What is Socialism? (Utopian, Marxist, and Democratic)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 чер 2024
- This video provides a definition of the philosophical position of Socialism. It includes Utopian Socialism, Marxist or Scientific Socialism, and Democratic Socialism as well as arguments for and objections to each.
Sponsors: João Costa Neto, Dakota Jones, Thorin Isaiah Malmgren, Prince Otchere, Mike Samuel, Daniel Helland, Mohammad Azmi Banibaker, Dennis Sexton, kdkdk, Yu Saburi, Mauricino Andrade, Diéssica, Will Roberts, Greg Gauthier, Christian Bay, Joao Sa, Richard Seaton, Edward Jacobson, isenshi, and √2. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/carneades
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
(#Socialism #PhilosophyOfEconomics)
We can separate the political and economic aspects of socialism. It's misleading to bundle them. A socialist might want the means of production to be owned by the workers without wanting the government to play a role.
Interesting claim. What mechanism, if not the government, would give ownership of the means of production to the workers?
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I'm by no means an expert, but I think many socialists are anarchists, so by definition they don't want a government. Also you might have a government in the initial stages and then dissolve the government after the means of production has been distributed but the resulting system would still be socialist (I think this is the Marxist-Leninist position?).
Whether giving ownership of means of production to the workers without a government is feasible is one thing, and it is orthogonal to the question of what is the most morally desirable economic system to have. The most morally desirable economic system might just be infeasible.
It is really common for people to confuse socialism/communism with big government and it fuels a lot of the unwarranted aversion to socialist policy in the US. So I think it is especially important for channels like yours to make the distinctions clear.
socialism is an historical process. no one invented it. same with communism.
many premodern civilizations had socialism.
socialized production is the essence.
the point of contention is what class interests are served.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Worker democracy would be one example that many socialists advocate - basically making the cooperative the default mode of ownership. It's actually one of the oldest aims of socialism, the notion of the state owning the means of production on behalf of the workers is a later invention. Richard Wolff is a good person to look at if you're interested in this topic.
Yes, and anyone who doesn't know the difference doesn't fucking understand the breadth of Socialism 😂 and don't realize that Socialism split into three fronts, Communism, socialism (let's say small s) and Anarchism.
SOCIALISM =
1. State communism
2. State socialism
3. Anarchism
Great video. Just wanted to add my thoughts if that's okay. To my knowledge, Marx initially viewed the state as the means of one class holding dominion over another and so thought that socialists should sieze state power. However, in Marx's writings following the suppression of the Paris commune Marx changed his views on the state, suggesting that it would always be a tool of the bourgeoisie. In either case, Marx always believed that the abolision of the state was a prerequite of communism. Workers would, he thought, ultimately own the means of production democratically without the need for a state. This, to me, sounds a lot more like a federation of worker cooperatives than a centralised state power. Marx also believed that in order to abolish capital, workers could still be incentived, to begin with, by using labour vouchers - money which is destroyed when something is bought with it. This would prevent accumulation except through work. My problem with this is that it is unclear who would decide the value of labour and of goods. I'm rambling but I think my point is that socialism does not have to mean state control of industries. Correct me if I'm wrong.
at this point i personally thing that rthe words and ideologies of capitalis, socialism, comunism, liberalism, conservatism, nationalism, anaquism or even fascism are just vague terms which real meaning is relative and it can be me molded, modified or interpretated the way you like to understand!!! xd
So Marx was an anarcho-collectivist?
@@user-xe7eg8um3t I've never heard him defined that way before, I guess to a degree he could be looked at that way. He tended to use the word 'communism' as a placeholder for a future state of affairs that he refused to explicitly define, although he thought it would have certain characteristics like the abolition of money and private property in the means of production. I've always felt that he used the word 'communism' in a similar way to how many people now use the word 'postcapitalism'.
i think that’s ~exactly~ where neo-marxism deviates. i think this video encapsulates my feelings about late-stage capitalism. i don’t think a lot of people believe capitalism needs to fall completely (unless they truly intend to instill the ever rising neo-fascist state of utilization of wage slavery and concrete the class divide.)
i think the farthest left intention is really to prevent the accelerationist nature of truly fascist beliefs.
there has to be layers to change. our needs will develop, and so should we en masse as societies.
reject neo-fascism and embrace systems which serve to protect the interests of ALL people.
