is deal with it, then we arent motivated to work as hard when others who do less recieve the same compensation.
Replace democracy with capitalism and then you have a point. A democracy provides control to who gets the political power, so when people try to beak the system or do illegal things in the name of the country, they get prosecuted and have to pay a price.
Thing is doesn't that describe the capitalist system we have right now?
It's taking from the productive workers and giving to the non-productive capitalists. That excessive concentration of power in non-productive capitalists is indeed destroying democracy.
Also exactly how this notion of equal wages has anything to do with how much power capitalists should have is a mystery to me. Most socialists are against the excessive power of capitalists to dictate the allocation of resources to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. They believe there shouldn't be individual who can block your access to healthcare unless you pay them astronomical amounts.
@@stewartkingsley For me the weird thing is that I often feel people are describing capitalism when they talk about how much they hate socialism.
Capitalism is all about taking from productive people by less productive ones. That's the whole idea. The ones who get rich in capitalism are not the people producing value but the people who own the means for that.
@@MrMarinus18 Non-productive capitalists? Have you EVER tried running your own business? You have this fantasy vision in your head of some CEO who just hits a few buttons on their keyboard every day to send money places. That doesn't exist; where it does, they are quickly no longer CEOs. Even the people like Elon Musk who own gobs of money are working very hard, far above "fulltime" 40 hours a week.
1:30
"...primary compassion..."
AKA altruism.
No one has better clarified the peril of altruism as "empathy trumps individuals" than Ayn Rand. If interested, her book on it is "The Virtue of Selfishness."
Ah I love the quote related to negative news focus, “Well, you can only be so happy. Or you could be dead. Dead’s not good. And there could be a lot of misery on the way to that end.”
So so so true and so good
Agreed! Jordan Peterson's humour is under-appreciated.
We are watching this probably because we love JP. And he has broadened my mind yet again. Can we also give a big shout out to Genevieve Wood who asks some very brilliant and well timed questions here?? 👏
Not all watching are in love with JP. Some are watching to see other perspectives that we don't necessarily agree with, because they have factual errors in their logic, but we wish people would be open to rational discussions and progressive change.
People are lead to JP for some reason. Just like people are led to Trump or Biden or Musk or Alex Jones, etc. The cult of personality is real and it draws people in, unless they are willing to question everything, do their own research and practice critical thinking. I have and I hope others will, too.
If people can sit through this Jordan Peterson talk, then hopefully they can sit through a fair critique, like on TZMOfficialChannel with Peter Joseph entitled "Critique of Jordan B. Peterson (vs Slavoj Zizek: "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism")"
What are your thoughts after watching something like that? You are free to disagree, but what are your counter points?
This guy is an advertisment for wall street and not your culture. Socialism is nowhere near like communism and to suggest so is patently wrong and blatant misinformation.
@@coolioso808 This comment would be more valuable on the speech Peter Joseph is critiquing. I watched the first ten minutes (the length of this Jordan Peterson video) and had to turn it off for its lame "analysis. He doesn't counter any of JPs points, only says they are wrong, and that JP (paraphasing) "muddies them up with false nuances", for example. Grant it, I didn't listen to the JP speech.
A couple of appeals to authority, and even restating JPs words and acting like when he says them they mean something different. To watch 55 minutes of that drivel is a waste of time. Please provide timestamps of points you would like to support, but so far I did not hear any actual refutation of JP's remarks other than to say he is wrong. Hard to argue against "I'm right and you're wrong."
For example, saying that people having capital vs people not having capital is not a fair comparison to biological differences. Of course it is. Capital can take many forms. Someone who is smarter or more inventive can be said to have more intellectual capital than those who are not as smart. Which means, all other things equal, the smarter one is going to likely be more successful than the less intelligent one. Same with physical strength. We all have our strengths and weaknesses, some acclimated to our environments better than others.
Another, calling the Soviet Union "Government capitalism is just ignorant. Define his term if you can.
Capitalism is believed by Marxist, or at least Marx, as inefficient as the means of production grows, and leads to class struggles. Marxism believes socialism is the ultimate (and desired) end result of those class struggles. So saying the Soviet Union was Government Capitalism is just making stuff up to sound intelligent to those who know no better. Government capitalism is socialism, ie government control of capital and the means of production. Many believed that it was a necessary step to the ultimate utopian goal of communism. However they leave out the fact of human nature, which is that people will always look out for themselves first, their family second, etc. and this applies to government bureaucrats as well. This is ultimately why Marxism and Socialism fail, and why Capitalism has been so successful at pulling people out of poverty and improving everyone's lives. You can believe it is a terrible system, but it is better than all the others.
BTW, before you start, the US has not practiced capitalism in a very long time.
@@danielmyers112 See, you already couldn't watch the entire Peter Joseph video because you thought there wasn't any good points made. But there were. Peter Joseph countered every point Peterson made when he paused the video to explain. You just are disagreeing with the reasoning Peter is bringing up, and that seems to be where your confirmation bias lies.
You even admit your view is that "This is ultimately why Marxism and Socialism fail, and why Capitalism has been so successful at pulling people out of poverty and improving everyone's lives. You can believe it is a terrible system, but it is better than all the others.
BTW, before you start, the US has not practiced capitalism in a very long time."
If you believe this and no facts or reasoning can change your mind to believe the truth, then what is the point of even discussing this further? In fact, capitalism 'bringing people out of poverty' is a key point that Joseph responds to near the last 5 minutes of the JP video. There's your 'timestamp' go to the last 3-5 minutes and watch from there. The Maltuhsian Trap chart will be brought up to help explain why it is science and technology that actually advances human society forward, helping alleviate poverty. However, the capitalist structure: Private ownership of the means of production for profit, means that a large group of poor and working class will always exist and debt will follow them and make them easier to exploit and oppress. That's system science and anybody who understands system science can connect those dots.
It isn't actually socialism, communism or capitalism that is the base system here, it is the Monetary-Market system, which is propelled forward mainly by capitalism, right off an ecological, economic and social cliff. But you don't believe USA has practised capitalism for a long time, eh? Funny how you move the goal posts to make your case work. I'm sorry, but that's not how definitions or facts work. You can believe whatever you want, but you aren't correct unless you can provide evidence that could be peer-reviewed and verified as true.
I think you'll find the next 10-20 years very frustrating, I must say, if you don't seek the truth about the systemic rot of the monetary-market system. You'll keep blaming other things as conditions get worse. I hope you do seek the truth sooner rather than later, but that will be up to you.
@@coolioso808 First off, I don't blame others, I blame the increasing control of the government on the economic conditions. I challenged you to provide me an actual argument Peter Joseph (PJ, as opposed to JP) made, yet you deferred. Likely because he doesn't make any points, just babbles on and on. He makes appeals to authority and ad hominem attacks, rather than attacking the JP's arguments. You don't just get to say something is a fact without backing it up, which PJ does all the time. I don't disagree with his reasoning, he isn't making an actual argument. Ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority are not arguments.
When I wrote "this is why Marxism and Socialism ultimately fail", I was pointing out the historical record. Please name me a mostly socialist country that is doing better than the US.
Of course facts and reasoning can change my mind. Please provide me some facts, or some reasoning that doesn't amount to ad hominem attacks.
