Those countries have more wealth because they create it, not because they steal it. Each idea, technology, product, service... adds wealth, because those things improve the life of those people who get it. Poor countries would be richer if they use their reasources to create and distribute products. If we give wealth to poor people, they will remain poor. We must give them education, equal oportunities, but not give them wealth for nothing.
@@DavidLopez-up3qm Actually, that exploitation is debatable, as third world countries receive medicine, food and assistance from the West. Maybe you are talking about classic colonialism, which was what made rich blacks sell other blacks to Jews, who brought the slaves to the New World.
@@josephang9927 of course, education is essential to empowering the lower class but if you really think about it - what incentive do the rich have to empower these people? It would be much more difficult to hoard wealth and power if we were all on an equal playing field and thus, it's advantageous for the rich to keep the poor impoverished.
angelbrotherhood No it doesn’t, whoever these ideas belong to I never found them in Marx-Engels’ or Lenin’s collected works nor in the writings I’ve read of Trotsky, Luxemburg, De Leon, Kautsky and Plekhanov. He seems to have made up most of it himself.
The communists/socialists were against traditional cultures. They banned Ukrainians, Russians, Chinese, Koreans and amongst others from: wearing traditional clothing, listening to their folk music, practising their religions, replacing folk architecture with 'socialist realism'(Also 'functionalism' and the like), (sometimes) even speaking their languages. I do not see any reason why those Filipino communist rebel fighters would do the same thing and generally, I don't see any reason why most Marxist-Leninists and Maoists would have abandoned this habit.
Unionization has nothing to do with socialism because it maintains the same relations of workers to the means of production. Class is not directly related to wealth disparity or "competence of management" or other things brought up in the polemic above. It is a social relation to the means of production. Capitalism is a system in which private ownership of the means of production gives control over the distribution of surplus to the capitalist class, not to the people who are producing society's goods. There's no democracy over the workplace in capitalism because the economy is considered outside the purview of democratic decision making. Redistribution of wealth and "larger government" also has nothing to do with socialism, for the same reasons--it leaves intact the relations of production. Socialism is NOT government management of the means of production. Socialism requires WORKER control over the means of production. The lecturer probably believes that Obama is a socialist. Government management of capitalism is called Social Democracy and is what happens in countries like Sweden, where people are far happier and better taken care of, by the way, than in the United States. These things are "hard to think about" because of the constant indoctrination and apologizing from people who benefit from capitalism. People should check out Market Socialism and the work of economists like Richard D. Wolff. Also, Marxism-Leninism and Communism are NEVER used interchangeably, except I suppose by the lecturer. Nor is "Marxism" utopian, that accusation can only be made by someone who hasn't read the man and who is shilling for capitalism. And, regarding corruption in political parties, people living in the United States shouldn't throw stones. :) Finally, on the Democracy->Authoritarianism scale, the US is a functional plutonomy where wealthy capitalists control the political system and use it to wage their own intra-class conflicts, using the people only to get formal votes (this is what the Tea Party was about). Just because people can push a lever once in a while doesn't mean they have any real power at all. There was voting in the Soviet Union, too. You have to look at the REAL functioning of systems to get anything out of the analysis. Certainly, the USSR was authoritarian, but you'll have to jump through some hoops to show how it overturned the class relations of production and became "Communist".
U spend so much time trying to say that nobody was ever communist and socialist when u come to the point when u say how real socialism (or whatever u want to call it) would really work in the REAL world (give us details not generic ideas), there is when I will finally start laughing! Until then all u do is excusing urself, just like all Marx did was criticize capitalism...and btw in Sweden the capitalism is managed by the government? hahahah...nice one.
Btw, Switzerland is more capitalist than sweden and they are happy aswell if Not more than sweden and furthermore they also got better services like health (because in switzerland it’s private, whereas it’s gov‘t Runned in sweden). I think Sweden vs Switzerland is a classical example that Social democracy May work with Huge collectivistic indoctrination and janteloven culture, but capitalism will always be far superior
"The government, or in the words of communists, the hands of the people" - this is more of a criticism of American democracy. The constitution states the government is of the people and by the people, but most Americans disagree. So if you think the government is a bad thing, then that's because YOUR democracy is bad, not the entire concept of democracy. This video honestly reflects how, despite your best efforts to be impartial, you still can't explain Communism without sounding like capitalism is your religion. Capitalism is treated as a synonym for freedom while you're growing up in the USA. That's why you feel compelled to say things like "I don't want to say too many good things about Marx," despite your only criticism being "utopia is unrealistic lol."
Lmao yeah sure. Cus we don't see ppl still not filling needed hard and high skilled jobs and choosing to sell butthole pics on the internet instead. There's way too many issues to address before communism is possible and not a lazy idiots dream. Maybe one day. But not for centuries. Already to many issues filling jobs that require effort
Only happens during times when the economy is troubled. When there are more people than jobs to do them. When an economy is growing, however, wages go up and up, lifting many out of poverty
@@SonarWavePulse when the economy goes "up" so does consumption. Which raises prices. Which forces workers to accumulate debt. Which eventually leads to a lack of extra income. Which causes the workers to stop buying as much. Which causes the economy to go "down". Which causes prices to decrease, especially the cost of labor (since unemployment will inevitably be high). Which allows the wealthy to purchase more at a reduced price.... and on and on the cycle goes until either revolution or oligarchy.
this dude probably didn't take much time researching into communism and how it functions and decides to be indolent by summarizing communism with it not being concrete
Had he done his research, he would have said communism is based on one big lie. It's nothing more than a bait and switch that exploits and uses poor workers.
"This is a summary, so must be deliberatelt poor research and an indolent capitalist insult to true communism!" Jeeze no wonder most countries treat you guys like cultists
Who the hell would ever want Communism? I like to own things thank you very much, it's in human nature, every communist society fails for this reason, liberty is the way to go.
Omar Moodie I do want, everyone wants, it's great to want as long as you work for what you get. Wanting isn't greed and confusing conquest with capitalism and liberty will just end in confusion and a skewed picture of it.
@@bravo________87372 Even the guy who created the modern theory of capitalism (Adam Smith) believed in the labour theory of value. Do you even know what it is?
@@qqqalo you have to buy the individual parts for workers to assemble them. There's other stuff that goes into things other than labor. That theory has already been debunked.
@@joshuaallen9501except labor is a huge part of the process, and is included in all aspects. So to be able to disregard labor to meet profits through the "suggestive" theory of value is foolish.
@Krónika I used to be socialist then i learn nobel prize winnier economists such as Ludwind von Mises, Milton, Hayek and much more. I learn Berlin Wall Prag 1068 Hunagary 1956 Iron Curtain North korea and south korea modern history of Japon Germany and how they got richer with capitalism. I learned since china left socialism in 1978 and went just a little bit capitialist they got richer like never before. In 1800's %90 of world population was living poverty then Capitalism spread among the world humans got richer like NEVER BEFORE. We are exist for centuries so eask your self how in just 200 years 90% poverty drop 8% today ? Why this didnt happen before ? What was that thing we never had before ? Thats Capitalism. Rich get richer and poor get richer. If that want true 90% poverty rate would hit 99% longggg ago but its didint and countiune to drop. Learn econmics and individual liberties.
@Krónika Facts dont care about feelings. I showed you data and basic economics nobel prize winners i bet you know better them and all the data is misleading.
When I watch a video explaining opposite theories, the least I expect is impartiality, and this video shows how much the US if filled with pro capitalist propaganda.
@@paperfart3988 ideologies in themselves are not propaganda, especially not Marxism. Marxism is so big and full of ideologies that it should not be grouped together. Propaganda is media against a certain thing. This can take shape in either papers on walls saying something bad about the thing that’s being hated or just being integrated into culture and schools to teach something in a negative light. In the USA communism is always talked about poorly, so even in an attempt to be equal they are still pro capitalist in their words. ;TLDR Please learn more about a subject before saying something so stupid as “Marxism is anti capitalist propaganda l lmao”
@@wesly2089 Marx, being a intellectual, from a upper class family, felt only the upper crust should be in charge. In order to persuade the lower class to fall in line to be ruled, came up with the BS of sharing the wealth, that never, ever materializes. Marxist is against free market capitalism. Of individuals making agreements in an exchange for good and service. Capitalism is a economic formula for supply and demand to determine prices. Marxist and communism is a ideology of a way to run a society who ends up serving that upper crust.
@@MelissaR784 sorry to say it but your just reflecting propaganda which originated in the ideas of capitalism. You say under Marxism everybody works for an “upper crust” tell me, in which nation did workers have more rights and why? USA, or ussr? Obviously the ussr. Why? Because workers could go on strike to demand better pay. In the USA, if you don’t obey your boss you could be fired and instantly replaced. In capitalism every worker does labor for the upper crust, the capitalists. The capitalists make a fourtune by doing everything as minimum as possible with maximum prices. The only reason the United States still exists with its free market is regulations to stop total monopolies and a minimum wage. If it weren’t for business laws companies would pour waste into rivers and pollute everything. Capitalism does not make a sufficient society. Getting a house and food should not cost so much and it’s rediculous how so many people reflect capitalist things like an elite class into communism which benefits the people. Please do your research on the left and consider joining the right side, the side that believes in a society to benefit all, not just the rich.
@@MelissaR784 also, just because Marx lived in a decent family doesn’t mean he can’t have communal ideas. In fact, people born into low families especially back then were to busy working some crop field for a few cents worth of usd an hour to actually have ideas. So much talent has been lost to the fields, and socialism has a solution to that.
Hi there, I am a huge fan of your channel. I've been watching since high school and I'm almost done with my law degree. I was wondering if you could do an update of this video with the latest statistics and so forth? Keep up the awesome work that you guys do!!!
@@monkeyemperor1223 Looks like they have the same problems as capitalism with a banking crisis. Hey maybe that's it? Their problems are connected to going down the capitalist road? Keep feeding the Imperialist war machine and giving away the national treasury when they are too big to fail that way they don't even have to properly manage to earn a profit all they need to do now is buy corrupt politicians who will do their bidding and bail them out of the next crisis caused by the very way the capitalist system works.
It bugs me. All of the problems that the socialists and communists point out in capitalism would be way worse if you gave the government even more control. I don't understand why they can't put that together.
@@paperfart3988 because that’s not what communism or socialism actually calls for, just Stalinist/marxist-Leninist interpretations of it, and even then those don’t necessarily call for state control of the means of production.
@@joshuaallen9501 can you tell me who founded communism? Or are you just gonna say Stalin and Lenin? Marx’s interpretation of what communism is was much different
@@Sweatyleftist its because marxs idea is impossible for society to achieve. Feudalism is a more accurate way society tends to work. Peasants have never ruled the means of production.
@@Otknoharuka " tHaTs NoT CoMunIsM" kinda weird how people who have studied the topic for decades and say it doesn't work and have has a correct definition of communism are shut down by people like you who just spend 2 hours reading a manifesto ( reading not even thinking really) and think you know better. Smh
@@someguy4003 North Korea calls itself the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea but do you think it’s actually democratic? Just because a country calls itself a democracy or socialist or communist doesn’t mean it’s policies actually reflect that.