@@sagejohnson7972 Democratic Marxism if applied would mean the privileged minority would decrease in power naturally as flow of where profits are given are equitable and fair, would change the structure on its own?
I disagree that "complete capitalism" can exist without rule of law. I also disagree that, therefore, being capitalist means rejecting police, national defense, and courts, just as I disagree that it is wanting socialism to want police, national defense, and courts. Why? Because property rights mean nothing if they are not enforced. Part of the cost of capitalism is being willing to pay for these basic necessities that are absolute prerequisites of it. The term you may be looking for here is anarchism, where there is perhaps no government at all. For me, complete capitalism would be a minarchism that involves only those services that are required for capitalism, meaning protection of body and property legitimately obtained. See Bastiat's _The Law_ for more on this.
@@thotslayer9914 I read the Communist Manifesto, would you like me to quote some in the original German? As far as "hole" here we go again with the poisoning of the well that always seems to accompany leftists like a stench.
@@thotslayer9914 You'll have to explain how it is possible to be for both liberty and socialism that contains forced retribution as a component. Without private property, so that the commissar must decide if your laptop is private or public property, there is no liberty.
If, for instance, free education and free housing reduce crime more cheaply than police, would you support shrinking government even more by providing some public services?
If in other places, people democratically decide not to enforce private property rights that your government considers legitimate, would you oppose expanding government to fund a military invasion?
@@only20frickinletters There is no such thing as free education, so I'm not sure what you mean. You mean forcing people to fund education regardless of if they want to or not?
While democratically deciding is obviously mob rule (2 wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner), which is why the US was set up as a federation rather than a democracy, I am all for people voluntarily segregating by values. So, for example, some states could have communism and others capitalism and people could vote with their feet on what they want. Better yet, specific cities could do this, so there is even more variety.
So with a 100% agreement on the vote you no longer need democracy, but you can simply use a normal contract that all the parties can sign on to. This is perfectly legal as in the "partnership" form of business can be set up so that all employees are also equal owners. You only need to set it up and you can have communism today for yourself and those you work with.
@@thotslayer9914 Who decides that difference? A modern laptop can be earned in about 1 week of labor flipping hamburgers, yet it is among the most powerful means of production that have ever existed. Who decides if it is personal or public property? Why on earth would you ever want someone else to decide this for you.
You say that democratic socialism appeared after the fall of the USSR, but actually it was created in the late 19th. Even Engels (Marx's friend and cowriter) admitted at the end of his life that socialism could be implemented democraticaly. The divide between revolutionnary socialists and reformist socialists increased in the 1920s, democratic socialists denouncing Lenin and moreover Stalin. In Germany, they even fought against each others (social democrats crushed the communists; Hitler could seize power thanks to this opposition between socialists and communists).After WW2 in the wave of the cold war, socialist parties in Europe became less and less marxist and more keynesian, accepting capitalism but with state control and wages fixed by négociations with unions. That kind of moderate socialism, which worked well in Europe in the 50s/60s (we have universal health care for decades here.... and no we dont have to spend hours and hours on queue....) has been weakened in the 80s/90s because of neoliberal policies, financial deregulation and globalization. Nowadays democratic socialism is in a period of reconstruction, while neoliberalism is declining and rightist populism has taken the lead...
when you talk about Neoliberalism you might be talking about "Libertarianism" made by the Austrian economic school, Monetarian Chicago School and the Objetivist ideology from Ayn Rand, which is a way more radical (even anarquical) form of classic/conservative liberalism, because the concept or term of Neoliberalism was created by an ex-marxist called Alexander Rustoff which helped to built the current model of social-liberalism; which for libertarian fundamentalists is just a soft version of Socialdemocracy because it accepts certain level of goverment intervention and wellfare state but priorotizing on the market side, while socialdemocrats focuses more on the other side.