You appear to be the one who does not want to change their mind. Your Malthusian Trap is nonsense. Do you even watch the video critically? JP states three facts about growth, and PJ doesn't even address them, just brings out this non-sequitor about how incomes rose so fast in some countries but not in others? Why? Technology? OK, then explain why those other countries didn't benefit from technology. (Could it be they did not have free market capitalist systems?
If it is accurate, please explain why the US, with free market capitalism during 1800-1930, expanded so much more than Europe, when arguable Europe had a much greater technological advantage. And at the end of that period, US also had the technology advantage. You cannot. The technology argument doesn't hold water because it is a result of expanded wealth (created by free market capitalism), not a creator of it. I will explain why. Free markets and capitalism encourage risk taking and frugality, while socialism encourages waste and risk adverseness. This is because the potential to become wealthy encourages people to save their money and take risks with it. Entrepreneurship is a powerful wealth creator. It also encourages innovation, for the same reasons. Which is why the US overtook the European powers.
You want to talk about poverty? Name me a socialist or Marxist country that has no poverty. The difference is that in free market capitalist countries, the potential of getting out of poverty in a single generation is much greater. There are stories about it all the time. Even Biden talks about how his father was working class, and now here he is, President.. Those in the bottom quintile in 1990 are more likely to be in the top quintile today than they are to still be in the bottom quintile. Research it. THAT is the greatness of capitalism, even as poorly as we practice it here.
Since the 1930's the US has become seen out free markets eroded by more and more regulation and government involvement. 100 years ago, you did not need a degree to work as a doctor, lawyer, or anything else. Now, licensing requirements are in place to cut someone's hair. Then there are regulations about how many people you can have working for you before you have to provide healthcare, etc. This is increasing the barriers to entry, keeping the lower classes locked out of the entrepreneurship which could rapidly expand their wealth. We practice more of a corporatist capitalism now, with big companies lobbying the government to provide them effective monopoly power through regulations, fees, licensing and zoning laws. As government gets more involved int he markets (socialism) it gets harder for the poor to flourish. In short, socialism increases poverty and stagnates countries. It has everywhere it has been tried, and still is today. I will let you have the last word.
10:00 When a problem is everywhere and always, it's not news, and people don't talk about it. As the problem begins to get solved, instances of the problem become news (in some places sometimes), and people start to hear about it and talk about it and perceive it as a serious problem that demands the government solve the problem (even if the government created the problem and the market is solving it).
That was going to be my response. One mustn't make the assumption that the do-gooders in government _want_ to solve problems; on the left especially, they have no intention of "solving" anything. To solve a problem means they're no longer necessary, so where none exists they'll _create_ a problem so they have something to campaign on during the next election cycle. They need issues to campaign on more than problems to solve, which is why it's like watching the _Hallmark Grievance of the Week._ The left will find a "victim" under every rock, behind every bush, around every corner, if it means they can create an issue on which to run for re-election.
The far left and Democrat Party have been making hay with this strategy for about 60 years now, and they're not stopping -- because it works. AND because it's probably the most fundamental tenet of Marxism -- "oppressed vs oppressor," aka "proletariat vs the bourgeoisie." Aggrievement and resentment is intoxicating; look how many people come out of the woodwork to proclaim their identitarian victimhood when the opportunity presents itself. "Woe-is-Me" groupthink. And just think -- all these folks need to give up is their self-respect.
Socialism promises a fair distribution of wealth, and women by their evolved nature are attracted to that idea. Add to that an increasingly feminised male population and you have fertile ground for socialism.
The fact that socialism does not provide the aforementioned utopian society is a matter that only becomes an issue when it's too late.
All of the great socialist leaders are and were men, and they were hardly feminine. I don't think your theory holds water.
In short, things are going so well that we now have to invent hardship.
Or dig into distant history to find things to feel victimised about...
@@gooble69 no kidding
Yep, yep, and yep.
The push for socialism is never going away, I don't care how much individuals or entire countries prosper from capitalism or free enterprise. The lust for power over others is too great, and the left will come up with every grievance and "oppressed vs oppressor " narrative they can invent to extol the virtues of collectivism and govt ownership/control of everything, even if they have to dig back 500 years into (selective) history in order to contrive a grievance. But we all know that the only people who do well in that system are the ones running it -- who will never go without, no matter how thoroughly they starve the masses.
True, and socialism trive in good times. And on the in the absolutely opposite.
Socialism will never be a solid solution, just as democracy is only upheld by the sword in one hand and the pen in the other. Figurative speaking..
So well? OMG... You clearly don't consult many economical data...
"Means of production" definitions are inadequate to describe these systems. Every Western country practices every ism in many forms, depending on how you prefer to semantically dissect the scenario. Does a worker "own means of production" when their name is on the business registration as owner, yet their business is heavily regulated, so that they can only operate that business in a way that is dictated by government, and production (money) is generated for and to the government, to be distributed at the discretion of the government? What about a business who extracts resources that must effectively be purchased from the government(oil)? Who "owns" or "controls means of production"?
It's not difficult. Individuals own/control means of production, which is capitalism. And if the State controls/owns it, it's Socialism. Next question.
@@willnitschke - A common definition of socialism is: "workers own/control the means of production". Another is that: "the entire community owns/controls the means of production." Are you sure that you grasp things so simply?
@@OutyMan All those words just mean the government, dumbnuts. 🤣
In my opinion the best form of leading a country will use parts of all systems to make the most balanced form of gouverning. One that is the best for the peoples their own interests and for the interests of their country.
Government doesn't have a great track record of bringing in social programs at cost. One thing you can count on is as long as the need grows greater, the need for revenue and taxation grows greater -- providing government with a built-in incentive to make the _problem_ greater and more widespread. I've never known a government poverty program that came close to eradicating poverty; to the contrary, the % of the impoverished grows, once people know that if they aim right they can stay within the limits of those government programs and collect more for doing less. That might be good for politicians, not so good for the overall social construct.
But there would never be balance. Government have a tendency of growing every year and every year our freedom are reduced. Ppl in government want to think their job are important, so they continue to push for more power and resources. More power leads to more corruption be it in public or private. The problem is that in the private sector, corruption are resolved quickly while corruption in government takes decades if ever to ever be fixed. fix will never come from government . It requires outsider to come in to clean house, because insider want self preservation and will never change
Which is absolutely not what the US is doing right now. It's prioritizing capitalist interest above everything else even common sense itself.
Great. Now...WHO DEFINES what's in their "best interests"?????
Here's my great wisdom, to add to yours: "everyone should be good, and then everything will work out for the best." Let's see you top that one!
Clearly, when addressing violent crimes, Mr. Peterson hasn't been to Sweden recently. We're surpassed by countries like Honduras and Haiti...
Go Sweden! You can do it!
(Actually, I'm very sorry about it.)
3:50 "Noone goes to a sports event and boos the star"
Lia Thomas : "Hold my beer."
Lia Thomas is not a star though
My children hate socialism because I’ve helped them with starting their own businesses at very early ages, and they made good money doing them.
They understand, through experience, that solving other people’s problems can be very profitable.
So, socialistic ideas make them angry.
That's why it's so attractive to the lazy and stupid.
Socialism is just a new word for "robbery", but since it's done by the legal authority, it can be called, and understood as something else....something "legal" and therefore acceptable.