You are teaching something, we don't care what you think. You should just stick to the point and explain what communism is, nothing more. You just gave a biased opinion, that's not education, that's just indoctrination
Pretty misleading video, for instance in 3:29, he definitely wrote about the existence of “small capitalists” or “petit-bourgeoisie” but Marx pointed out the existence of competition would result in the tendency for capital to accumulate in bigger and bigger hands. I suggest anyone pick up an very short and concise reading of marxism, I recommend Engels, Socialism : Scientific and Utopian, or Lenin : The three sources and the component parts of marxism.
I like how he implied the existence of social mobility invalidates all of Marxist theory. How to say you didn't read Marx without saying you didn't read Marx
That is true, most teachers don't focus on expanding your cultural knowledge, I was talking about the way they make you study, they make you understand the main idea instead of memorizing everything.
"i don't like making it a habit of defending Marx". how bias. as if Marx was an evil tyrannical dictator. dude was literally just a philosopher/writer who was an exile all his life.
3:08 Marx did think of other capital owners. Which will inevitably either be bought/destroyed by the competitors. Which causes certain capital owners to start owning more and more capital until they own most of the resources from that industry which then spread and take control of other industries. Creating monopolies. Lenin then also went into more detail and said once capital owners get to big for their own countries that they reside in they will start partaking in imperialism and take resources from other places around the world by force. All in the name for bigger profits. Also not every worker can become a capital owner we can just look at current society right now as many people are given barely and wages which keeps them poor and not even bough to buy anything but survive. Which is also what Marx wrote. 4:49 unions are not unless these unions are controlling the union economy. Which some argue to be a different branch than Marxism. Socialists will support unions and most of the time join them. 6:20 socialism has nothing to do with government. There are different forms of socialism from the anarchist socialist like the makhnovshchina to the more authoritarian version like the USSR. There is a whole bunch of different socialist implementation. Just like how there are different forms of capitalism to be implemented like state capitalism to social democracies. 8:28 Marxism is an analysis of class behavior. It’s not utopian. Marxism mainly talks about how the two classes created due to capitalism the capitalist and the workers interact with each other. Most of Marx’s work is critical of capitalism as we see in das capital volume 1-3. Marxism does not describe communism. Marxism is a philosophy while communism is a type of economic theory. 9:25 Marxism is an analysis like I said before, while Marxist-Leninism is an approach of implementing it. 10:45 the USSR had different parties/factions as there was the “left opposition” like leon trotsky, the “center” like Stalin, and the right opposition like Bulgarian. It wasn’t until later that Stalin put it under one party with zero factions. If I made things confusing just think of the US and see how there are 2 “parties” both are capitalist and follow neoliberalism they just implement it in a slightly different way. You can count the US as one party with 2 major factions. But the US 2 factions do things very similar compared to how the ussr factions interacted. 11:20 China was not communist but socialist it no longer has been since its “socialism with Chinese characters”. China is capitalist 11:40 you can not have an economy be part socialism part capitalism. It’s just not possible. What you are showing is a capitalist country and how much social policies it has. Social policies do not equal socialism. Labor unions as I have said before are not socialistic. They still participate in a capitalist system. Labor unions are just a defense that the workers can create against the capital owners exploitation. 13:10 the USSR as I have said before was a socialist country. You can’t have a communist country because it would have to be moneyless, borderless, classless, etc society. Communism is the end goal of socialism. The USSR never came close to reaching that goal they even admitted. It takes generations to reach that level. I just realize this but before China reverted back to capitalism. It followed maoism which is a different form of think than just Marxist-Leninism. I don’t know much of Maoism so I won’t go to much into detail for that. This video is filled with a lot of misinformation and contradictions. These are just the main point I wanted to point out because other points made would make this comment way to long. I also just wanted to point out major gripes from the video.
@@guilhermetomas1595cult behaviour, if someone obsessed over just one other book and tried to build a country based on it at gunpoint they also get called out as a violent religious cult. You didnt see people with mandatory Washington pictures or Reagan statues, but boy oh boy did the police want to know if someone in Moscow didnt have the appropriate icons in their shrine
I was born in SSR of Ukraine, moved away when I was 18. I never considered it Communism, as the LACK OF COMMUNISM was very clear. Where is Communism used at the moment?
@@mylesmacpherson5534 apparently, I found it interesting too. It is a capitalist modified Communism. It's working because..Kerala is one of the better states in India to live in🤷♂️
Khan I love your math/science, let me help you clear up some social theory. You can't imagine what a "stateless" society was about? Socialists and anarchists tended to see the state as an institution devoted to defending the interests of the propertied elite, something which I think is becoming clearer to many people today. Their "stateless" society is an international order where people would have a direct say in decisions that affected them/ "economic democracy."
@@kodabro4322 Leninism and Stalinism are not the same thing. The establishment of a workers state is the first step to socialism. Today the Cuban People and the Cuban state represent workers and farmers state power in the world today.
@@kimobrien. I never said they were the same thing. Marxist-Leninism was developed by Joseph Stalin in the 1920’s based on his understanding of Traditional Marxism and Leninism. Stalinism is the means of governing and Marxist-Leninist policies implemented by the Soviet Union 1927-1953. Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism that Mao Zedong developed. Castro was a Marxist-Leninist. Pol pot was a Marxist-Leninist and Nationalist. Even western Marxist’s 30-100 years ago were hyper critical of the Marxist-Leninists at the time. Tell me, you’ve never read Capital Volume 1 have you?
@@kimobrien. well if you haven't read that far into it. Marx did not provide a detailed blueprint for a future society unlike other utopian at the time. So no surprise you have Marx uncomplete idea, paralleled with Lenins ideas which eventually Stalin studied and adopted as aforementioned
Good overview, it is important to note under Marxism there is a distinction between "Personal Property" and "Private Property". Personal would be like your house, car, land(For personal use),etc. Private Property would be factories,warehouses, land used for profit,etc. These two are distinctive in Marxism, as opposed to Feudalism and Capitalism they are the same.
Explaining capitalism, socialism, and communism without considering the concepts of coloniality and colonialism makes this video good for the middle school level, even conservative and in many ways biased.
@@eduardoguimaray9377 he claimed points that Marx supposedly made as fact, Marx mainly talked about freedom and what that freedom would look like, whilst heading into an industrial period for man. This is just one of many examples that he got wrong
Food prices rise, food quality is deteriorating, municipal services becoming more expensive, crisis, bankruptcy, job loss, global warming... I love capitalism too!
And how would you do that? The reason I said I don't support the thesis that everybody should be equal is because I think that variety is actually very important and the struggle of different opinions is reason for discourse. If everybody would be equal, who would take responsibilty? We are individuals you see. Competition is a good thing, if there was no incentive for competition, there would be no innovation, there would be no internet to have this discussion on. Also, define "more".
I think he forgot to mention that Karl Marx thought that Russia would be one of the last places where communism would happen because he expected that when the industry becomes big enough it won't need capitalism.
Before saying anything, I want to give you credit for risking your own image, getting through a very controversial topic, to educate us. And I think you did a great job staying neutral. And that was very informative and clear. Thank you :)
@@memethingz6004mate educate yourself on how many communist countries exist and then count how many attempts there have been and the conditions in which the “proletariat” live in those countries Then compare it to the quality of life for the working class in the US or Britain or France Or compare west Germany to east Germany and their quality of life
@@memethingz6004Even China has capitalist 'characteristics', as does Vietnam and Cuba, the ex kgb who run Russia were literally the ones to end the USSR, and North Korea has been a dynastic monarchy since day one of its Juche. Its not that theres some mysterious planet wide pro capitalist mind control, but rather than every single 'social republic planning to one day become realised communism' deliberately ended themselves and chose capitalism.
For real, that was my thought the whole time watching this in class. I was like “there ain’t no way he just said that... and we learning this in class?” But I remembered that US is very pro capitalist
@@jaycentral2722 1. He’s already bias by saying which one he is for. Makes it more personal then factual 2. He spoke about authoritarianism as in communism when Marxism or communism is not necessarily always authoritarian. You can have capitalist authoritarian government (ex. nazi Germany and Spain with Francis in power) 3. Constantly relating Leninist to communism which just bc Leninism says they are communist, doesn’t make them communist. I think he needed to differentiate them better so the audience understand that just bc they call themselves communist does not make them communist. (I can call myself Beyoncé but that does make me Beyonce right?)
Big oof. I'm not even an expert in communism and yet I can see clear anti-communist bias. The claim at 3:04 that Karl Marx never considered the possibility of wealth accumulation in a capitalist economy is ludicrous. A large portion of communist argument involves declaring wealth accumulation a sort of false promise used by the bourgeoisie to justify their continued existence as an economic class (which is explained as being both wholly unnecessary as well as detrimental to society at large) and continued monopoly over wealth generation.
''Gods kingdom'' [where everyone was a saint] which was attempted by the Catholics numerous times during the middle ages also never happened, it was also a dictatorship. Attempts at unrealistic utopias almost always lead to oppressive dictatorships.
We are individuals, but as a whole we serve as a species. A painting would be blank, bland and dull if it only consisted on an individual pixel. But what many pixels create when they structure themselves in an organized fashion is what makes a masterpiece.
And I just love how you say innovation will only come from competition. The world is either white or black to you. If someone has innovation, it must come from some sort of competition. Innovation will never cease to exist, no matter what political system we live under. Innovation occurs when a curious eye meets the world around it.
Especially considering Marx developed socialism *to* break away from Utopian socialists I'm not sure Sal actually did any significant research for this
@@califighter56 I think it's also kind of relevant to mention that the idea of a utopia has changed over the years, making Marx's ideas slide closer to a Utopia than where it was originally was. Modern utopias are pretty likely to side somewhat closer to Marx's version of communism (plus the idea of a utopia at this point is decently nebulous and different between people)
In capitalism and USA, supply-demand [with little government intervention] defines the product. Products in capitalism were never based on obsolescence. The consumers purchase decides what is made. Not everyone needs a light bulb that will last 1 century. Things that last long are usually very expensive and may not be worth their longevity, in capitalism the consumer decides if it's worth it for them, while in communism the central planners [government] decides for everyone.
They're never constant and neither are wages, but both can be compared relatively between services. No one person goes to a restaurant or hospital everyday, but both places will attract other consumers daily. Now compare your desire to have a waiter when at a restaurant vs your desire to have a surgeon when your heart tissue becomes inflamed. Do you think the majority of people won't desire greater the latter over the former?
@@gooooblaster1800Communists have a much deeper understanding of past socialist experiments than anyone else. They too have much harsher criticisms of past socialist states than anyone else. Id say youd get a fair explanation from them if you asked.