@@pavelm.gonzalez8608 There is a difference between neoliberalism and libertarianism. Libertarians reject any kind of public intervention. Minarchists (Nozick) admit at least a public service of security, in order to prevent conflicts between security agencies, while anarco-capitalists (Rothbard) consider that even justice and security services should be provided by markets. On the contrary, neoliberalism relies on positive interventions of the State, in order to preserve markets and to extend competition. Neoliberalism was initially theorized by Walter Lippmann and Louis Rougier, then mostly developped by the German ordoliberals. Hayek, eventhough he considered himself as a classical liberal, could be attached to neoliberalism, according some of his statements. But neoliberalism is less an ideology than a trend in public policies, adopted by many western governments since the 80's and 90's. It is notably the case among the EU; for instance, the European Commission promotes the creation of an artificial competition between state agencies, in order to create markets.
This video is a very odd. How do you account for the variety of anarchisms that advocate for the abolishing of the state while still claiming to be socialist as shown most heavily by the strains of anarcho-communism?
This video seems to ignore that collective property is recognized by most states and academics as a distinct 3rd type of property, different from private property and different from public property. Collective property includes stuff like cooperatives.
Most academics do not consider people like Sanders to be socialist, because they don't equate state activity with socialism. Otherwise, ancient Babylonia could count as socialist for having a state service of some sort.
I hope you eventually look into workplace democracy. This isn't related to the state BTW. This is just production being managed bottom up by the workers inside the production typically by some combination of representative and direct democracy. Again, this is all internal.
A good example of a very successful cooperative (or co-op for short) is the multi billion dollar Mondragon.
This is not to mention that the Marxist definition of the state is very different from the typical definition, to the point that things like Rojava and Revolutionary Catalonia are dictatorships of the proletariat.
Also, Marx and Lenin both defined socialism as stateless (Marx made no distinction between socialism and communism), and thus necessarily a system where the entire world had been toppled by revolution, and it was only with Stalin's the formulation of "socialism in one country" that the idea of a socialist county was made a part of "Marxism-Leninism" and this idea became popular.
@@jovan1198 I can sympathize in part with the idea of socialism in one country or at least the all or nothing view of Trotsky seems to run into issues.
If say the whole known world went socialist, whatever that means, but then we find an undiscovered island with humans there, but the humans there are not socialist. Is every country outside the island suddenly not socialist, because the island isn't?
What if we convert that island, but then some planet is discovered with life forms with identical biology to humans, but they aren't socialist, would Trotsky accept socialism on one planet or is the socialist planet not socialist now untill they convert that new planet of biological non-socialist humans?
Would Trotsky accept socialism in two countries, three, or just most countries? Would "most" just be a simple majority of the population or just most production under socialist control? If it's just a simple majority, can a single country not in theory have a majority of the population? If it's just that most production is under socialist control, can not a single country in theory have most production, and if so, would this not count as "socialism in one country"?
There's a lot of things to criticize Stalin over. His idea of socialism being able to occur one nation at a time seems like one of the harder points to attack him on.
If Trotsky is in for all or nothing, then we have my island/planet problem. If Trotsky has a finite physical criteria like population or production percentages, then a single country could in theory meet that criteria.
Either way, Trotsky either has to make socialism something that can be taken away by the meer existence of non-socialist places with people or he has to accept socialism can happen in one country.
@@xenoblad Well, that's just revisionist to the theory of Marxism. It doesn't actually map on to the definitions of Socialism that Marx or even Lenin described. Socialism is, to Marx, the same as communism, and to Lenin, the early stage of communism. In either case, it's stateless. Statelessness cannot exist in a single country, for obvious reasons.
@@jovan1198 but the problems I mentioned still stand.
Can you have statelessness in 2-3 countries or some other finite number of countries that isn't all the countries? If so why? If it's due to some finite metric, a single country could in theory fulfill that metric.
If statelessness is an all or nothing thing, then the material conditions and relations lose their ability to define what is stateless
If the known world goes stateless, whatever that is, and an undiscovered island with uncontacted indigenous humans living on it is discovered, would the Islanders there being in a state nuliffy the statelessness of the entire world? If the whole planet is stateless without exception and a planet with biologically identical humans is discovered, and they happen to live under a state, is the stateless planet suddenly a state? If not, would Marx accept statelessness in one planet? If yes, why not statelessness in one country?
This isn't a political dispute with the claim "socialism can't exist in one country", this is a logical dispute.