Everyone recognizes crime, and what it consists of, but there are people who don't mind as long as it benefits them. They are ONLY opposed to it when it does NOT benefit them. We normally call them "criminals", but there are so many ways to commit crimes while getting around the blatant appearance of crime. Just insert enough via's, turns, twists and apparent legalities in between the crime and it's consequences, and you have things like socialism. "Legality" is an interesting term as well, and often means something that is only a crime if a citizen does it, but not if the government does it, especially if it's in behalf of other citizens. Then it appears as if it's not in the interest of those committing it, and therefore not criminally motivated, and therefore not a crime.
I explained it to my daughter. FYI, She graduated No1 in her class. I asked her if she deserved better grades then the other kids but to be fair they should all get C's no matter how hard or how little they worked. She did not like that idea and that what I told her socialism is like.
Nice, u don’t understand the ideas of socialism and now your daughter to) Congrats, u did a great job!
I was not really comparing that to socialism, as it is defined, but more what it becomes in many cases. It was what it means to be a capitalist. You work harder than everyone else you get, not everyone, the benefits from it.@@johnr96
@@johnr96 😂 What he explained is, literally, socialism.
@@johnr96 Tell us, oh wise one. What are we missing?
As Yuri Bezmeov pointed out, the 'demoralized' can't see evidence for anything but what they want, no matter how real, how visceral, how devastating or how often it happens. They live in a perma-state of denial of reality and human nature.
Explain to her, that, thanks to capitalism, there are a few people that get all A, by being parasites and leveraging the work of others thanks to privilege they were born with or by paying slave wages and praying on desperate people born in third world countries. While everyone else get F even if they work super hard. She won't get a pension, she won't get any job because AI and automation owned by corporations will do them. She won't be able to get married in her fertility window, as people in their 20s can barely earn enough to look after themselves due to wage slavery, let alone build families and have kids. The environment will also be destroyed, and whatever job she chooses to do will be sent overseas at 1/10th of the cost. The capitalist will also buy all the properties and sell them to her at a 300% premium, and the interest on top of that will double what she will end up paying for the house. That's what capitalism is like.
The video didn't really live up to the title, so here is the explanation:
Few people read "The Social Contract" by Rousseau before they describe themselves as Socialist. They want the sharing and equality elements of TSC, but don't understand the Terms and Conditions of the contract:
Despite the slogan "Liberty, Equality, Brotherhood", it involves a serious sacrifice of liberty. Socialism - in Rousseau's terms - is NOT liberal at all. Read the book, and the history of "la Terreur" and Pol Pot's "Year Zero" to understand how the Devil is in the detail.
... and another thing:
Rousseau also wrote about national identity, which was needed to sustain The Social Contract. This led to the modern concepts of nationhood and Nationalism, which developed in France, Poland and across South America. This ends up with an interesting consequence - combine Nationalism and Socialism, and you get a very toxic mix which emerged in Germany in the 1930s. Throw Marxist Communism - which is an economic admixture - in, and the ideology becomes equally toxic. So it is that Rousseau's ideas have led to both left- and right-wing extremism.
The Social Contract is thus a deal with the Devil when you read the small print.
1. Now you need to read Rousseau to be a socialist?
2. I thought the definition of socialism was what was needed in the video (and what the critique is about that definition)
3. The first killed under the nazi regime was the socialist (yes there were socialist leaning people who supported the nazi’s in the beginning but they were killed of pretty quickly ones hitler got power)
'combine Nationalism and Socialism, and you get a very toxic mix which emerged in Germany in the 1930s' Misled and misleading. First, the term 'national' does not mean exactly 'nationalism'. Let's concentrate on Hitler. His political aims and ideologies were: - Revisionism and revenge for the 1919 Versailles treaty - Fight against 'internationales Finanzjudentum' as well as Anglosaxon capitalism - Fight against Bolshevism - racism - antisemitism. The political type of all developed countries is now unequivocally 'national welfare or sozialstaat', based on rule of law, democracy, free but regulated markets, capitalist companies, distribution of wealth, state-led institutions in infrastructure, education, health. Not socialist, because only comprising about 40% of the GNP.
Because they aren't taught definitions, history, economics or the philosophy behind fundamental rights. Worst of all, people have been taught erroneous ideas of what equality, fairness and selfishness are.
Money was invented as a means of enslavement by priest-kings, thousands of years ago. Still used that way today, in a technological age of surplus producing machines and co-operative, creative people.
Any critique of the monetary-market system? Do you think it's sustainable, just or healthy to continue on much longer?
@@coolioso808 lol, okay.
@@billmelater6470 sure just deny it without researching it yourself to see that it’s true, that’s one option that you decided to take.
Or think critically. That’s another option.
@@coolioso808 Buddy, I'm an Austrian. Go from there.
@@billmelater6470 Ok. So, you are saying you were brought up to believe in the Austrian School of Economics? Does everybody in Austria have to believe in the same thing? I'm from Canada and I'd give you 10 guesses if you think you can guess what 'school' of economics I believe in based on your judgments of Canadians.
'We're not embroiled in a proxy war with Russia.' Well that didn't age well...
Yeah that was my immediate response too.
Russia sensed weakness and took advantage. Even they forget history too.
We weren't...until Bribem & the democrats got in office.
The ussr was an ideological one russia is a geopolitical issue now
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:13 📚 People, including the speaker, admit to a general lack of knowledge about the history of socialism and radical left movements.
00:51 ⏳ The fall of the Berlin Wall is seen as ancient history by the younger generation, leading to a lack of understanding about the implications of socialism and the Cold War era.
01:44 ❤️ The emotional appeal of socialism often stems from compassion, which is a primary human motivator.
03:22 ⚖️ People can tolerate inequality as long as they perceive the system to be fair; otherwise, it becomes a recipe for unrest.
05:54 🌍 There are substantial positive economic improvements happening around the world, especially in developing countries, but this news isn't widely known or celebrated.
Made with HARPA AI
Students of American Schools don’t teach any history K through 12. I lived in Hawaii for 30 years to 2018 and was horrified that a great percentage of teenagers there didn’t know about Dec 7, 1941! The kids didn’t even know who JFK was. Many of the children didn’t know when Hawaii became a state. This comes from a state that spends more $ per student than any other state.
Even more important, did they know about Charles Martel, and Charlemagne? We have them to thank for halting the destruction of Europe in the eighth century, and the founding of the university system, among other things.
Capitalims is uneven distributuion of wealth, Socialism is even distribution of poverty.
Yeap, 0% distribution to the workers, and 100% to the collectivist boss. 99.9999% of the population have the same distribution of wealth, as in none. 🤣
There's North Norea, Venezuela California, NY
A more pertinent question would be ‘why do so many Americans believe the lies that they are told about socialism?’
Because they're credulous and stupid; they are educated to be like that.
An argument young people can understand---
Socialism is the _exact_ same thing as slavery. The only difference is that the government is your master and they are the ones entitled to the fruits of your labor.
Keep in mind, though, this is what most of them want. They want someone to care for them after their parents die. Of course, this is not what they will get.
You can't form an argument if you don't understand the meaning.