What a lot of people fail to understand is that the modern economy, at least in the western world, is not a permanent fixture. Social mobility is a powerful presence despite graduates of liberal art programs telling you that they're waiting tables at thirty. You can be making seven figures one day and be living out of your car the next; vice versa. The beauty is that, as a collective whole, you have a choice in how you live. Granted some things will forever be out of ones control such as unforeseen life events or most recently a world wide recession, but you still have a controlling interest in yourself. There are many paths that an individual can take to find success, you just have to put the effort in first.
You have the right to whatever values you want that's obvious but it isn't what Stale Mike asked. He asked "You're telling me you'd rather continue to force people into poverty just so you can save up for a BMW because you came from a position of privilege?" You are completely correct in saying "if I value having a BMW more than helping out a fellow man by paying out bigger wages, I have the complete right to do that" But the question was, is that what you would choose?
I'm a just S.Korea student. I very difficult to live in south korea. In Korea, about hundred people's suicides per all people per one day. Because of the pressure of competition. And even if a children of rich parents not, almost impossible that social mobility. This means that poor people's are carried poverty from their descendants. Thus, I hope my country into a socialist state rather. But, I do not hope like the North Korea socialist system. ha... I so hate capitalism.
If only barbaric capitalist oppression and exploitation were a thing of the past. Sadly, Marx's vision of caplitalism couldn't be more true in our time of life.
The funny mistake people make all the time is assume that Russia was a communist country when this is simply not true. USSR stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, they were closer to capitalism with the difference between the lower and upper classes than communism. If you think about it truthfully, why would anyone revolt unless they knew they weren't getting their equal share? So we don't know if pure communism would work, but we know that extreme authoritarianism(soviets) doesn't.
3/3 To build a middleclass requires hard work no matter what the system. Russia had communism for a while but they were 3rd world, they had famines where every1 went hungry, USA grain donations saved tens of millions of Russians in their 1921 famine. USSR only developed after WW2 where reportedly millions died in work camps. Many have also died developing a middle class in capitalist systems, but there's more choice in working in a factory than in a communist work camp.
communisim doesn't mean that there is no private property, it means that people share all the means of production, seriously, if you don't even know that, just don't make a video about communisim
if a thinker is supposedly constantly misunderstood by the planet, is he the greatest most unquestionable great leader of all time, or a struggling political writer who didnt have any impact until after he died and a military dictatorship started putting up statues and icons and paintings of their messiah, oh sorry inspirational thinker
GhettoEnterprises Yes they are. The whole "Some are more equal than others" which he uses in his Animal Farm is used as a criticism to to socialism. Its a quotation from Orwell's "Animal Farm" and describes a authoritarian state socialist dystopia. People use it against socialism, forgetting the author himself was a socialist who just had major gripes with Soviet state socialism.
Different jobs earn differently because we value their services differently. Anyone would give more to see a surgeon than to have a waiter serving their food because most people value their immediate health more than restaurant convenience. Thus, one occupation pays more than another because of its demand. The inequality in value for services is not something that can be changed simply by switching economic systems; it's our own natural preference of priority.
Your assertion, at around 3:00, that Karl Marx didn't take the possibility of an inverse of the situation into account, is both incorrect, and representative of a misunderstanding/inadequate understanding of his analysis. Basically, capitalism operates according to laws, and, as a matter of fact, the very conditions you outlined (many property owners and relatively few workers) HAPPENED in America during its initial settlement. Professor Richard Wolff is a modern Marxist professor who's talked about this in detail on Democracy at Work and on his own individual channel (this was basically the driving force behind the existence and perpetuation of slavery in the United States; all the natives were murdered, there were relatively few white colonists compared to the work that needed to be done, and the wide availability of land for homesteading forced property owners to fiercely compete for the skilled laborers. This led to the import of slave labor as a way to compensate). These laws also guarantee that any growth-oriented society (all hitherto existing societies) will eventually reach a state where the number of proletarians dramatically exceeds the number of capitalists, and because of this, market forces, after the initial boom that comes with rapid growth, drive wages down and push workers into ever more precarious conditions with fewer rights. Unfortunately (for the capitalists), because of these very same laws (the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the tendency of markets towards monopolization, the crisis of overproduction, etc) capitalism inevitably suffers periodic collapses every 4-8 years that threaten the existence of the entire system, and these economic crisises, combined with the existence of large numbers of workers who's very existence is tenuous and uncertain at best, and with the fact that the state apparatus that currently exists serves the interests of property owners and not these impoverished workers creates revolutionary conditions that, over time and through enough repetition, will either result in the overthrow of the existing relations of production, or the common ruin of all society.
The fundamental problem with communism isn’t with the system itself, its that its weaknesses and the power vacuum that it sometimes leaves can be used very easily to instill authoritarianism.
i agree in the sense that it is far too idealistic. i would prefer to work towards a more egalitarian society without becoming an authoritarian psycho like lenin stalin mao etc etc etc. this is done by working from the ground up with locals to form unions, empower the disenfranchised....
@@colin398 yeah but then you just end up with capitalism where the people at the top are kept in check by those below. Which is absolutely fine, but it's just not communism. Which is also fine.
Speaking of Lenin, there's a great article on his journey to becoming the first communist leader in March 2017 issue of Smithsonian magazine. I also find it exciting and shockingly enlightening that last month (April of '17) was the 100 year anniversary of Lenin's trip from his place of exile (Switerland) to his home country of Russia. Even though the actions carried out by his administration violated human rights, we need to understand the logic behind them. When we of the present analyz the actions and events of the past, we see patterns. I think if a majority of people who understood these patterns came together, we could prevent them from happening again.
Jimmy "Human Rights" Carter rediscovered "Human Rights" when he claimed Cuba was holding political prisoners. Then he looked up his now free political prisoners in the Atlanta Pen. The Imperialists started WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution was the means of putting an end to the Imperialist war. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and no the US Imperialists didn't win the cold war.
There are several studies, PISA is not the only one. What you should also realize is that there are many wealthy Americans, the average wage for an American is much higher than the average wage in Europe. What i would agree is that it's better to be poor in Europe, but if you work [the majority] id pick USA. Also; with Obamacare being poor isn't as bad, in several states university is also payed by the state. Happiness is subjective and can't be measured.
Another important thing to note is, Marxist Socialism doesn't "have" to be State Socialism, it can be workers cooperatives like credit unions, worker owned factories,etc. As for "Communist State", that is an oxymoron as Communism is a Classless, Stateless, Moneyless Society. Communism comes long after Socialism.
Khan stop making videos on subjects which you know nothing about. Land as Capital? Thats like saying labour is capital. The Three factors of production: Land, Labour and Capital.
3:40 I couldn't take it anymore. You're too biased. Don't give out information if you're going to do it this shitty; 3:40 - no, this is how it is TODAY.
actually initially both light bulbs used to cost the same. But an example now a days in capitalist countries: if you have a printer, or any bought goods, that malfunctions , including apple, the stores won't fix it or tell you how to fix it, they will advise you to buy a new one, thus throwing more wood in the fire. Where does the US get materials and workers to satisfy this consumption? Third world countries, this continues to make the poor more poor and the rich richer.
Of course, the rich people would like to do it the Capitalist way, but remember that there are more poor people than rich, so I believe that Karl Marx's idealogy works for all humankind and not just the 1% or 0.1% of the rich people. This doesn't mean that we have to do everything Marx says, we could change some of the idealogy and come up with something perfect or something that suits our country's system more. I personally believe that a Socialist state would be the best.
Sal has already stated in one of his other videos that he prefers Capitalism over Communism, and that he is biased towards Capitalism. Don't take this video as a serious explanation of what Communism is, because this does not explain what it is, it explains "Salman Khan's" opinion on Communism. Let's look at this seriously, Salman Khan is a rich dude, he obviously wants his own gain, obviously he would not accept Communism because he is rich, if he is rich, he would get equal with everyone, equal economic redistribution, and no private property. Capitalists don't want that, they don't want equal opportunities for wealth for people, they want only to achieve monopoly of this world, and it's already happening, and it won't stop happening until people start to wake up and realize what a corporate state the EARTH is.
Well sir. First off, while i believe in some socialist ideas, (social democracy), Communism could only work in a perfect utopia. In a world that does NOT exist. And second, Sal already barely makes that much money. All of his videos are free. And the money you give him mostly go to making more videos. Sal must be soooo "Capitalist".
1/2 US has made it it's mission to help develop nations economically. The Japanese starved in the millions, after we conquered we placed capitalist factories, they worked in low wages but developed. S.Korea & Taiwan were the same exact story. Middle classes are NOT made from thin air, it takes hard work. Research breaker boys to see why USA is developed. China is now making a middle class & far less starve today then ever in their history thanks to our factories.
@@garbandgulyberdimuhamedow4604 This can be an okay starting point, but I think we all have to try to make an effort to notice people's biases. Sal says here near the start of the video while defending something about Marx's point of view, "I don't want to get in the habit of defending Marx, but..." This tips you off that he is personally against the ideology. That's okay because no one is impartial, but it's important to realize that the information you're taking in is being given to you through a lens. Then you can go listen to other people who see it through another lens to try to get a better picture. I myself am still figuring out what communism actually is and as an American, I know most Americans are very against it (which is why I grew up knowing almost nothing about it... it's a "bad word" here). But you're never going to find an objective source on such a heated topic. You're either going to be listening to people selling it to you or people who are trying to scare you away from it.
@@kellyriddell5014 this can't really be a starting point because no state can be communist and if the ussr is communist then every country on earth is communist. He is confusing state capitalism with communism. Communism is a stateless classless market less society. Socialism even had only been realized in a few small countries.
@@kellyriddell5014 ofc. Just search up the death toll from all those babies that died. Imagine being their and a communist soldier smacking your baby to the ground and hitting you in the face with the end of their gun and blowing a hole im your baby's chest. Sicko's. I regret reading that commie book.
Most people don't know how much Marx contributed to economic theory and analysis. They just associate him with Stalin and Mao and thats it. It is so ignorant.
Calling Marx a contributor to economic theory is elevating the envy and jealousy of a leftist agitator to a science. Not a philosopher either. He was an agitator with a personality disorder kicked out of country after country, eventually bankrupting his family and rescued by working for another far left loser.... Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune as his England desk, and with a wife and kid he endangered by spending all his money trying to foment agitation in England, grew bitter at "capitalist" Greeley when he refused to give him a pay raise to compensate for his financial mismanagement. Like attracting like, people with very poor financial ability that find themselves penniless over and over are attracted to his blame everyone but yourself ideology. The ideology of losers.
Yeah, I didn't understand that about not wanting to defend Marx. Marx was predominantly a critic of capitalism and what he had to say about capitalism was completely accurate (with the exception of his predictions about the fate of capitalism). He shouldn't be held responsible for what a bunch of self-serving authoritarians did long after he died.
I petition to give washington and Oregon to all of the socialist/marxists. Access to ports, plains for food cultivation; it's all there to form their utpoia. Come back in 15 years and we'll see how it went. Fair?