What is the name of the font you use in your videos?
And do you have a playlist of all your song parodies? (I really digged the ones I saw!)
You're one of my favorite philosophy channels and you do analytic philosophy a lot of justice.
this video was deeply in error in many ways and ide be down to have a talk with you about why
What things? Im interested in hearing
just levy your criticisms if you think they're cogent
I never saw you cover these kinds of philosophies before (transcendentalism, social philosophy, and earlier African Phil., earlier than that Aesthetics) before I sort of nudged you in that direction.
All industry should be organized into state-supervised syndicates, the state itself should be advised by workers' representatives from each industry.
Yet every time fascists get in power, they just privatize. It's a scam.
@@only20frickinletters I think you don't know what fascism means. Fascism has come about historically from all sides of the political spectrum left and right. A lot of fascists preferred a planned economy (which isn't really privatization) just like a lot of self described socialists privatized parts of the economy (even in the USSR)
@@only20frickinletters Fascism does not entail any particular economic arrangement except what is in the best interests of the people. At any rate, fascist privatization entails a closer integration of the industry with the state than under capitalism to ensure the managers and the workers are operating harmoniously for the good of the nation. It is class collaboration, rather than the class conflict promoted by both communism and capitalism. Only the state is sufficiently powerful enough to align and synthesize the interests of the bourgeoisie and proletariat together towards what is best for the nation. Sometmes that will better suit the natural intersts of the the owner class, and sometime it would better suit the working class.
At any rate, what I have advocated for here is best known as fascist syndicalism, which most closely aligns with Oswald Mosley's British Fascism and Corneliu Zela Codreanu's Iron Guard in Romania. it is itself more naturally alligned with the interests of the working class as it gives them specific representation in the state and integrates industry under the state to better contain the power of the owner class, who remain in place but restricted from acting against the interests of the nation.
@@sethapex9670 Why not call it simply Strasserism? Strasser advocated openly for the type of communism which was happening de facto in the USSR, namely class communism, where instead of denying social stratification, the state simply assumes it and works with it as efficiently as possible. I'm Romanian and I can tell you that Codreanu had little to nothing to do with any symbolization of the working class in his clerically fascist ideology, it's only that he needed numbers for the anti semitic element of his political agenda, which he could only gather from among the workingmen and peasants, which had to bear the suffering of jewish exploitation in Romania
@@user-pt3jr5cv1e I am sympathetic to strasserism and I think Hitler was mistaken in purging the strasserists. However strasserism, and more communistic leaning versions of fascism still tend to be largely too materialistic, not that the other faction of national socialism wasn't, but it was more favorable to class collaboration than class conflict. I prefer Codreanu precisely because he advocates a more transcendently oriented form of fascism, in his case clerical fascism. Though of course I have my own criticisms of him as well. What I think actually best alligns with my views are the positions espoused by Father Coughlin and Huey Long, as they were the prototypical American Fascists.
What you defined as "complete socialism" is just state capitalism. It falls into the idea that socialism is "when the government does stuff".
There is no such thing as "state capitalism". Its an oxymoron.
@@chachacha2023 Are you a lolbertarian by any chance?
@@chachacha2023 What an actual ignoramus you are. Having everything in the economy done through a strong government is called state capitalism. It is an economic system where the roles of private businesses are replaced by the state, the government is the business. Everything nationalized and state owned rather than private.
Don't spout off rubbish on things when you know nothing!
😂, socialism = totalitarism
@@in39484 If that was true they wouldn't be seperate words now would they, Mr Brainlet?
You missed direct worker ownership through unions and the role unions could play in socialism. They are a means of organizing workers and making decisions while also allowing workers to wield their own collective power. Also, you can have markets without capitalism. It seemed like you kind of equated them a couple time. Very interesting video.
And, of course, if the state owns everything and there is democracy, there will be no corruption at all, and while you can never opt out (as you can in capitalism by switching suppliers), what could possibly go wrong?
@@piquant7103 You pretend to work and we'll pretend to pay you. What could possible go wrong?