They think it's the other way around, and see themselves as "slaves" of their employer, or "the system" - AS IF they aren't getting paid to work. The problem of today's youth, is that they have nothing to compare their experiences with, other than their cushy life experiences, and they actually think they're "suffering". There will always be a spectrum in one's experience, no matter how narrow, and it will only be compared against itself, unless they can read and imagine the experiences of others. Still, those "other's" experiences don't seem as real as their own. They're "depressed" because they have such limited experience that there is nothing to compare such comfort and carefreeness with. When everything is at your fingertips, always, there is nothing to contrast it with, so they begin to compare with each other - and thus you have the tiktok World of insanity.
2:40 Everyone thinks they are the exception, not the norm.
There are good and bad points in any system.... he never mentions the extremes of capitalism but often focuses on socialism extremes
Yeah, he’s a product of western system, which is fucking scared of socialism and communism. Fckn pussies, greed and with big ego.
One system is approached as a zero-sum game; the other is not. It's not really the excesses of capitalism that is the problem as much as the excesses of _corporatism._ It's _corporatism_ that requires guardrails (like enforceable anti-trust legislation), along with a tax system that doesn't penalize small business for being small.
Capitalism built the modern world. The cult of Marx did not ;)
He's a conman who takes money from big capitalists. He has to present capitalism as divine and beyond question.
Capitalism is far from perfect but also far better than the alternatives.
There's a reason why, given the choice, more people choose to live in capitalist countries than socialist ones.
Big part of it is the concept of money and what the central banking allows government to do.
If government can finance what they want and send billions of dollars to foreign countries, it is natural to imagine that money is an abstract concept that can be distributed at will.
We need to educate people about money and about the scam of central banking.
As a former Fed watcher who understands central banking, it's hard to follow your logic. We no longer pan money from stream beds. Our "scam" money created by debt and our own and the government's creditworthiness by spending the cash and issuing an interest bearing bond to the creditor.
The national debt is not a ticking time bomb, rather it is a measure of our net financial wealth in the form of Social Security and Medicare, public and private pensions, and our strong financial system including the central bank, among other creditors. The majority of our debt is owned by Americans. Not China.
Whether it's a "scam" or not, central banking is here to stay; there's no free exchange across borders without it -- unless one wants to become a hermit economy that only trades with itself and no one else. That said, the Fed has a responsibility to stabilize the currency, IN SPITE OF government's predilection for profligate spending. When our Treasury begins to rely solely or even chiefly on the Fed for its supply of money, that's when the dollar will lose its status as the reserve currency of the world and Americans will begin to feel what it's like to live in the Wymar Republic. Don't expect politicians to care; they've got theirs and always will; it's We The People who have to care, and we can only care if we understand the system as it is, not what we want it to be.
What you are saying is actually how it works. Money is arbitrary and just an expression of the power of the government to enforce it's will. The US government can print infinite amounts of money to buy whatever is for sale in dollars which includes everything within the territory it claims sovereignty over and much more besides.
@@MrMarinus18 Yea, that is true in theory. In reality, spending is limited by law, inflation, and the bond market. The US could, but is not allowed to, print as much money as it needs. It must match spending with tax revenue and borrowing.
That is, issuing debt as a credit worthy safe asset the bond market wants to buy. The primary dealer banks are required to bid at auction, but not necessarily buy though someone will make a winning bid. However, the yield will likely be very high and the price low.
That can become troublesome, especially with a credit rating downgrade. Too much money in circulation can cause an imbalance of the money supply relative to GDP thus asset or consumer inflation depending on whether it is invested to buy goods and services. Taxation can temper that imbalance.
@@RoobieRhoo The whole idea of the money supply actually isn't really based on any evidence that I can see. The country that has printed the most money is suffering devastating deflation.
The connection between inflation and money seems logical but also just not real. Rather inflation is about power and resources. What is demanded for something because of the power of those that control it or it's scarcity.
7:06 Based on the UN stats, absolute poverty is going down as a whole, but forest area and forest area as a proportion of total land area are both decreasing. More areas are being protected, but this doesn't seem to align with "ecological news is positive"
So you think pollution in Western countries is worse now than 50 years ago????
And exactly where is that forest area being lost? Not Western countries either. In places that try to be Socialist, right?
@@willnitschke I’m just pointing out the fact that there is a “partial truth” to what Peterson’s bringing up. I do think as a result of the increase in businesses, people, building, etc, from 50 years ago to now that yes, pollution is worse in Western countries than before. I could definitely be wrong but I haven’t seen any stats immediately disproving me, maybe you could pull them up rather than taking the woke ‘moral high ground’ approach you abhor?
And again, the loss of forested area is a statistic relative to the world, not to any particular country. It doesn’t mean it’s necessarily western, but it also doesn’t mean it’s necessarily socialist either. And just to point it out, I’m not a fan of socialism as a governing force. Socialist policies sure, but trying to replace capitalism when it’s been so fruitful overall doesn’t make sense to me.
@@alvaradoac21 Yes you are totally wrong, Western pollution problems these days are mostly non-existent. What's worse you admit your belief is based on zero information, which means you're just talking out of your bum, aren't you?
I also didn't write anywhere that Socialist countries cause all the pollution that is still around. It's almost exclusively poor countries in addition to Socialist states such as China and countries that remain poor because they try to be Socialist. But India has its pollution issues also, for example.
As I understand what he says is that young people don't have the understanding to realize what is possible besides socialism. They have been living in socialism all their lives because their parents gave them everything to include room and board, education, entertainment, etc. Thus when they go into the real world and have to earn a living themselves they want somebody to give them all those things even though they put out very little or no effort. They don't understand that they have to earn everything they want. It's a shock.
VERY good observation. Which explains why young people are so much FOR socialism. ↗♥♥🎯
Got a Bernie Sanders ad on this video LOL!
You all tell them I’m so tired of trying I can’t……..1000’s of years of history and they can’t figure it out….freedom is only for a responsible and moral people
When the Berlin Wall fell down which way did the people run?
Citizens of a communist society voted with their feet.
Berlin wall was built to prevent that kind of voting in first place.
I remember in the early aughts, a young man asked me, and a far older man, too, what communism was. I said, in an ideal world, communism and democracy are the same thing. In an actual world, they are polar opposites.
Simply put, if you believe the government should direct everything, then you believe in a communist philosophy. If you think government should be much more limited, while the people have the right to decide, you believe in Democracy/Republicanism.
hmm the problem is when crimes arent reported to the police which is becoming more frequent because the police are showing they dont respond means that the official stats will show less crimes, however a good place to look is at businesses and insurance figures which show a marked increase in crimes leading to big retail stores leaving certain areas and cities due to theft losses and staff attacks
If you gave people who wanted socialist programs the programs they desired and the only caveat was that ONLY THEY had to fund them and only they participate in them without debt.... they wouldn't do it. They only want the programs if EVERYONE ELSE does them as well.
Well yes.if everyone doesn't share the burden, then it would be a social program.
@brucemc1581 its called a public option. I'm here to tell you like all social programs, they all fail and crumble under their own weight like the ponzi schemes they all are.
Not really. The basic idea of socialism is participatory decision-making, both economically and politically. That’s why the left leaning people support various grassroots organizations and talk about inclusion so much. Whereas having a progressive taxation scale is not so much about socialism as it is about social democracy. In socialism you can tax people only if all people subjected to taxation agree through participatory decision-making to be taxed
@MinimaAmoralia socialism always fails for the same reasons. More people on it than paying into it. Germany has a public option for Healthcare. It is the best system
If my boss said that he would give the company to the workers instead of selling it too some rich guy (which he is doing) so the workers could elect how we wanted to proceed then that would be pretty cool and also the definition of socialism
‘How could they know, they’re never taught anything about it’
Books Jordan… books!