1/2 I don't think more people can't afford to live better. In the 60's some people thought there wasn't enough resources for Chinese & Japanese to consume as much as they do. Remind you in those 50 years about 1.5 billion peoples living standard skyrocketed in those 2 countries alone. The problem i see is that even though more & more countries develop, population also keeps rising. Nothing is infinite, there has to be a limit.
indeed, in an actual communist system you could never be forced to work extra hours (because of the principle of equality, nobody would have more "power" than to you, nobody could tell you what to do. Your only "boss" would be the democratically established constitution and laws). That's why i'm still convinced that communism is just an excuse for the N.Korean dictatorship, not an actually applied socio-economic principle.
Very well spoken sir. I think people often get too brainwashed to hate some ideas without even thinking about it deeply. I have always thought any job as important as the next.
And some people get so brainwashed by their own lack of critical thinking to think that communism would EVER work. I would rather have a nucleur war and a nucleur winter than have a global communist government. Atleast one of the options allow humanity for a instant death while the other offers slow death of the human race through famine and disease.
That sort of collective action is impossible for a population on the national scale without a clear incentive. No one society will ever agree to what specifically is "good for the community" other than a general notion because people value things differently. It then falls on increasingly authoritarian governments to direct such a conformed incentive. The only worthwhile case it didn't was Che Guevara's "moral incentive"-based reforms in Cuba. And we all know how that turned out.
I have heard many things about communism. But no one defines communism as defined by Marx and Engels. It is really developed by hegel in Philosophy of Right 260.He says that a social system in which individuals freedom and social unity is simultaneously existing. Abolition of private property is the means not the aim.
I feel the need to raise some points here: You say labourers can become the object of competition for capitalists. But A) that implies that the labourers don't have equal opportunity to start their own buisness, otherwise why would they be labourers? B) Just in case capitalists find that the wages(or taxing costs) are not the LOWEST POSSIBLE, they just move their headquarters to some other country that is cheaper. Exactly what is happening with the greek commercial fleet.
You did a decent job explaining PARTS of each ideology, but failed to grasp the "big picture" if you will. One of my favorite quotes is by Albert Einstein, who said "If you cannot explain something simply, then you do not know it well enough".
bahahahahhahahahahahhhahahaahhaah he explained it u dont understand this simple fact. How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands marx and lenin.
I wouldn't refer to myself as a capitalist or a communist. I don't like capitalism because i think it is a system based on competition, greed and the exploitation of others. where as communism I don't like because although it may be noble in theory there are way too many flaws in it to ever work, and rather then everybody becoming well off and happy. everybody becomes equal but everybody has nothing =-/. That's why I honestly believe in a democratic socialism, I think it's a happy medium if you will. I think it incorporates a lot of the pros of both systems while at the same time leaving out a lot of the cons. I'm not saying it is perfect because there is no form of government without it's flaws. I'm just saying in my opinion it is the best political system.
1/2 Again; you're wrong, healthy products are NOT more expensive than fast foods especially if you make them yourself. I've work in restaurants which makes fresh foods. Fresh food meals, especially made at home, are far cheaper than fastfoods. Yesterday i made a hamburger for myself with pure ground meat [no wheat added], leccute, tomato & cheddar cheese. It cost me about $2. Eating in any restaurant, including fast food, is a luxury for those with enough $ to pay others to cook for them.
Marx and Engels never differentiated between the terms Socialism and Communism, to them it meant the same thing. Socialism is the system that will exist once capitalism is abolished, a classless, stateless society where the means of production and the world resources are collectively owned by all the people. Production would be for need and not profit, and as the people collectively own what is produced, there is no need for money or exchange, as you can not buy what you already own. Lenin was the person who differentiated between the terms socialism and communism, describing socialism as a form of state control which he described as a necessary step before achieving communism. Lenin later described what he had achieved in Russia was in fact state capitalism.
@@provostic8421 Because when you attempt to achieve something difficult, even if you don’t reach your goal the place you end up is better than the place you started at. You sound like you’ve never worked hard for anything in your life.
@@Captain_Kel you know nothing about me, stop pretending like you do. You can aim for something great, but it’s also important to set realistic goals. The problem is that throughout history, people that tried to create utopia often ended up creating dysfunctional and poor societies (USSR, Cuba, China before the adoption of market policies)
@@provostic8421 You’re right i know nothing about you except for the depressing pessimistic viewpoints you’re spouting. Countries that have attempted to be socialist or communist have always been met with violence by other capitalist nations like Korea, Vietnam, Germany, Catalonia, Cuba, Chile, the list goes on. Imagine if i tore your house down every time you attempted to build it and then claimed you have no idea how to build a house simultaneously ignoring my own intervention. And you say Chinas economy is futile but they are on track to surpass America’s in the next decade lol. Fox News didn’t tell you that huh?
@@provostic8421 Also you are so brainwashed and ignorant that you don’t even know that in the 1900s Russia had the fastest growing GDP in the world. Can you guess who has the fastest growing GDP of this current century? Yup, you guessed it, the “dysfunctionally poor society” of China😂😂 read a book moron.
@@tasx1829 He suggests Marx didn't understand the concept of small business or workers accumulating capital of their own, but that was never central to Marx's theories. Marx's big gripe with capitalism was always that the concept of businesses as we know them, reward treating your employees as little more than expenses, and that businesses held no accountability to their communities but instead only pursued profit. He didn't mention other huge tenants of Marx's ideas such as monopolization being inevitable, worker's wages being tied to their ability to be replaced, the inevitable boom bust cycle of capitalism that creates depressions every 8ish years etc. He also ignored the great socialist thinkers that came before Marx and paved the way for his ideas. And made ridiculous statements about the ineffectiveness of communism, before not describing a single tenant of it. Socialism and communism have never been about government control it's been about worker control. He literally does the communism is when government does too much stuff thing. There's just way too much nonsense to go over.
The problem is corporate. Small government will generate big corporate. Pick your battle. Keep in mind that big corporate puts money into the government's back pocket. So, it's not much different. The top 20% in thr US has 80% of all currency available. The bottom 20% barely shows up on the graph.
If bees are "superorganisms" because they work as cohesive unit then so are humans. I wasn't talking about "Indian" tribes (though they did work as a cohesive unit also) I said Amazon tribes. You completely missed my point about capital.
I’m still amazing how good this guy can write with a mouse
Doesn't he use laptop though?
Daniel Frazier he uses a drawing board
Ikr!!
@@oliverplougmand2275 That was a joke, mate
I had to do khan academy in 3rd grade and I was so impressed by it
The 85 richest people own the same wealth as 3.5 billion people. No, I have to disagree, what Marx observed still occurs today.
Those countries have more wealth because they create it, not because they steal it.
Each idea, technology, product, service... adds wealth, because those things improve the life of those people who get it.
Poor countries would be richer if they use their reasources to create and distribute products.
If we give wealth to poor people, they will remain poor. We must give them education, equal oportunities, but not give them wealth for nothing.
@@josephang9927 but what if third world countries are poor because they're being exploited by first world countries?
@@DavidLopez-up3qm Actually, that exploitation is debatable, as third world countries receive medicine, food and assistance from the West. Maybe you are talking about classic colonialism, which was what made rich blacks sell other blacks to Jews, who brought the slaves to the New World.
@@josephang9927 of course, education is essential to empowering the lower class but if you really think about it - what incentive do the rich have to empower these people? It would be much more difficult to hoard wealth and power if we were all on an equal playing field and thus, it's advantageous for the rich to keep the poor impoverished.
Hahaha! Was it only five years ago when it was 85? That's a cute number.
That number is a countdown.
A video to supposedly explain what communism is but i felt that all we got was your opinion.
angelbrotherhood Moar complicated = better!
That's what any teaching is, someone's opinion. You just have too decide if they've hinted you in a good direction.
angelbrotherhood No it doesn’t, whoever these ideas belong to I never found them in Marx-Engels’ or Lenin’s collected works nor in the writings I’ve read of Trotsky, Luxemburg, De Leon, Kautsky and Plekhanov. He seems to have made up most of it himself.
@@gamer106892 because a majority of his audience are kids in high school.
The communists/socialists were against traditional cultures. They banned Ukrainians, Russians, Chinese, Koreans and amongst others from: wearing traditional clothing, listening to their folk music, practising their religions, replacing folk architecture with 'socialist realism'(Also 'functionalism' and the like), (sometimes) even speaking their languages. I do not see any reason why those Filipino communist rebel fighters would do the same thing and generally, I don't see any reason why most Marxist-Leninists and Maoists would have abandoned this habit.
Unionization has nothing to do with socialism because it maintains the same relations of workers to the means of production. Class is not directly related to wealth disparity or "competence of management" or other things brought up in the polemic above. It is a social relation to the means of production. Capitalism is a system in which private ownership of the means of production gives control over the distribution of surplus to the capitalist class, not to the people who are producing society's goods. There's no democracy over the workplace in capitalism because the economy is considered outside the purview of democratic decision making.
Redistribution of wealth and "larger government" also has nothing to do with socialism, for the same reasons--it leaves intact the relations of production. Socialism is NOT government management of the means of production. Socialism requires WORKER control over the means of production. The lecturer probably believes that Obama is a socialist.
Government management of capitalism is called Social Democracy and is what happens in countries like Sweden, where people are far happier and better taken care of, by the way, than in the United States.
These things are "hard to think about" because of the constant indoctrination and apologizing from people who benefit from capitalism. People should check out Market Socialism and the work of economists like Richard D. Wolff.
Also, Marxism-Leninism and Communism are NEVER used interchangeably, except I suppose by the lecturer. Nor is "Marxism" utopian, that accusation can only be made by someone who hasn't read the man and who is shilling for capitalism.
And, regarding corruption in political parties, people living in the United States shouldn't throw stones. :)
Finally, on the Democracy->Authoritarianism scale, the US is a functional plutonomy where wealthy capitalists control the political system and use it to wage their own intra-class conflicts, using the people only to get formal votes (this is what the Tea Party was about). Just because people can push a lever once in a while doesn't mean they have any real power at all. There was voting in the Soviet Union, too. You have to look at the REAL functioning of systems to get anything out of the analysis.
Certainly, the USSR was authoritarian, but you'll have to jump through some hoops to show how it overturned the class relations of production and became "Communist".
U spend so much time trying to say that nobody was ever communist and socialist when u come to the point when u say how real socialism (or whatever u want to call it) would really work in the REAL world (give us details not generic ideas), there is when I will finally start laughing! Until then all u do is excusing urself, just like all Marx did was criticize capitalism...and btw in Sweden the capitalism is managed by the government? hahahah...nice one.
If you like so much sweden and Scandinavia why you don’t move there?
Btw, Switzerland is more capitalist than sweden and they are happy aswell if Not more than sweden and furthermore they also got better services like health (because in switzerland it’s private, whereas it’s gov‘t Runned in sweden). I think Sweden vs Switzerland is a classical example that Social democracy May work with Huge collectivistic indoctrination and janteloven culture, but capitalism will always be far superior
@@marianotrani8438 because nobody does that. you could just say this to anyone wanting to make their country better.
@@marianotrani8438 well we don't really have any non capitalist or state capitalist states to compare it to do we?