@@piquant7103 "We shall be told: what can literature possibly do against the ruthless onslaught of open violence? But let us not forget that violence does not live alone and is not capable of living alone: it is necessarily interwoven with falsehood. Between them lies the most intimate, the deepest of natural bonds. Violence finds its only refuge in falsehood, falsehood its only support in violence. Any man who has once acclaimed violence as his METHOD must inexorably choose falsehood as his PRINCIPLE. At its birth violence acts openly and even with pride. But no sooner does it become strong, firmly established, than it senses the rarefaction of the air around it and it cannot continue to exist without descending into a fog of lies, clothing them in sweet talk. It does not always, not necessarily, openly throttle the throat, more often it demands from its subjects only an oath of allegiance to falsehood, only complicity in falsehood." -Solzhenitsyn
While the state is corruptible, capitalism is inherently corrupt. We consider state actors to be corrupt when they put their own interests before those of the people they serve. Capitalists do this inherently. Their primary goal is the accumulation of ever more profit, however that may be best achieved. And too often it is best achieved by actions that destroy the nation, flood the work force, atomize people into anesthetized consumers, and detract from our ability to perpetuate ourselves into the future. Thus in order to secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, capitalism, as it stands now, must be destroyed.
@@sethapex9670 Burden is on you to show how my voluntarily working to produce something in a company I do not own is corrupt. I do this and it isn't. The goal is not primarily the accumulation of profit, the goal as clearly state in the mission statement is filling real needs through production. But, as usual, you will offer no evidence in support of your position, while typing on a computer that would not exist without capitalism.
Kon Berner really dude? No corruption if there is democracy in a complete state owned country??
You're cool. Thanks for these videos! Cheers
How does Marinaleda fit into this definition?
My general idea of an ideal state would be as follows:
- the populace selects and controls the government
- the government decides (at least partly by feedback from the populace, and definitely based on feedback from science) what goals it should work on, and what stuff should be left completely to private initiative
- for those goals, the government decides on the rules
- after that, implementing that stuff is usually done by more-or-less capitalist methods[*]
- the government must, however, be in complete control of enforcing the law
[*] Just as an example, the government might, every few years, write calls for tenders for public transportation services. These might, for example, contain any or all of the following:
+ What routes to serve
+ What vehicles or kinds of vehicles to use on those routes
+ What frequencies to run the vehicles
+ What ticket prices to use
+ What conditions someone wanting to offer a tender needs to fulfill, such as capitalization, experience in the industry, and so forth
This is pretty much the way regional public rail transport is handled in Germany (by the states), for example.
where are you from?
Can you do a video on the differences btw economic systems, like Capitalism vs Socialism and political systems like Democracy vs Constitutional monarchies vs Totalitarianism?
For some reason, ppl either deliberately or otherwise, seem to confuse Socialism w/ Totalitarianism or assume one must come with the other. It’s weird.
Excellent video. However, how does the anti-state stance of orthodox Marxism fits into this map?
And I don't think you can call the police a means of production, it belongs more to the service sector, which Marxism never was able to fully accommodate.
I would argue that "means of production" broadly refers to capital required to produce something, whether a good or a service. As we move to a more service based economy I think excluding services like healthcare from modern Marxist conceptions is problematic.
The ‘state’ means a public body. Anything that is not private or individualistic, is public, therefore ‘the state’. I don’t know what ‘orthodoxy’ of Marxism you’re referring to, but the literal definition of the ‘workers seizing the means of production’ is ‘the state/public body’ seizing the means of production. Once you grasp the difference between private/capitalist and public/socialist, then there is grey area whatsoever. It’s like when people talk about ‘socialist capitalism’ or ‘anarcho-communism’; it’s oxymoronic.
This is why ‘National Socialism’ is ACTUAL socialism, because it is complete totalitarian state control.
@@Problembeing socialism is not when the government does stuff lol
A paramount ethical distinction is worth discussing: the weaker position of the government providing a good (e.g.MRI scans) versus the government having a legal monopoly on providing a good (e.g. MRI scans).
Very true. The question of how exactly a government provides goods to its people is deeply important to their effectiveness. Does a government provide tax breaks for those that get MRIs? Give grants to NGOs that provide MRIs for free? Allow patients to sue hospitals that charge for MRIs? Contract out the giving of MRIs to certain companies? Or have a monopoly on them and actually own the means of production? It is a spectrum and arguably different goods have different policy tools that fit better.