People hate reading what doesn't interest them.
I have an uphill struggle trying to persuade many young people these days to read a real, paper, analogue book. Sad, but true.
That assumes they can read.
I genuinely don't understand what the "draw" towards socialism is. It's the same principle as slavery. You don't own your labour or yourself, your 'master' - the government does and 'redistributes' it based on what it thinks you need, while assuming full responsibility for your life thus controlling every aspect of it.
Genuine compassion is charity - either financial or simply helping out your neighbour when they need it, without expecting anything in return. There's nothing compassionate about socialism - it's pure evil.
I think you don’t know what the definition is. Socialism is “the community own the means of production”.
It doesn’t have to be the state who does anything.
It could just be your co-workers electing the board in the company instead of the shareholders.
Socialism can mean many things. Doesn’t have to be the state owning everything and anything.
I think you're mixing up your definitions. Socialism is just a large umbrella of multiple philosophy and economic model that aims to reduce inequalities of life quality.
Communisme is a specific socialist government that in its applied form centralized the means of production and shared ressources according to peoples needs.
Volkaer - it's because they've been lied to and told that socialism is all these nice things, helping people, the fire dept, libraries, etc. They also suffer from the joke of "owning the means of production" which is nothing but a mirage in the real desert of actual socialism. It's too hard for them to resist the concept of something for nothing, and they're even told it's not that. Yet that is it's only real draw, otherwise they know there is no real benefit over what they have now. Because they've been brainwashed in the "truth is relative" lie, they can hold conflicting ideas without feeling the dissonance.
@@lukasvisby1156 I find it interesting that you and someone else who says he doesn't have the definition right, both of you, provide different definitions for socialism.
@@Volkaer socialists haven't participated in government; well they see all the corruption and notice it comes from capitalist, which is correct, and they miss that even if you can point to capitists today socialism can't remove corruption any better because behind all those capitalist still exist working class citizens that believe in those policies.
Tldr: you don't get people that all agree.
When you are young you have no perspective because of a lack of living and life experiences. It’s not your fault, but you can learn and develop real life experiences and then come up with a proper opinion. It takes time and being open minded.
Indeed, open-mindedness and critical thinking skills take time to develop and even some adults don't develop them that much. Or they have them in some areas, but gaps or bias in other areas, like JBP.
Take a look at: "Peter Joseph - Critique of Jordan B. Peterson (vs Slavoj Zizek: "Happiness: Capitalism vs. Marxism")", a well reasoned response to Peterson with references and visuals. What do you think after you watch that? Or do you resist even looking at something like that?
"This combustible mixture of ignorance and power, sooner or later, is going to blow up in our faces." -- Carl Sagan
"Science is more than a body of knowledge. It is a way of thinking, a way of skeptically interrogating the universe, with a fine understanding of human fallibility." -- Carl Sagan
"If we are unable to ask skeptical questions to interrogate those who tell us that something is true, to be skeptical of authority, then we are up for grabs for the next charlatan, political or religious, who comes along." -- Carl Sagan
*The Road To Hell, Is Paved With Good Intentions*
*intentions*
Why communism failed. From a concerned content creator.
ua-cam.com/video/dOJzpVgq0wo/v-deo.html
Sadly, these are not good intentions. It's strictly control-based.
But the express lane is paved with brutal effciency
Young people believe in socialism because it’s ducking amazing to think of the best scenarios. When we grow up we have to slide in which ever way suits us, and how far suits us depending on where we stand. There becomes an amazing amount of factors that come into it just when we get to the point of moving out of our parental home. And if we’re honest, a lot of those lessons don’t get learned a lot in this day because the children don’t move out and begin ‘their journey’. I suppose in that regard it’s how you judge which angle made this the way…either way, the young ones that are ‘the future’ have absolutely no way of learning how to go on in life indipendantky. It’s these times I’m glad I have terminal cancer I think. I could not be happier that I lived in this day and age. There will not be a better one
What is "independently"?
No human has ever made it on their own. Even before history people couldn't survive on their own. They needed help from their tribe to survive.
Socialism to me feels like the natural way to do things. To look at things with a logical view and decide what is the best way to do things. Not to do more capitalist no matter how often it fails at what we try to brute force it into. It was brutally imposed on Chile and was a colossal failure in Russia. In both cases it was also imposed upon the people by force and by violently overthrowing the democratically elected government.
Also it's the lack of any social safety nets that make people stay with their parents for so long. Scandinavia has one of the lowest levels of adults who live with their parents of any place in the world. While the US has had it's numbers go up as it has dismantled social services.
The simple fact is that humans are social creatures and need support. If you take away government support that means people turns towards the family instead.
If you believe anyone made it on their own ever you have really been watching WAY too much propaganda. Success especially after the industrial revolution is entirely dependent on what society wants to give you. The success of the people after WW2 had mostly to do with powerful unions and the threat of communism making government give them a good standard of living.
@@MrMarinus18 it "feeels" does it?
See, there's your problem. You're "feels" have ZERO to do with reality. Which means your opinions based on your "feels" are nothing but fantasy.
@@jameseverett4976 No idea what exactly you are replying to as you don't really use any specifics or arguments, you just dismiss things.
The grass is always greener. What you gain does not make up for what you lose, and it never will.
Capitalism = competition, freedom to choose, responsibility
Socialism = envy of your neighbors success under capitalism
Communism = theft of your neighbors property due to envy ad laziness on your part
Well, yes, but socialism is also stealing your neighbor's property based on envy and "need". Fundamentally, there isn't much difference between communism and socialism as one would expect since socialism gave rise to communism. Socialism tends to be "nicer" in their theft a socialist will still murder you, same a communist, for not handing over your property, the socialist will be more likely to do it by way of "law" and the communist more likely to do it by way of violent revolution. Either way you're dead.
A good mix of socialism (I mean the real one, not today’s woke bs version of it that some tend to want to turn it into) and regulated capitalism is best. See where the purest form of capitalism has led America (and the world?) 2008 subprime crisis, US: exorbitant medical care costs, people losing their homes, millions of people having to do multiple shifts for earning the vital minimum etc…
Socialism has brought good in society in let’s say Europe, specifically, look at France (even though not perfect but which country is): best healthcare system, valuable workers right, etc… And yes the french do strike a lot (but work a lot too, it’s still in the top 10 economies in the world) for good reason: governments want to fuck their hardly earned rights, acquired by courageous workers and leftists polititians in the 20th century.
I’ m sorry but americans are f*cked by their governments and are brainwashed enough into a sort of patriotism/work/earn as much as you can/it’s good for your country/be proud, but with little in return.
Yes if you manage well you can have a lot of freedom and success but the vast majority of people are living on the edge because >> zero social help, earn money or die.
So no, socialism doesn’t necessarily equal Russian stalinist dictatorship; that’s cold war ideology.
That’s a bit of a caricature at best, and way too oversimplified. Responsibility for your own wellbeing yes, but capitalism teaches you nothing about what your responsibilities for someone else are. The way you put this tells me everything about what’s wrong with the American frame of reference. There’s no middle ground to you when it comes to the way we organize our societies. It’s either capitalism or socialism and communism. There’s no middle ground for you people. The thought of social democracy, simply put a social system combined with a free market economy doesn’t even pop into your mind while it’s basically the main form of which European countries organize themselves.