"The government, or in the words of communists, the hands of the people" - this is more of a criticism of American democracy. The constitution states the government is of the people and by the people, but most Americans disagree. So if you think the government is a bad thing, then that's because YOUR democracy is bad, not the entire concept of democracy.
This video honestly reflects how, despite your best efforts to be impartial, you still can't explain Communism without sounding like capitalism is your religion. Capitalism is treated as a synonym for freedom while you're growing up in the USA. That's why you feel compelled to say things like "I don't want to say too many good things about Marx," despite your only criticism being "utopia is unrealistic lol."
Lol communism go brr
Communism has committed 50 million deaths.
@@LoveShuffleBlues dont argue with idiots. Im pro capital. Just let it be. These commies are delusional. Shhh. The secret is Don't say nothing.
Totally ignores the revolutionary road pointed to by Marx and the role of Imperialism capitalism highest stage.
Lmao yeah sure. Cus we don't see ppl still not filling needed hard and high skilled jobs and choosing to sell butthole pics on the internet instead. There's way too many issues to address before communism is possible and not a lazy idiots dream. Maybe one day. But not for centuries. Already to many issues filling jobs that require effort
that same arrangement you described still happens today, the minority with lots of capital imposing low to no wages on the masses
Only happens during times when the economy is troubled. When there are more people than jobs to do them.
When an economy is growing, however, wages go up and up, lifting many out of poverty
Back then you couldn't accumulate Capital, now you can, so the Marxist argument doesn't apply.
@@SonarWavePulse when the economy goes "up" so does consumption. Which raises prices. Which forces workers to accumulate debt. Which eventually leads to a lack of extra income. Which causes the workers to stop buying as much. Which causes the economy to go "down". Which causes prices to decrease, especially the cost of labor (since unemployment will inevitably be high). Which allows the wealthy to purchase more at a reduced price.... and on and on the cycle goes until either revolution or oligarchy.
@@SonarWavePulse that is not true
@@Gamerad360 again not true
this dude probably didn't take much time researching into communism and how it functions and decides to be indolent by summarizing communism with it not being concrete
Please give examples
Had he done his research, he would have said communism is based on one big lie. It's nothing more than a bait and switch that exploits and uses poor workers.
"This is a summary, so must be deliberatelt poor research and an indolent capitalist insult to true communism!"
Jeeze no wonder most countries treat you guys like cultists
The bias against communism is too real in this video.
Are you saying this is a bad thing?
Michael Simpson If you think it's not, there's clearly something wrong with you.
Who the hell would ever want Communism? I like to own things thank you very much, it's in human nature, every communist society fails for this reason, liberty is the way to go.
95TurboSol The ignorant greed is clear in you. "I want"
Omar Moodie
I do want, everyone wants, it's great to want as long as you work for what you get. Wanting isn't greed and confusing conquest with capitalism and liberty will just end in confusion and a skewed picture of it.
This guy just completely skips over the labor theory of value. This is biased.
How biased? And biased against what? Do you know the "value" theory?
He didn't mention it because the labour theory of value is garbage
@@bravo________87372 Even the guy who created the modern theory of capitalism (Adam Smith) believed in the labour theory of value. Do you even know what it is?
@@qqqalo you have to buy the individual parts for workers to assemble them. There's other stuff that goes into things other than labor. That theory has already been debunked.
@@joshuaallen9501except labor is a huge part of the process, and is included in all aspects. So to be able to disregard labor to meet profits through the "suggestive" theory of value is foolish.
"he didn't think too much about..." YES HE DID!!
YOU did not!
it is not possible for everybody too be a capitalist. you have no f'n clue !!
communism is evil and unhuman system
@@selimfurkandalgic9548 u know nothing, loser
all these systems are messed up because they are manmade
@Krónika I used to be socialist then i learn nobel prize winnier economists such as Ludwind von Mises, Milton, Hayek and much more. I learn Berlin Wall Prag 1068 Hunagary 1956 Iron Curtain North korea and south korea modern history of Japon Germany and how they got richer with capitalism. I learned since china left socialism in 1978 and went just a little bit capitialist they got richer like never before. In 1800's %90 of world population was living poverty then Capitalism spread among the world humans got richer like NEVER BEFORE. We are exist for centuries so eask your self how in just 200 years 90% poverty drop 8% today ? Why this didnt happen before ? What was that thing we never had before ? Thats Capitalism. Rich get richer and poor get richer. If that want true 90% poverty rate would hit 99% longggg ago but its didint and countiune to drop. Learn econmics and individual liberties.
@Krónika Facts dont care about feelings. I showed you data and basic economics nobel prize winners i bet you know better them and all the data is misleading.
11:04 when the teacher forgets the lesson plans
Brain got stuck in a loop. It's a miracle Sal managed to get out if it, lest be trapped inside forever.
@@kennarajora6532 🤣
When I watch a video explaining opposite theories, the least I expect is impartiality, and this video shows how much the US if filled with pro capitalist propaganda.
Marxism is anti capitalist propaganda lmao
@@paperfart3988 ideologies in themselves are not propaganda, especially not Marxism. Marxism is so big and full of ideologies that it should not be grouped together. Propaganda is media against a certain thing. This can take shape in either papers on walls saying something bad about the thing that’s being hated or just being integrated into culture and schools to teach something in a negative light. In the USA communism is always talked about poorly, so even in an attempt to be equal they are still pro capitalist in their words. ;TLDR Please learn more about a subject before saying something so stupid as “Marxism is anti capitalist propaganda l lmao”
@@wesly2089 Marx, being a intellectual, from a upper class family, felt only the upper crust should be in charge. In order to persuade the lower class to fall in line to be ruled, came up with the BS of sharing the wealth, that never, ever materializes.
Marxist is against free market capitalism. Of individuals making agreements in an exchange for good and service. Capitalism is a economic formula for supply and demand to determine prices. Marxist and communism is a ideology of a way to run a society who ends up serving that upper crust.
@@MelissaR784 sorry to say it but your just reflecting propaganda which originated in the ideas of capitalism. You say under Marxism everybody works for an “upper crust” tell me, in which nation did workers have more rights and why? USA, or ussr? Obviously the ussr. Why? Because workers could go on strike to demand better pay. In the USA, if you don’t obey your boss you could be fired and instantly replaced. In capitalism every worker does labor for the upper crust, the capitalists. The capitalists make a fourtune by doing everything as minimum as possible with maximum prices. The only reason the United States still exists with its free market is regulations to stop total monopolies and a minimum wage. If it weren’t for business laws companies would pour waste into rivers and pollute everything. Capitalism does not make a sufficient society. Getting a house and food should not cost so much and it’s rediculous how so many people reflect capitalist things like an elite class into communism which benefits the people. Please do your research on the left and consider joining the right side, the side that believes in a society to benefit all, not just the rich.
@@MelissaR784 also, just because Marx lived in a decent family doesn’t mean he can’t have communal ideas. In fact, people born into low families especially back then were to busy working some crop field for a few cents worth of usd an hour to actually have ideas. So much talent has been lost to the fields, and socialism has a solution to that.
Hi there, I am a huge fan of your channel. I've been watching since high school and I'm almost done with my law degree. I was wondering if you could do an update of this video with the latest statistics and so forth? Keep up the awesome work that you guys do!!!
Latest statistics lmao like the CCP and Australia
@@TTTTTTTTT853 fr tho, check out how well communism is working in the cyberpunk-state that is china now
@@monkeyemperor1223 Looks like they have the same problems as capitalism with a banking crisis. Hey maybe that's it? Their problems are connected to going down the capitalist road? Keep feeding the Imperialist war machine and giving away the national treasury when they are too big to fail that way they don't even have to properly manage to earn a profit all they need to do now is buy corrupt politicians who will do their bidding and bail them out of the next crisis caused by the very way the capitalist system works.
@@kimobrien. That is my point lol. Everything is run by the same people, they want us mad so no one can retaliate...
Then you've become an Internationalist like the movement around the American Socialist Workers Party and "The Militant" newspaper?
I can't believe i let this man teach me things in school.
@@sylvann7501 yeah
11:04 good point
It bugs me. All of the problems that the socialists and communists point out in capitalism would be way worse if you gave the government even more control. I don't understand why they can't put that together.
@@paperfart3988 because that’s not what communism or socialism actually calls for, just Stalinist/marxist-Leninist interpretations of it, and even then those don’t necessarily call for state control of the means of production.
@@Sweatyleftist so you understand communism better than the very people that founded it?
@@joshuaallen9501 can you tell me who founded communism? Or are you just gonna say Stalin and Lenin? Marx’s interpretation of what communism is was much different
@@Sweatyleftist its because marxs idea is impossible for society to achieve. Feudalism is a more accurate way society tends to work. Peasants have never ruled the means of production.
Sal's method is just amazing.. No script, he just explains what he knows.. beautiful
He doesn’t really know though and that’s the problem.
@@Otknoharuka " tHaTs NoT CoMunIsM" kinda weird how people who have studied the topic for decades and say it doesn't work and have has a correct definition of communism are shut down by people like you who just spend 2 hours reading a manifesto ( reading not even thinking really) and think you know better. Smh
@@someguy4003 North Korea calls itself the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea but do you think it’s actually democratic? Just because a country calls itself a democracy or socialist or communist doesn’t mean it’s policies actually reflect that.
You are teaching something, we don't care what you think. You should just stick to the point and explain what communism is, nothing more. You just gave a biased opinion, that's not education, that's just indoctrination
Pretty misleading video, for instance in 3:29, he definitely wrote about the existence of “small capitalists” or “petit-bourgeoisie”
but Marx pointed out the existence of competition would result in the tendency for capital to accumulate in bigger and bigger hands.
I suggest anyone pick up an very short and concise reading of marxism, I recommend Engels, Socialism : Scientific and Utopian, or Lenin : The three sources and the component parts of marxism.
this video was a big bruh moment tbh, imagine thinking that workers can compete with big businesses or assuming that everyone has equal opportunity.
I like how he implied the existence of social mobility invalidates all of Marxist theory. How to say you didn't read Marx without saying you didn't read Marx
That is true, most teachers don't focus on expanding your cultural knowledge, I was talking about the way they make you study, they make you understand the main idea instead of memorizing everything.
"i don't like making it a habit of defending Marx". how bias. as if Marx was an evil tyrannical dictator. dude was literally just a philosopher/writer who was an exile all his life.
3:08 Marx did think of other capital owners. Which will inevitably either be bought/destroyed by the competitors. Which causes certain capital owners to start owning more and more capital until they own most of the resources from that industry which then spread and take control of other industries. Creating monopolies. Lenin then also went into more detail and said once capital owners get to big for their own countries that they reside in they will start partaking in imperialism and take resources from other places around the world by force. All in the name for bigger profits. Also not every worker can become a capital owner we can just look at current society right now as many people are given barely and wages which keeps them poor and not even bough to buy anything but survive. Which is also what Marx wrote.