17:09 "same problems of inefficiency" LOL... said as if privatisation of services is always more efficient.
The distinction between government and corporations seems squishy. Both are institutions that serve to organize people's efforts towards common goals.
We've history when each has intruded on the other; when corporations take over traditional government roles, you get a banana republic and you covered the other direction.
What seems more important than which side an institution falls on at any point in history is the ability for the people to replace a failing institution without resort to widespread violence.
That said, I think there are two kinds of institutional goals that I know of few non-governmental examples of:
- maintaining excess, idle capacity to weather disaster whether it be surplus shipbuilding capacity to discourage naval war or surplus hospital beds to weather a pandemic
- applying force to move society from a low-utility Nash equilibrium to a higher-utility one like weapons regulation to discourage dueling culture
Oft-downplayed also is government's role in market making. Ubiquitous access to roads, mail, etc. reduces the amount of planning people need to engage in economic activity, and can tamp down chronic urban vs rural cultural division. Maybe those can be done better by corporations at some point in a society's history but that does not mean that early government involvement was not critical in economic flourishing early on.
18:00 No not the government - the workers... e.g. worker cooperatives
It is a public sectoter and a co-op spectator with some mom and pop stores.
Some Very well-made distinctions, many thanks
20:11 Is this actually the case though? It seems that privatizing the police forces would be a prudent idea given that it's a better community experience that people want. Since we know this is the case, we can presume that if people are experiencing a dissatisfactory experience with the police, instead of rioting in the streets and burning places down just to send a message, we could instead just fire the companies that we don't like and hire the ones that we do. That seems pretty reasonable to me. Furthermore, I do not see a case as to why military would not also be along these same lines. unless the people of America specifically hire militaries that increase war, then if the military is working properly, war should also decrease.
edit typo
Good question (I may even make a video on it).
Let's look at some of the challenges, first with the police, and then with the military. Imagine that there are two justice companies that everyone can choose from to protect their home. Imagine that you and I are neighbors, but we choose different companies to protect us. Someone is killed between our properties, and we are the only real suspects. I demand that my police arrest you (they have a strong incentive to, you don't pay them and I do). While you demand that your police arrest me. You are convicted in my court (after all, they aren't going to convict a paying customer), and I am convicted in your court. We both go to jail regardless of who the murderer was, and no justice is done, a service (jailing people I don't like) is paid for. My police force has a strong incentive to make sure you suspiciously die in prison before you are able to testify against me, because they don't want to lose me as a customer. Generally when the product is not something which can be easily judged (the market failure of incomplete information) private companies are not well-suited to deliver it.
This is made worse if one of us does not have a police force. Anyone who does not have a police force immediately will become suspect number one for any crime since they don't have a police force that can fight back.
You also have the issue of the free rider problem: if everyone on my street pays for a very high quality police service, but I am stingy and don't pay for any police service, generally I will be kept safe by the whole street's police service (riots rarely happen to only one house on the block). This is why home burglary alert systems do work on the private market, since burglaries are more targeted.
In fact the mafia is an example of a private police force. They thrived in communities where the police would not go by committing crimes and then charging residents for "protection" from other gangs and criminals. As long as you paid, you were safe, but if you didn't, you became #1 on their hit list.
The military is an even more troubling situation. The free rider problem is more clear here. If someone drops an atom bomb on your city, it won't hit only the people who paid for a private military. Additionally, if politicians are not in charge of the military, a coup is inevitable. If you have competition between military companies, a civil war is impossible to avoid. The point is that private militaries have a strong incentive to increase fighting (that's how they make money) which is the opposite of what you want. If the world is at peace, people stop paying and the military goes out of business. For a public institution that is not seeking profit, and survives on taxes this is not a problem. For a private company, this is an existential problem.
You just fed me. How do I donate?
Awesome! If you want to support you can donate on Patreon (www.patreon.com/Carneades)
How does the Mondragon Corporation fit into this definition?
Seems to fit most closely with Utopian socialism (the attempts at cooperatives of people working together to share the fruits of their labors).