@@kerngezond6953 "capitalism teaches you nothing about what your responsibilities for someone else are. "
if you're not my family, I owe you exactly NOTHING, except what I choose to give freely.
And I cannot use my rights, to deny you your rights.
See, it's very simple.
"The way you put this tells me everything about what’s wrong with the American frame of reference. "
this statement tells me how stupid you are to not understand what a generalized statement is for.
"There’s no middle ground to you when it comes to the way we organize our societies."
lies. you have literally NO way of knowing this from teh comment I made. you're making wild baseless accusations. I in fact live in the grey areas, and love teh nuance, and am a true Libertarian in every way (middle ground, give and take).
"The thought of social democracy"
Politically Correct way of saying, COMMUNISM.
"simply put a social system combined with a free market economy doesn’t even pop into your mind while it’s basically the main form of which European countries organize themselves."
and we're not Europe, nor do we want to be Europe. look at the problems Europe has. Can't feed themselves, not energy independent, constant wars, currency problems, bankruptcies, dependent upon the US healthcare system for research, dependent upon the US for military defense, no free speech, no right to self defense, lack of due process, etc.
Move to Europe if you like it so much, problem solved. And we'll all be happier. You get to live your utopian ideals, and we get to live a life without you around.
Wrong. Competition, freedom in economics is liberal markets economics. People often confound it with capitalism, which is possible but not necessary in such an environment.
Capitalism = make more pie.
Socialism = steal someone else's pie.
UA-cam = idiots with Internet connection
capitalism: we are 3 to make a pie, one bring the ingredient, the 2 other cook, then the one that bring the ingredient take the pie and give back a part, or just a bite, depends on the market.
socialism:we are 3 to make a pie, we all provide the ingredient and take a part proportional to our contribution.
Communism:we are 3 to make a pie, we all provide the ingredient and take a part proportional to our need.
and effectivelly the best strategy for getting more pie would be;
capitalism: make more pie
socialism:make more pie
communism: do nothing and wait for the other to make more pie, but since nobody's doing anything it doesn't work, so wait for the state to make rule and do what you're forced to do.
@@gizel4376 You are missing the part where the government takes an ever larger proportion away of the pie and you may or may not ever see a return from that.
@@cattysplat whatever system you have the government always take its share and you never knew if it's gonna fund a proxy war or pay for your child education.
@@cattysplatThat happens in every government. Even capitalist ones.
10:03 😯😯😯its almost like technically and greater social accountability have improved safety while aloowing crime to be more visible, who woulda thought
Also what does that have to do with socialism
And what about the stage of communism where parents appoint each other any “ wrongdoing “ for giving some food or stuff ! Like Northern Korea
That's not a "stage of communism"
That's a feature of dictatorships. It's also in right wing dictatorships.
Also unlike what grifters like Peterson will claim there is no example of any socialist country becoming a dictatorship through democratic means. There is examples of socialist countries becoming fascists dictatorships usually because of foreign intervention like with Spain or Chile. But all 'communist' dictatorships like Russia and China were established by force. Mainly because the countries were fiercely anti-socialist and wouldn't accept any compromise.
Socialism cannot work in a high-functioning society. In can work in smaller, more closely knit groups, but for society at large? It is practically impossible without any sort of excessively overbearing authority. And good luck finding an authority that will enforce their power only as far as to keep the system going and not for their own personal gain and detriment to all others.
The reason why it is impossible is due to human nature. In order for a socialist society to function, all people need to pull their weight evenly. All of their inputs are pooled and everyone takes out that which they need to survive. Provided everyone does their job to the best of their ability, this would result in a sustainable society fit for all. However, we know that won't happen. It's human nature. Some people will slack off and either not put anything in or what they do put in would severely lack in quality. Some people will indulge themselves in more than what they need, taking away that which other people need to survive. Crime would still exist.
If any number of players show up to the game unwilling to play properly, then the game falls apart.
That's why you'd need an authority to keep people in check. However, once you go down that route, there is no practical way to limit the powers that authority has.
Look at the book Animal Farm. The very fact that the pigs and sheep exist *at all* in that story is proof that Socialism cannot work. Everyone needs to agree to play along. Then, and only then, can it work. But until you get a 100% acceptance, the system is not possible.
Why does it have to be so extreme?
Social systems and public companies function just fine.
Most of the ideals of capitalism are build on myth. No country grew rich from capitalism and everywhere it's been tried from Chile to Russia to Iraq it's been a massive failure. All the rich countries had massive state involvement in the economy and massive robbing of foreign territories by their national militaries.
Also George Orwell was a very ardent socialist who fought in the Spanish civil war.
Animal farm is not about that socialism is unviable. It's about the importance of civic engagement and the importance to be skeptical of what the powerful people in society tell you.
He believed very strongly in democratic socialism and he considered it absolutely essential that the public remain politically engaged and not let the elite just do what they want.
1984 actually comes from his own experiences being surveilled by the British government as a suspected communist and his job in India where he had to tell lies and propaganda to pacify the people.
@@MrMarinus18 "......and not let the elite just do what they want." Good luck with that one. You'll need a sh_t ton of luck and a LOT more, especially because socialism REQUIRES absolute and TOTALITARIAN power of the government. Either Georgy was mentally half-baked, or he wasn't really a socialist as you claim - at least not AFTER he wrote the book.
@@jameseverett4976 Extremism requires absolute power including capitalism. The first hyper capitalism was established by force and American hyper capitalism was also established by a dramatic increase in social control.
It's not entirely a coincidence that the US has the largest prison population in the entire world and that it's usually the political right that wants to expand the state's power to control people.
@@jameseverett4976 George Orwell was a socialist before and after he wrote the book. That's why he was so angry about the USSR cause he does believe in the people's power and that there should not be some absolute oligarchy.
He was even spied on during WW2 as were all other socialists.
9:20 I somewhat agree on the media.
However I see the need for real journalists and proper journalism, especially in the wake of October 7.
The challenge for old school media is that they did not understand the new communication channel and it’s potential.
So they tried the old subscription and ads financing.
The new channel opens up for everyone to watch news from all over the world.
So you can’t just quote TT or something equal.
You gotta find you spot and your customers that are willing to pay.
Today even with UA-cam who as you said have everything, the challenge is fake news!
I believe that finding new business models in combination with legislation is necessary.
"Why young people don't understand Socialism".. let's ask a man who doesn't understand Socialism
Did his facts hurt your Socialist feelings, hon?
Why Jordan does not understand a socialism.
Or much of anything
@@jotsingh8917 socialism cannot be "understood". Understanding is a rational process and socialist theory takes an irrational populist approach - 100% of it, ever. People don't understand anything aboutsocialism, but rather people who have heightened envy and authoritarian tendency go along with socialist ideas.
@@soulcapitalist6204 The Military Industrial Complex is enjoying socialism. And so does the for-profit medical industry with billions of subsidies making healthcare in the U.S. 30% higher than in normal western countries. And how about the price gouging fossil industry with tax benefits beyond vomit. Denmark or Norway are a practicing socialism that benefit the most number of people and not some corporate crooks who paid off congress to get these benefits.