4:49 unions are not unless these unions are controlling the union economy. Which some argue to be a different branch than Marxism. Socialists will support unions and most of the time join them.
6:20 socialism has nothing to do with government. There are different forms of socialism from the anarchist socialist like the makhnovshchina to the more authoritarian version like the USSR. There is a whole bunch of different socialist implementation. Just like how there are different forms of capitalism to be implemented like state capitalism to social democracies.
8:28 Marxism is an analysis of class behavior. It’s not utopian. Marxism mainly talks about how the two classes created due to capitalism the capitalist and the workers interact with each other. Most of Marx’s work is critical of capitalism as we see in das capital volume 1-3. Marxism does not describe communism. Marxism is a philosophy while communism is a type of economic theory.
9:25 Marxism is an analysis like I said before, while Marxist-Leninism is an approach of implementing it.
10:45 the USSR had different parties/factions as there was the “left opposition” like leon trotsky, the “center” like Stalin, and the right opposition like Bulgarian. It wasn’t until later that Stalin put it under one party with zero factions. If I made things confusing just think of the US and see how there are 2 “parties” both are capitalist and follow neoliberalism they just implement it in a slightly different way. You can count the US as one party with 2 major factions. But the US 2 factions do things very similar compared to how the ussr factions interacted.
11:20 China was not communist but socialist it no longer has been since its “socialism with Chinese characters”. China is capitalist
11:40 you can not have an economy be part socialism part capitalism. It’s just not possible. What you are showing is a capitalist country and how much social policies it has. Social policies do not equal socialism. Labor unions as I have said before are not socialistic. They still participate in a capitalist system. Labor unions are just a defense that the workers can create against the capital owners exploitation.
13:10 the USSR as I have said before was a socialist country. You can’t have a communist country because it would have to be moneyless, borderless, classless, etc society. Communism is the end goal of socialism. The USSR never came close to reaching that goal they even admitted. It takes generations to reach that level.
I just realize this but before China reverted back to capitalism. It followed maoism which is a different form of think than just Marxist-Leninism. I don’t know much of Maoism so I won’t go to much into detail for that.
This video is filled with a lot of misinformation and contradictions. These are just the main point I wanted to point out because other points made would make this comment way to long. I also just wanted to point out major gripes from the video.
It was like CNN report about Russia and China, very weak argument. You should know that Marx was not the only one critical about capitalism.
who cares, he was the best of them
@@spacemarx6318 LOLLLLLLLLL
@Blue Wall Kropotkin lmfaooo
The manifesto is a 2 hour read tops and it sounds like you didn't prep Sal
Marxists don't like when their ideology is picked apart.
@@paperfart3988 yeah thats why they spent years of their life studying it
@@guilhermetomas1595cult behaviour, if someone obsessed over just one other book and tried to build a country based on it at gunpoint they also get called out as a violent religious cult.
You didnt see people with mandatory Washington pictures or Reagan statues, but boy oh boy did the police want to know if someone in Moscow didnt have the appropriate icons in their shrine
said he didnt think about...stfu, he thought about that reality- defend him, marxism is objective and a crucial addition to the canon of human genius
I was born in SSR of Ukraine, moved away when I was 18. I never considered it Communism, as the LACK OF COMMUNISM was very clear. Where is Communism used at the moment?
In Kerala..a state in India. IMO... they successfully implemented it but with the help of Capitalism and Socialism.
@@Shadowmanchronicles wait fr
@@mylesmacpherson5534 apparently, I found it interesting too. It is a capitalist modified Communism. It's working because..Kerala is one of the better states in India to live in🤷♂️
My family was born in the former Soviet Union and they and you were in a communistic country.
throw people into jail, mass murder them, control ur think and ur life aspect, spread same ideology into other part of the world repeat
Khan I love your math/science, let me help you clear up some social theory. You can't imagine what a "stateless" society was about? Socialists and anarchists tended to see the state as an institution devoted to defending the interests of the propertied elite, something which I think is becoming clearer to many people today. Their "stateless" society is an international order where people would have a direct say in decisions that affected them/ "economic democracy."
I absolutely agree. Marxist-Leninism and Command Economies are different than traditional Marxism
@@kodabro4322 Leninism and Stalinism are not the same thing. The establishment of a workers state is the first step to socialism. Today the Cuban People and the Cuban state represent workers and farmers state power in the world today.
@@kimobrien. I never said they were the same thing. Marxist-Leninism was developed by Joseph Stalin in the 1920’s based on his understanding of Traditional Marxism and Leninism. Stalinism is the means of governing and Marxist-Leninist policies implemented by the Soviet Union 1927-1953. Maoism is a form of Marxist-Leninism that Mao Zedong developed. Castro was a Marxist-Leninist. Pol pot was a Marxist-Leninist and Nationalist. Even western Marxist’s 30-100 years ago were hyper critical of the Marxist-Leninists at the time. Tell me, you’ve never read Capital Volume 1 have you?
@@kodabro4322 I've read the beginning as far as the declining rate of return on investment. I've also read many of the writings of Leon Trotsky.
@@kimobrien. well if you haven't read that far into it. Marx did not provide a detailed blueprint for a future society unlike other utopian at the time. So no surprise you have Marx uncomplete idea, paralleled with Lenins ideas which eventually Stalin studied and adopted as aforementioned
Good overview, it is important to note under Marxism there is a distinction between "Personal Property" and "Private Property". Personal would be like your house, car, land(For personal use),etc. Private Property would be factories,warehouses, land used for profit,etc. These two are distinctive in Marxism, as opposed to Feudalism and Capitalism they are the same.
So you don’t think capitalism has different rules for owning a car or a company?
Fascinating.
@@CaptainTae Since a car is expensive the capitalist often sell it by a debt contract much like selling homes, farm land and trucks.
@@CaptainTae can i have some example pls
@@congdanhao4639 examples of what?
@@kimobrien. That’s a very bad analogy.
Explaining capitalism, socialism, and communism without considering the concepts of coloniality and colonialism makes this video good for the middle school level, even conservative and in many ways biased.
for every great idea there is a simple, short, wrong explanation
How wrong?
Eduardo Guimaray completely wrong. He got a lot of theory wrong and claimed points were unaddressed when they had explanations.
@@eduardoguimaray9377 he claimed points that Marx supposedly made as fact, Marx mainly talked about freedom and what that freedom would look like, whilst heading into an industrial period for man. This is just one of many examples that he got wrong
11:04 is hilarious
"and obviously the thee the thee the thee nEEEgative year uh"
Food prices rise, food quality is deteriorating, municipal services becoming more expensive, crisis, bankruptcy, job loss, global warming... I love capitalism too!
11:05 ""tha, thi, tha thi, ... " :D
U shouldn’t make fun of ppl who stutter.. they didn’t choose to have issues
Coolz Alpink he doesnt stutter he just stuttered. Like if your friend tripped ok something and u laugh lol. If hes got cerebral palsey tho😳
@@بيانالفارسية bro chill, it happens to everyone sometimes, he doesn’t have a speech impediment
Okay sorry :( it’s just that I have issues speaking my self that’s why I got triggered.
Quoting Shakespeare....
And how would you do that? The reason I said I don't support the thesis that everybody should be equal is because I think that variety is actually very important and the struggle of different opinions is reason for discourse. If everybody would be equal, who would take responsibilty? We are individuals you see. Competition is a good thing, if there was no incentive for competition, there would be no innovation, there would be no internet to have this discussion on. Also, define "more".
I think he forgot to mention that Karl Marx thought that Russia would be one of the last places where communism would happen because he expected that when the industry becomes big enough it won't need capitalism.
Before saying anything, I want to give you credit for risking your own image, getting through a very controversial topic, to educate us. And I think you did a great job staying neutral.
And that was very informative and clear. Thank you :)
Very worrying how communism is controversial in America capitalist mindset is so deeply rooted in that country
@@memethingz6004mate educate yourself on how many communist countries exist and then count how many attempts there have been and the conditions in which the “proletariat” live in those countries
Then compare it to the quality of life for the working class in the US or Britain or France
Or compare west Germany to east Germany and their quality of life
@@memethingz6004Even China has capitalist 'characteristics', as does Vietnam and Cuba, the ex kgb who run Russia were literally the ones to end the USSR, and North Korea has been a dynastic monarchy since day one of its Juche.
Its not that theres some mysterious planet wide pro capitalist mind control, but rather than every single 'social republic planning to one day become realised communism' deliberately ended themselves and chose capitalism.
wow... I just can't keep up with counting the errors in this.
I should study the subject a bit more and then make my own video.
Hi
For real, that was my thought the whole time watching this in class. I was like “there ain’t no way he just said that... and we learning this in class?” But I remembered that US is very pro capitalist
Can you lay out at least 3 of those errors for me please I’m curious
@@jaycentral2722 1. He’s already bias by saying which one he is for. Makes it more personal then factual
2. He spoke about authoritarianism as in communism when Marxism or communism is not necessarily always authoritarian. You can have capitalist authoritarian government (ex. nazi Germany and Spain with Francis in power)
3. Constantly relating Leninist to communism which just bc Leninism says they are communist, doesn’t make them communist. I think he needed to differentiate them better so the audience understand that just bc they call themselves communist does not make them communist. (I can call myself Beyoncé but that does make me Beyonce right?)
@@jaycentral2722 sorry for the grammatical errors, English isn’t my first language
china is state-capitalist bro.
That’s really shows how bad communism is when a regime that literally has communist in their name and still are capitalist
@@kye4216 I don't think that really makes sense to use that as an example of how bad it is.
@@scaltra6709 well if somebody sells Mercedes and constantly says how great they are but then owns a different car that’s kinda weird
Big oof. I'm not even an expert in communism and yet I can see clear anti-communist bias. The claim at 3:04 that Karl Marx never considered the possibility of wealth accumulation in a capitalist economy is ludicrous. A large portion of communist argument involves declaring wealth accumulation a sort of false promise used by the bourgeoisie to justify their continued existence as an economic class (which is explained as being both wholly unnecessary as well as detrimental to society at large) and continued monopoly over wealth generation.
''Gods kingdom'' [where everyone was a saint] which was attempted by the Catholics numerous times during the middle ages also never happened, it was also a dictatorship.
Attempts at unrealistic utopias almost always lead to oppressive dictatorships.
We are individuals, but as a whole we serve as a species. A painting would be blank, bland and dull if it only consisted on an individual pixel. But what many pixels create when they structure themselves in an organized fashion is what makes a masterpiece.
And I just love how you say innovation will only come from competition. The world is either white or black to you. If someone has innovation, it must come from some sort of competition. Innovation will never cease to exist, no matter what political system we live under. Innovation occurs when a curious eye meets the world around it.
8:30 calling Marx's ideas utopian is incredibly disingenuous, considering his writings are what made socialism scientific
Especially considering Marx developed socialism *to* break away from Utopian socialists
I'm not sure Sal actually did any significant research for this
@@califighter56 I think it's also kind of relevant to mention that the idea of a utopia has changed over the years, making Marx's ideas slide closer to a Utopia than where it was originally was. Modern utopias are pretty likely to side somewhat closer to Marx's version of communism (plus the idea of a utopia at this point is decently nebulous and different between people)
In capitalism and USA, supply-demand [with little government intervention] defines the product. Products in capitalism were never based on obsolescence.