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
It would be nice if you did a video on Austrian economics, which is arguably the real counter thinking to Socialism. Check out Eugen Böhm von Bawerk’s critique of marxism, and the following works of, for example, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek.
www.marxists.org/archive/hilferding/1904/criticism/ch01.htm
Omg yes!!
Any revolution not driven by nationalism is doomed to fail. Each ppl have the right to their own self determination and sovereignty, and each nation has its own historical development with its own unique conditions.
Workers of the world cannot unite. For we are not workers of the world but rather of our nation.
no that last part is social democrat's.
Yes democratic socialism
This video fails to consider the concept of having socialism without government ownership. Socialism is the democratic ownership of the means of production by the workers. If we consider this on a national scale then it is government ownership, but if individual companies are equally owned by workers, possibly with a democratic republic type of system where workers are elected to the board to represent the workers when they make decisions, then this is also socialism. This system in particular can be seen in worker cooperatives, a business model that can coexist with capitalism (and hence we can see them function right now)
A more reasonable far end of socialism would be that all large industries are owned by the government, and all small businesses are owned by their workers.
democratic socialism? he did mention it.
to your credit, Marx was looking to a utopia of this sort. (Even though to me it seems counterintuitive from where he starts.)
@@jonathandoran2623 No, he didn't consider private ownership of the means of production by the workers.
@@matteo-ciaramitaro “private ownership” doesn’t make sense if it’s owned by the public. Rather contradictory.
@@KlaustheViking I don't think you read through what I said. A private entity owned by the workers of that entity is not publicly owned.
@@matteo-ciaramitaro How is it not? Private property is at the very least, owned by one individual, especially when it comes to a company said workers are employed at. If all the workers were to own that company, it’s no longer private anymore because the profits that are made would flow in and out much like workers come and go from said employer.
19:19 they did not fail ... Classic Mccartyst narratives here because confusing marx, lenin, stalin etc.
I also think You overall misrepresent both capitalism and marxism by making it a weird beliefs spectrum.
21:50 ad populum?
Could you point me towards any good material on youtube?
@@onetwo4833 about marx/materialism or philo on youtube in english, I'm afraid there is not much short quality content yet... Some people/universities (like David harvey etc) has channel but quite academical...
Wasnt marx against reform of socialism?
Yes he was
20:55 How does scientific research or space travel fit in huh?
Interesting question. Some would argue that space travel is a public good (either for the knowledge it gains us, the collective need to potentially escape this planet one day, or the fact that too many objects orbiting the earth make it harder for anyone to get out), though others might doubt that any of those benefits would ever come to fruition and therefore count it as a private good. Scientific research is generally considered a public good, which is why patents on research expire (or they should despite companies attempting to find or create loopholes).
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Many thanks for the thoughtful reply. I broadly agree but would also add that innovation in science (and even space travel) is far greater when funded by the state (or charities). Privately funded science (and technology) frequently relies on state (and charity) funded reasearch to address the fundamentals. Privately funded medical research arguably even stiffles research in some cases.
What about a (partially) 'capitalist' system but where the capital is not owned by a small number of people, but rather the workers are the shareholders, if the company does well, all the workers do well, if the company doesn't, then all the workers will feel it in their wallet. It's not owned by the government and thus not socialist (at least according to your definitions), but it certainly doesn't fit the traditional idea of capitalism either (even then, of course, not everything can be run that way, and I'd still recognise the need for certain things to be government run/contracted/subsidised).
Sounds like market socialism to me
it is socialist - market socialist to be specific
good program
My only complaint is based on your comparisons of police/military. You’ve used means of application to question means of production.
If a military trains and arms their soldiers better, they’ll get hired. That is capitalism providing better goods and services through competition. But you dodged this, but shrinking all competition involving military/police to violent competition. It is most incorrect because the largest application of military (if not police) is in deterrents, not war. And in police, another private force could engage with the public better and provide better crime prevention through community policing efforts and thus get hired. This form of competition between police forces could result in better quality service as in order to maintain their employment all other police forces would need to raise their community policing / crime prevention efforts. This competition cannot be reduced to violence.
Otherwise, loving your videos. Thanks.