I can tell you right now. It was social media. They sold me the lie that socialism just meant working together. It never discussed the fact that capitalism already does that and has the psychological aspect of human nature accounted to it too.
Why?
Why is hoarding the fruits of other people's work 'human nature'?
Capitalism is indeed encouraging people to work together. The problem is that a tiny subset can hoard the products of the for themselves and deny it to those that worked to create it.
This comment strongly implies that you still don't know what it means.
@@MrMarinus18 Because Socialists demand everyone care for them, so doesn't work. Capitalism means before I get what I want, I have to provide a useful produce or service that you're happy with first.
@@Xavier_Coogat_the_Mambo_King Your comment strongly implies that you still don't have the slightest clue what Socialism means.
@@willnitschke 🤣🤣🤣🤣 "socialism is when the government does stuff"
No its not. You've heard people use the word wrong over and over so you think you know what it means, but you don't.
I got a Bernie Socialist Ad prior to this video. YT?!!! 🧐
I never cease to be completely taken in by Dr. Peterson. As far as I’m concerned, he is the Aristotle of our time.
You could also assert 'Helping younger/old members of the family is not a function of the parents.' Because the state (not the 'government') has taken the role of the family/clan/ethnic group in supporting, with huge advantage. You must live in a dissociated society. If you would live in a monoethnic country like Japan, you would never think like that. Because the willingness to share is the bigger the more monoethnic. In this discussion, it is necessary to know other socioeconomic models as are those of western and southern Europe, Africa, Islamic, east Asia.
People are generous and indulge in charity because that's an aspect of human nature. It has nothing to do with your skin colour.
@@willnitschkePeople are bad and hate to contribute to charities. This assertion is as much justified. The question is: how much, who, under which circumstances, why? You confound skin colour with ethnicity, or more general, 'the others'.It is a proven fact of sociology that monocultural societies function better, are more collaborative, although they may have drawbacks.
@@HansGrob People obviously aren't bad and hate to contribute to charities because if that was true, charities would not exist. Hence, making up nonsense that is obviously factually wrong is never justified.
There are no "proven facts" in sociology, which is not a hard science. (Even if it showed what you claim it does, which it doesn't.) It is very rarely the case that you can separate so called 'race' from ethnicity, but that's an irrelevant point anyway. What people like you are doing is seeking a distinction between "them" and "us" so you can ferment division, and on completely idiotic grounds too.
@@willnitschke You have misunderstood my first sentence. It was a parody. The existence of charities does not disprove the existence of evil. Ever heard of the Bible? Cain and Abel. About 10% of population are Cainites, that means they tend to commit crimes and atrocities. Only the presence of the good majority of people with their societal manners and laws prevents hell on earth. You are not European, because it's here that the effect of modern migration can be studied best.
@@HansGrob The existence of charities only proves that people are not 100% evil. Core logic fail on your part, champ.
Approx. 10% of the population are possibly sociopaths. They don't commit crimes or atrocities routinely, although they can be arseholes. Another 5% or less are possibly psychopaths, but they don't routinely commit crimes or atrocities either, although I would not recommend hanging around one. So basically you continue to talk crap. 😉
Socialism works just fine for the rich...they just don't like the rest of the people to have it. Along with understanding that police, defence, infrastructure, firebrigades, hostpitals, schools are all socialist. No one ideology is the answer. Helping people to help themselves shouldn't be a problem.
police, firemen, etc are NOT examples of socialism. They are services paid for by taxes.
People will naturally lean towards the idea of socialism because they haven’t experienced it yet. That’s when it hits home for everyone.
Can you define socialism, because if you can't, it's easy to move the goal posts when giving examples.
Are Denmark or Finland not democratic socialist countries? They rank high on health and happiness rankings every year. USA has almost no social programs, doesn't even have Medicare For All and it's got some of the worst income inequality levels in the world and also some of the worst violence and prison rates in the world. Socialism sucks and capitalism is good? Hardly.
Now, it isn't that simple. Because there are still problems with the monetary-market system as a structure, but we can learn from examples that more social support programs do correlate to better health and happiness outcomes than less social support programs.
Scandinavia is capitalist, and it is due to the excess created by their market economies that they are able to offer “social” programmes……they also enjoy a high level of social cohesion. The United States is a third world country with a first world military…..it is a disparate group of highly individualised people who only look out for themselves…..it’s everyone for themselves due to poor social cohesion……socialism never works…..and will never work, regardless of how many people you kill…..
When and where are school children taught the truth about Socialism . Capitalism or any other Ism . I'm 84 and my first school was a National school run by a Labour government . Could have been run by Martians , for all it mattered. Where young people are brainwashed by ideology it is within higher education . Dons , Professors , Lecturers all painted with the same Marxist brush.
Socialists want everybody on the same basement floor , except themselves who they believe should be kept at a higher level. This also applies to Capitalists, who wants to join a club where everyone is a member.
Teaching history , is very selective , the country where you live in will depend upon the narrative .
The Jewish Holocaust is universally known . Why it started gets less publicity , Hitler's racism is the normal culprit . How many none Jews has heard of Tsar Alexander III's " May Laws " an anti Jewish pogrom introduced in 1882 . It was entirely responsible for the exodus of two million Jews from 1884 to 1924 . Mainly to the USA , S.America and Europe.
Many of the migrants would harbour Marxist sympathies , even though the Russian revolution didn't happen until Oct/Nov 1917 . Most of the ideology stemmed from the mid 19th century.
The reason socialism won't go away is not because our proclivity towards kindness or compassion it's because we used to live in tribes of hunter gatherers for more than 95% of human history.
In those tribes, which were small - not more than 150 people - everything was shared, money did not exist and nobody was "rich".
We don't live in that era anymore thanks to the invention of property and money that happened as part of the agricultural revolution.
Why people are not taught this I do not know but all resentment based politics stems from this lack of knowledge.
They also did things like abandon old people to die when they could no longer contribute to the community. You should study more of the details of those tribes. Practicality was not thrown out the window, and the harshness of reality always bore down on them, so they did things you would not approve of, because reality is not accommodating of your ideals. But of course you don't want that part known today. You've lived so long in protection from the brutality of the real world, that you actually think your imagination of how it "could be" has some validity.
@@jameseverett4976 well that's a whole lot of projection on your part.
Of course old people were abandoned in a nomadic tribe if they could not move. What makes you think I didn't know that already?
"did things you would not approve of" - how would you know what I approve of?
As for "your imagination of how it "could be" has some validity" that seems to apply to socialism and not my vision which is rooted in reality.
Young people don’t even know which bathroom to use.
your kids must be really confused
I love how you do the chapter sections in the description. Others aren't as good as yours.
Unders Stalins socialism he made all the farm land government property and people starved because of it.
Stalin was communist not socialist
@@davidcatanzaro2624same same, youre playing word games. It’s all versions of Marxism, I think JP was speaking to you.
A dumb take. USSR was under severe sanctions, West banned buying anything but wheat from USSR basically. For Stalin there was no other option to make money to buy industrial equipment from the West (Russian Empire left a poor legacy and USSR had a lot of catching up to do in terms of technology) than to take wheat from the communities. And in the 20s, there was a worldwide food shortage. Both those factors contributed to what is now being marketed as intentional genocide of Ukrainians, despite the fact that other regions of USSR suffered no less.