The consumers purchase decides what is made. Not everyone needs a light bulb that will last 1 century. Things that last long are usually very expensive and may not be worth their longevity, in capitalism the consumer decides if it's worth it for them, while in communism the central planners [government] decides for everyone.
They're never constant and neither are wages, but both can be compared relatively between services. No one person goes to a restaurant or hospital everyday, but both places will attract other consumers daily. Now compare your desire to have a waiter when at a restaurant vs your desire to have a surgeon when your heart tissue becomes inflamed. Do you think the majority of people won't desire greater the latter over the former?
I lost a little respect for Khan Academy on this one.
Where else would you get a better explanation from someone’s profession is to teach
@@gooooblaster1800 maybe socialists and communists themselves?
@@gpedre21 ya sure and you'll be looking at the most biased explanation from people who arent trained to teach.
@@gooooblaster1800 you think this isn’t biased?
@@gooooblaster1800Communists have a much deeper understanding of past socialist experiments than anyone else. They too have much harsher criticisms of past socialist states than anyone else. Id say youd get a fair explanation from them if you asked.
@11:03 The, thee, the, thee, the, thee... For reals though, you're a damn good teacher and don't let anyone tell you otherwise!
How could a teacher be capable of teaching a concept which he is not also willing to defend?
What a lot of people fail to understand is that the modern economy, at least in the western world, is not a permanent fixture. Social mobility is a powerful presence despite graduates of liberal art programs telling you that they're waiting tables at thirty. You can be making seven figures one day and be living out of your car the next; vice versa. The beauty is that, as a collective whole, you have a choice in how you live. Granted some things will forever be out of ones control such as unforeseen life events or most recently a world wide recession, but you still have a controlling interest in yourself.
There are many paths that an individual can take to find success, you just have to put the effort in first.
You have the right to whatever values you want that's obvious but it isn't what Stale Mike asked. He asked "You're telling me you'd rather continue to force people into poverty just so you can save up for a BMW because you came from a position of privilege?"
You are completely correct in saying "if I value having a BMW more than helping out a fellow man by paying out bigger wages, I have the complete right to do that"
But the question was, is that what you would choose?
I'm a just S.Korea student. I very difficult to live in south korea. In Korea, about hundred people's suicides per all people per one day. Because of the pressure of competition. And even if a children of rich parents not, almost impossible that social mobility. This means that poor people's are carried poverty from their descendants. Thus, I hope my country into a socialist state rather. But, I do not hope like the North Korea socialist system. ha... I so hate capitalism.
If only barbaric capitalist oppression and exploitation were a thing of the past. Sadly, Marx's vision of caplitalism couldn't be more true in our time of life.
lets just all agree to be like switzerland. best state. peaceful, and full of chocolate.
yea dream country :)
+Amna khan 4nh to 2
and they speak German and French and Italian... a polyglot's dream ❤
Taxes tho
Also to sjws but everything else is fine
The funny mistake people make all the time is assume that Russia was a communist country when this is simply not true. USSR stands for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, they were closer to capitalism with the difference between the lower and upper classes than communism. If you think about it truthfully, why would anyone revolt unless they knew they weren't getting their equal share? So we don't know if pure communism would work, but we know that extreme authoritarianism(soviets) doesn't.
3/3
To build a middleclass requires hard work no matter what the system.
Russia had communism for a while but they were 3rd world, they had famines where every1 went hungry, USA grain donations saved tens of millions of Russians in their 1921 famine. USSR only developed after WW2 where reportedly millions died in work camps.
Many have also died developing a middle class in capitalist systems, but there's more choice in working in a factory than in a communist work camp.
He's actually defending capitalism?!
Yeah my mom made me and my dad watch this so we wouldn't be communists anymore, (Ps. Didn't work.)
@@brenna3354 lol
@@brenna3354 wow they just make you less stupid but you refuse 😂
the information presented in this video is fundamentally incorrect..
Please substantiate your statement.
@@vicj2141 it's a joke
@Siuz Start somewhere, just one of the many for a start, but please show don't tell.
Your math videos are very good. This on the other hand isn’t. Stick to math.
Because we as a species are not ready for that level of cooperation, efficiency, and self sustainability.
communisim doesn't mean that there is no private property, it means that people share all the means of production, seriously, if you don't even know that, just don't make a video about communisim
You could've saved 10 minutes by saying you don't understand Marx
if a thinker is supposedly constantly misunderstood by the planet, is he the greatest most unquestionable great leader of all time, or a struggling political writer who didnt have any impact until after he died and a military dictatorship started putting up statues and icons and paintings of their messiah, oh sorry inspirational thinker
All are equal in poverty, but the members of the Party are more equal than the others.
***** Indeed. In fact, he was a socialist. Capitalists never see the irony of quoting Orwell like that.
Gufberg Orwell even had very strong Communist leanings. His criticisms were directed at Stalin.
Ian English Even so, he made our point well. Enjoying the NSA data mining?
Gufberg Nobody is quoting Orwell for pro-capitalist quotes.
GhettoEnterprises Yes they are. The whole "Some are more equal than others" which he uses in his Animal Farm is used as a criticism to to socialism. Its a quotation from Orwell's "Animal Farm" and describes a authoritarian state socialist dystopia. People use it against socialism, forgetting the author himself was a socialist who just had major gripes with Soviet state socialism.
I hate when Khan academy teachers think their smarter than famous well regarded people
Different jobs earn differently because we value their services differently. Anyone would give more to see a surgeon than to have a waiter serving their food because most people value their immediate health more than restaurant convenience. Thus, one occupation pays more than another because of its demand. The inequality in value for services is not something that can be changed simply by switching economic systems; it's our own natural preference of priority.
Your assertion, at around 3:00, that Karl Marx didn't take the possibility of an inverse of the situation into account, is both incorrect, and representative of a misunderstanding/inadequate understanding of his analysis.
Basically, capitalism operates according to laws, and, as a matter of fact, the very conditions you outlined (many property owners and relatively few workers) HAPPENED in America during its initial settlement. Professor Richard Wolff is a modern Marxist professor who's talked about this in detail on Democracy at Work and on his own individual channel (this was basically the driving force behind the existence and perpetuation of slavery in the United States; all the natives were murdered, there were relatively few white colonists compared to the work that needed to be done, and the wide availability of land for homesteading forced property owners to fiercely compete for the skilled laborers. This led to the import of slave labor as a way to compensate).
These laws also guarantee that any growth-oriented society (all hitherto existing societies) will eventually reach a state where the number of proletarians dramatically exceeds the number of capitalists, and because of this, market forces, after the initial boom that comes with rapid growth, drive wages down and push workers into ever more precarious conditions with fewer rights.
Unfortunately (for the capitalists), because of these very same laws (the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the tendency of markets towards monopolization, the crisis of overproduction, etc) capitalism inevitably suffers periodic collapses every 4-8 years that threaten the existence of the entire system, and these economic crisises, combined with the existence of large numbers of workers who's very existence is tenuous and uncertain at best, and with the fact that the state apparatus that currently exists serves the interests of property owners and not these impoverished workers creates revolutionary conditions that, over time and through enough repetition, will either result in the overthrow of the existing relations of production, or the common ruin of all society.
The fundamental problem with communism isn’t with the system itself, its that its weaknesses and the power vacuum that it sometimes leaves can be used very easily to instill authoritarianism.
i agree in the sense that it is far too idealistic. i would prefer to work towards a more egalitarian society without becoming an authoritarian psycho like lenin stalin mao etc etc etc. this is done by working from the ground up with locals to form unions, empower the disenfranchised....
@@colin398 yeah but then you just end up with capitalism where the people at the top are kept in check by those below. Which is absolutely fine, but it's just not communism. Which is also fine.
Speaking of Lenin, there's a great article on his journey to becoming the first communist leader in March 2017 issue of Smithsonian magazine.
I also find it exciting and shockingly enlightening that last month (April of '17) was the 100 year anniversary of Lenin's trip from his place of exile (Switerland) to his home country of Russia. Even though the actions carried out by his administration violated human rights, we need to understand the logic behind them.
When we of the present analyz the actions and events of the past, we see patterns. I think if a majority of people who understood these patterns came together, we could prevent them from happening again.
Jimmy "Human Rights" Carter rediscovered "Human Rights" when he claimed Cuba was holding political prisoners. Then he looked up his now free political prisoners in the Atlanta Pen. The Imperialists started WWI and the Bolshevik Revolution was the means of putting an end to the Imperialist war. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism and no the US Imperialists didn't win the cold war.
I think it’s funny I can learn more from one video than an entire year of history class 😂
because the video is wrong.
@@garbandgulyberdimuhamedow4604 no it is not. You did not even explain how it is wrong.
@@consciouspresence5880he still wont either
boo
There are several studies, PISA is not the only one.
What you should also realize is that there are many wealthy Americans, the average wage for an American is much higher than the average wage in Europe.
What i would agree is that it's better to be poor in Europe, but if you work [the majority] id pick USA.
Also; with Obamacare being poor isn't as bad, in several states university is also payed by the state.
Happiness is subjective and can't be measured.
Another important thing to note is, Marxist Socialism doesn't "have" to be State Socialism, it can be workers cooperatives like credit unions, worker owned factories,etc.
As for "Communist State", that is an oxymoron as Communism is a Classless, Stateless, Moneyless Society. Communism comes long after Socialism.
Khan stop making videos on subjects which you know nothing about. Land as Capital? Thats like saying labour is capital. The Three factors of production: Land, Labour and Capital.
Yeah! I guess the next video will be about home-dentistry or somehting?
3:40
I couldn't take it anymore. You're too biased. Don't give out information if you're going to do it this shitty; 3:40 - no, this is how it is TODAY.
sounds like someone has a bias and its definitely not him lol
He got 2 millions from Bill Gates, so what do you expect?
@@angeleydrian what?
This is a very biased video.
actually initially both light bulbs used to cost the same. But an example now a days in capitalist countries: if you have a printer, or any bought goods, that malfunctions , including apple, the stores won't fix it or tell you how to fix it, they will advise you to buy a new one, thus throwing more wood in the fire. Where does the US get materials and workers to satisfy this consumption? Third world countries, this continues to make the poor more poor and the rich richer.
You are quite ignorant of Marx's actual writing. He was a huge critic of "Utopian Socialism".
Of course, the rich people would like to do it the Capitalist way, but remember that there are more poor people than rich, so I believe that Karl Marx's idealogy works for all humankind and not just the 1% or 0.1% of the rich people.
This doesn't mean that we have to do everything Marx says, we could change some of the idealogy and come up with something perfect or something that suits our country's system more. I personally believe that a Socialist state would be the best.