@@Aiken47No it really isnt.
ah yes like kr sln and lirbr regme
The people most resentful of success are not those who tried and failed, but those who want to justify not trying.
BINGO!
You should take care of yourself before attempting to take care of others. If you are in a precarious position you risk being toppled over by the weight of someone else's problems. Sharing is fine on. Bag of chips but not on resources that are scarce as well as required to sustain you. Share your example to help others. Share your wisdom to help others.
Thats how society breaks down into individuals. Absolutism at its worst.
As a socialist I actually agree on this.
That's why I think workers should not be demanded to bail out failing businesses by getting lower wages and should not be taxes to give subsidies to businesses. If a businessesmen is too incompetent to make a profit he should be allowed to fail and shouldn't be bailed out. Billionares should also not have a lower tax rate than millionares. They can spare more money so they should. There is a significant case of deminishing returns to money.
As a socialist I oppose capitalism because of your reasoning. Capitalists should not be allowed to hoard scarce resources that everyone needs to then sell them back to use at inflated prices.
For example I believe the US should nationalize it's oil as the profit margins are just outrageous. The high price at the pump has no justification other than just profit margins cause they have power.
Indeed. Share your resources, don't hoard them to create artificial scarcity.
I learned about socialism first-hand by living in China for a year as an English teacher.
I don't think you ever experienced socialist or Communisme then. China has been one of the most capitalist society since the 2000.
Before 2000 it would have been possible, but extremely rare for them to employ foreign English teacher. Even then it would have been in one of the opened economic zone (Shenzhen, shanghai, etc) which would not have used a communist economic model.
@@huguesparadis414 _"China has been one of the most capitalist society since the 2000."_
Wrong. They still have socialism or a mixed economy at best. China has never had capitalism. China has a socialist economy because the government still has a tremendous amount of control over private enterprises. There are private companies that operate in China, and not everything is owned by the government; however, with a single party in power, the government is able to change the direction of the economy significantly with the stroke of a pen. Therefore, there are a lot of companies that are unsure of exactly what will happen in the future because they are at the mercy of the government.
@@huguesparadis414 For what it's worth I lived there in 1997. And it's less the "economics" and more the social control. Like when a Chinese teacher I was hanging out with at a pub tells me to change the subject because the wrong person might be listening to us. Or when the local police shut down that same pub because it "serves too many foreigners" and demanded a bribe in order to reopen. Or when I was followed by the same security detail for a month when I arrived to start my job, and they made sure to let me know they were following me. It's the day to day tyranny that makes it so insidious, not the grand scale economic theft.
@@Historia.Magistra.Vitae. What you describe is dictatorship vs democratic. Capitalism is the selling of goods for money. China does that a great deal these days.
He doesn’t even understand socialism
For those of you that are ignorant…..
Capitalism= elite control
Communism= government control
Socialism= worker control
Whenever you hear redistribution of wealth they are talking about communism and NOT socialism, Socialism has nothing to do with redistribution of wealth or government control, it’s about worker ownership and workers control and it eliminates the rich elites from a society
That's still bad regardless of intent, you can't fully get rid of "elite" or class or hierarchy. They will and always will exist because it's our human nature.
Some people can just be as, if not, better than you over yourself. Or you yourself is better than everyone else to a degree. That is something you CAN'T get rid of.
Simply put, we're all created equal but some are equally better than others.
@
Yes elite control will always exist in a capitalist system
turn up the volume
Cuz on paper socialism sounds idealistic and poetically beautiful and everybody gets along and everybody gets a fair shake and so on and so on but inevitably that's not how it works out and some form of cast takes over and some form of dictator starts running the show and then the greed kicks in, or worse ideologies get added into it
No matter what the system human nature always kicks in.
@@rpstephans A System with checks and balances is far better than a dictatorship disguised as Socialism or Comunism. No system is perfect, but some are WAY better than others.
That assumes it takes time to get ugly, when in reality it start out ugly.
What "paper" is that and where can I find it? Maybe Albert Einstein, yeah I don't remember that one fondly
Or maybe I haven't gotten to the part where socialism is described as poetically beautiful
I do often hear Marxists shit on idealism
Just explain about investment and the forms of return that might be available for that contribution, Tax, those returns not in the form made and or less than the amount contributed constitutes socialism. Not complicated.
All stupid claims are not complicated.
@@willnitschke And many are deliberately complicated to conceal and delude. See anybody can do catchy little throw away lines.
@@jamescrydeman540 Yeah that's the other side of the coin. See it all the time. Half wits babbling a lot of technical gibberish to hide their ignorance.
The reason a lot of young people do not understand socialism is that there are too much of social safety net in this country as it is.
i was 12 when i figured this out..just takes basic logic to understand
unlikely you had enough information to at that age to learn what most adults cant figure out in a lifetime- the 3 political ideologies that come out of the french revolution 1789
what you would have heard was some biased views which you no doubt still hold due to lack of info and i bet its intentional
Peterson doesnt understand and he pretends hes does and hes qualified thou in different field than what he talks on
Looks like you didn't figure it out.
You figured something out.
What is sustainable about market capitalism? Anybody?
You clearly have some figuring out to do…..
@@coolioso808 if you can't do the research, that's on you, it's not up to us to spoon feed it to you (unless you sit in a high chair and wear a bib). You have all the information in the world at your fingertips.
"What is sustainable about market capitalism?"
(because I, coolioso808 can't research this myself because I shouldn't have to use my brain, that's too much work, everyone should just do the work for me while I sit on my ass and expect everyone to do everything for me, while contributing nothing to society)
- socialism 101
(a system that BENEFITS dole bludgers while simultaneously STEALING from the PEOPLE who WORK HARD for THEIR money)
@@Time_to_Believe_in_Yourself I guess you are going to be very flabbergasted to find out that I don't actually need you do to any research for me, or anybody else, I've been doing it all myself and I know for a fact that market capitalism is socially, economically and environmentally unsustainable. I asked the question to see if anybody else knows. I guess you missed the memo.
Funny how you said "stealing from the people who work hard for their money" as socialism, since what do you think big, wealthy business owners of private companies do all the time? Did you know the biggest form of theft is wage theft? It's been studied, formalized and data is released to the public for everybody to see. Wage theft is by employers stealing money from the workers who worked so hard to produce for the wealthy owner.
I don't know if you really want a solution to the monetary-market problem or not. You don't want stealing and you want benefits for your hard work, okay, that's fine, but you are not going to see that happen in any sustainable, just or healthy way if the monetary-market system continues to be the driving force behind the social system we inherited as a species from thousands of years ago.
If you've done your research, perhaps you've come across Peter Joseph's Culture in Decline webseries or Ubuntu Contributionism by Michael Tellinger or Dr. James Gilligan's work on poverty, or David Graeber's work on debt.
The problem with psychological literature is it is often conducted by people looking for particular answers, whom use leading questions, in a setting that is rife with untruthfullness. I've not met one person who isn't resentful towards someone or some thing in some way - you simply have to let a person talk and talk and talk some more with little to no interuptions. I've met thousands of people from all backgrounds, mostly in non-clinical environments.
And this is why psychiatrists and psychologists are the worst people to conduct psychological evaluations. It just so happens that they are (mostly) the best at interpreting the data.
Wow, you sound exactly like an angry child tossing a temper tantrum. 😂