Sal has already stated in one of his other videos that he prefers Capitalism over Communism, and that he is biased towards Capitalism. Don't take this video as a serious explanation of what Communism is, because this does not explain what it is, it explains "Salman Khan's" opinion on Communism. Let's look at this seriously, Salman Khan is a rich dude, he obviously wants his own gain, obviously he would not accept Communism because he is rich, if he is rich, he would get equal with everyone, equal economic redistribution, and no private property.
Capitalists don't want that, they don't want equal opportunities for wealth for people, they want only to achieve monopoly of this world, and it's already happening, and it won't stop happening until people start to wake up and realize what a corporate state the EARTH is.
Well sir. First off, while i believe in some socialist ideas, (social democracy), Communism could only work in a perfect utopia. In a world that does NOT exist. And second, Sal already barely makes that much money. All of his videos are free. And the money you give him mostly go to making more videos. Sal must be soooo "Capitalist".
Let's focus on studying, and leave political arguments aside, shall we?
..."studying"
this is political
Stalin, by no means, failed at communism. His two main economic policies were a huge success. However, he did grow paranoid. Not power hungry.
1/2
US has made it it's mission to help develop nations economically. The Japanese starved in the millions, after we conquered we placed capitalist factories, they worked in low wages but developed.
S.Korea & Taiwan were the same exact story.
Middle classes are NOT made from thin air, it takes hard work. Research breaker boys to see why USA is developed.
China is now making a middle class & far less starve today then ever in their history thanks to our factories.
this man has helped me through physics chem and calc and i'm now watching him explain economics for fun
this isn't reliable at all it's much more effective to watch debates so you can understand the counterarguments to flimsy arguments.
@@Salmanul_ well this is a pretty bad understanding and is extremely biased and just wrong in many ways.
@@garbandgulyberdimuhamedow4604 This can be an okay starting point, but I think we all have to try to make an effort to notice people's biases. Sal says here near the start of the video while defending something about Marx's point of view, "I don't want to get in the habit of defending Marx, but..." This tips you off that he is personally against the ideology. That's okay because no one is impartial, but it's important to realize that the information you're taking in is being given to you through a lens. Then you can go listen to other people who see it through another lens to try to get a better picture. I myself am still figuring out what communism actually is and as an American, I know most Americans are very against it (which is why I grew up knowing almost nothing about it... it's a "bad word" here). But you're never going to find an objective source on such a heated topic. You're either going to be listening to people selling it to you or people who are trying to scare you away from it.
@@kellyriddell5014 this can't really be a starting point because no state can be communist and if the ussr is communist then every country on earth is communist. He is confusing state capitalism with communism. Communism is a stateless classless market less society. Socialism even had only been realized in a few small countries.
@@kellyriddell5014 ofc. Just search up the death toll from all those babies that died. Imagine being their and a communist soldier smacking your baby to the ground and hitting you in the face with the end of their gun and blowing a hole im your baby's chest. Sicko's. I regret reading that commie book.
"I dont want to get into the habit of defending Karl Marx too much"
dude its ok to defend him capitalists do. Its not a sin. He was brilliant
Most people don't know how much Marx contributed to economic theory and analysis. They just associate him with Stalin and Mao and thats it. It is so ignorant.
karl marx was more than a philosopher.
Calling Marx a contributor to economic theory is elevating the envy and jealousy of a leftist agitator to a science. Not a philosopher either. He was an agitator with a personality disorder kicked out of country after country, eventually bankrupting his family and rescued by working for another far left loser.... Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune as his England desk, and with a wife and kid he endangered by spending all his money trying to foment agitation in England, grew bitter at "capitalist" Greeley when he refused to give him a pay raise to compensate for his financial mismanagement. Like attracting like, people with very poor financial ability that find themselves penniless over and over are attracted to his blame everyone but yourself ideology. The ideology of losers.
Yeah, I didn't understand that about not wanting to defend Marx. Marx was predominantly a critic of capitalism and what he had to say about capitalism was completely accurate (with the exception of his predictions about the fate of capitalism). He shouldn't be held responsible for what a bunch of self-serving authoritarians did long after he died.
I petition to give washington and Oregon to all of the socialist/marxists. Access to ports, plains for food cultivation; it's all there to form their utpoia. Come back in 15 years and we'll see how it went. Fair?
this is *OUR* video.
1/2
I don't think more people can't afford to live better. In the 60's some people thought there wasn't enough resources for Chinese & Japanese to consume as much as they do. Remind you in those 50 years about 1.5 billion peoples living standard skyrocketed in those 2 countries alone.
The problem i see is that even though more & more countries develop, population also keeps rising. Nothing is infinite, there has to be a limit.
indeed, in an actual communist system you could never be forced to work extra hours (because of the principle of equality, nobody would have more "power" than to you, nobody could tell you what to do. Your only "boss" would be the democratically established constitution and laws).
That's why i'm still convinced that communism is just an excuse for the N.Korean dictatorship, not an actually applied socio-economic principle.
Very well spoken sir. I think people often get too brainwashed to hate some ideas without even thinking about it deeply. I have always thought any job as important as the next.
And some people get so brainwashed by their own lack of critical thinking to think that communism would EVER work. I would rather have a nucleur war and a nucleur winter than have a global communist government. Atleast one of the options allow humanity for a instant death while the other offers slow death of the human race through famine and disease.
11:04 is what you call a "DuhhDi...DuhhDi" interval
@2:52 that was addressed in das capital.
That sort of collective action is impossible for a population on the national scale without a clear incentive. No one society will ever agree to what specifically is "good for the community" other than a general notion because people value things differently. It then falls on increasingly authoritarian governments to direct such a conformed incentive. The only worthwhile case it didn't was Che Guevara's "moral incentive"-based reforms in Cuba. And we all know how that turned out.
I have heard many things about communism. But no one defines communism as defined by Marx and Engels. It is really developed by hegel in Philosophy of Right 260.He says that a social system in which individuals freedom and social unity is simultaneously existing. Abolition of private property is the means not the aim.
I feel the need to raise some points here:
You say labourers can become the object of competition for capitalists. But
A) that implies that the labourers don't have equal opportunity to start their own buisness, otherwise why would they be labourers?
B) Just in case capitalists find that the wages(or taxing costs) are not the LOWEST POSSIBLE, they just move their headquarters to some other country that is cheaper. Exactly what is happening with the greek commercial fleet.
You did a decent job explaining PARTS of each ideology, but failed to grasp the "big picture" if you will. One of my favorite quotes is by Albert Einstein, who said "If you cannot explain something simply, then you do not know it well enough".
Go ahead and eplain it then, genius.
6 years and still waiting
bahahahahhahahahahahhhahahaahhaah
he explained it u dont understand this simple fact. How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands marx and lenin.
I wouldn't refer to myself as a capitalist or a communist. I don't like capitalism because i think it is a system based on competition, greed and the exploitation of others. where as communism I don't like because although it may be noble in theory there are way too many flaws in it to ever work, and rather then everybody becoming well off and happy. everybody becomes equal but everybody has nothing =-/. That's why I honestly believe in a democratic socialism, I think it's a happy medium if you will. I think it incorporates a lot of the pros of both systems while at the same time leaving out a lot of the cons. I'm not saying it is perfect because there is no form of government without it's flaws. I'm just saying in my opinion it is the best political system.
Read Peter Kropotkin. Anarcho-Communism is a healthy alternative.
Pool's Closed I assure you Anarchism is the alternative that will solve every question you have.
1/2
Again; you're wrong, healthy products are NOT more expensive than fast foods especially if you make them yourself.
I've work in restaurants which makes fresh foods. Fresh food meals, especially made at home, are far cheaper than fastfoods. Yesterday i made a hamburger for myself with pure ground meat [no wheat added], leccute, tomato & cheddar cheese. It cost me about $2.
Eating in any restaurant, including fast food, is a luxury for those with enough $ to pay others to cook for them.
Marx and Engels never differentiated between the terms Socialism and Communism, to them it meant the same thing. Socialism is the system that will exist once capitalism is abolished, a classless, stateless society where the means of production and the world resources are collectively owned by all the people. Production would be for need and not profit, and as the people collectively own what is produced, there is no need for money or exchange, as you can not buy what you already own.
Lenin was the person who differentiated between the terms socialism and communism, describing socialism as a form of state control which he described as a necessary step before achieving communism. Lenin later described what he had achieved in Russia was in fact state capitalism.
Just because a "utopian" society seems far fetched, does that mean we should not pursue it?
Yes. Why pursue a goal that you know is futile and unachievable?
@@provostic8421 Because when you attempt to achieve something difficult, even if you don’t reach your goal the place you end up is better than the place you started at. You sound like you’ve never worked hard for anything in your life.
@@Captain_Kel you know nothing about me, stop pretending like you do. You can aim for something great, but it’s also important to set realistic goals. The problem is that throughout history, people that tried to create utopia often ended up creating dysfunctional and poor societies (USSR, Cuba, China before the adoption of market policies)
@@provostic8421 You’re right i know nothing about you except for the depressing pessimistic viewpoints you’re spouting. Countries that have attempted to be socialist or communist have always been met with violence by other capitalist nations like Korea, Vietnam, Germany, Catalonia, Cuba, Chile, the list goes on. Imagine if i tore your house down every time you attempted to build it and then claimed you have no idea how to build a house simultaneously ignoring my own intervention. And you say Chinas economy is futile but they are on track to surpass America’s in the next decade lol. Fox News didn’t tell you that huh?
@@provostic8421 Also you are so brainwashed and ignorant that you don’t even know that in the 1900s Russia had the fastest growing GDP in the world. Can you guess who has the fastest growing GDP of this current century? Yup, you guessed it, the “dysfunctionally poor society” of China😂😂 read a book moron.
The example you made in the Capitalism stage, wouldn’t that be social hierarchy?
I adore Khan Academy but this is unfortunately blatant misinformation.
how so?
@@tasx1829 He suggests Marx didn't understand the concept of small business or workers accumulating capital of their own, but that was never central to Marx's theories. Marx's big gripe with capitalism was always that the concept of businesses as we know them, reward treating your employees as little more than expenses, and that businesses held no accountability to their communities but instead only pursued profit. He didn't mention other huge tenants of Marx's ideas such as monopolization being inevitable, worker's wages being tied to their ability to be replaced, the inevitable boom bust cycle of capitalism that creates depressions every 8ish years etc. He also ignored the great socialist thinkers that came before Marx and paved the way for his ideas. And made ridiculous statements about the ineffectiveness of communism, before not describing a single tenant of it. Socialism and communism have never been about government control it's been about worker control. He literally does the communism is when government does too much stuff thing. There's just way too much nonsense to go over.
The problem is corporate. Small government will generate big corporate. Pick your battle. Keep in mind that big corporate puts money into the government's back pocket. So, it's not much different. The top 20% in thr US has 80% of all currency available. The bottom 20% barely shows up on the graph.
If bees are "superorganisms" because they work as cohesive unit then so are humans. I wasn't talking about "Indian" tribes (though they did work as a cohesive unit also) I said Amazon tribes. You completely missed my point about capital.