Well if you think about it the military and police whether the country the country capitalist or socialist, they are ran by the state and with socialism not everyone is paid the same you are paid depending on what your job is or what you do with the state deciding on what your salary will be and what the prices of the product's being made will be. because if everyone was paid the same in socialism well people wouldn't support it because why would someone work so hard just to get the same salary as someone that didn't work hard at all so that's why not everyone is paid the same but worker's and specifically them are paid better than in capitalism that is what socialist's say.
Wait, did that video just claimed that governement = socialism?!?
You missed the best socialism: the Kropotkinites tho
But also market socialism exists, as well, sadly...
which is the last one and why you said sadly??? Are you talking current model of China's "socialism" (on my own perspective China is actually corporativist state, state capitalist, national-socialist or third-positionist regiment) or what??
@@pavelm.gonzalez8608 no I'm talking about a new ideology of co-op capitalism basically
(As well these days I'm more of a Trot)
If capitalism improves our lives so much, we should privatize all air on our planet and impose "breathing" fee on people. Everyone will wear a mask with a counter and pay for air they breathe. Now people will have freedom of breathing, they will be able to breathe, or not to breathe, breathing will become liberal and democratical. Quality of air will improve significantly, because capitalists will compete to provide best air possible for people to breathe.
What about free market socialism?
As I note in the video, one of the major problems with defining "socialism" is that many self-proclaimed socialists disagree completely on the definition of the concept. Many would claim that "Market Socialism" is simply another form of capitalism, and that any such society would simply be capitalism under a different name (you want to force me to reinvest my profits in the workers of my company? Then I'll just classify everyone but myself as a "contractor" or have the capital holders be employees and always give them the extra compensation. It is just capitalism under a different name).
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I appreciated your acknowledgment that the meaning of "socialism" has become fuzzy (even among self proclaimed socialists). I don't think it's fair to claim that "Market Socialism" is simply another form of capitalism but you're right that some people would try to paint it that way. It would. Following theory it would surely depend on how much the power and fruits of production is divided among the workers vs asset owners. I certainly agree that Uber isn't socialism...
Should do one on anarcho-capitalist. Very unorthodox but is pretty strong and well built system/ideology.
I tend to idealize left-anarchist "societies", but we need government, really. We simply do.
Anarchism isn't against the government--it's against the state. The state is a type of government, but not all governments are states. A state is a sovereign entity that 1. governs some geographical area 2. has a monopoly on violence 3. protects private property and the interest of the capitalist class
National defense and justice become challenging when they are left to anyone but the government. If there is no monopoly on who has the strongest weapons, war is likely. If there is no monopoly on who dispenses justice, revenge killings, and possibly war is also likely. The challenge for the anarchist is that once a government dissolves, whoever has the most physical power inevitably becomes the new government, simply because they can.
@@thotslayer9914 Libertarian-socialist. I want a form of market socialism as a transitionary state toward anarchism, preferably anarcho-syndicalism. Obviously, I'm a SUPAH-progressive. I advocate for gender abolition, race abolition, and other such stuff
@@thotslayer9914 Like, an egoist?
@@blakaligula3745 I recognise you
Make a video aboult libertarianism and anarcho capitalism...
"Complete" or laissez-faire capitalist are for limited govt. Military, roads, etc we can argue aren't within that view, but it's like you're talking about Anarchism. Structuring vs economics🤔🤔they overall at time I guess, like you do have AnCap.
Capitalist (Laissez-faire or as you say moderate) would be against democracy, like the US founders. Democracy breed fractions/syndicates & more times than not, powered by codependent traits. 2A is a explain of Capitalist NOT being for police/military so the own the means of production as far as Protection, buuuut I wouldn't say the 2nd amendment isn't a capitalist virtue.
Vs a Republic powered by Virtues/Value & hierarchical-power (like the 17th amendment isn't a value of the Republic, it's not an American value. Not as bad as the 16th tho)
Does a publicly owned company with hundreds to thousands of shareholders really count as capitalist? It seems like the classic definition of capitalism doesn't really apply anymore.
If everyone in a society has an equal ownership stake in a company, then you could make the case that such a company is not really capitalist. But if a group of individuals own it (often with widely different sizes of stakes) which is smaller than the full society, it is still capitalist. We might think this is a much better type of capitalism because it spreads the wealth of capital around, and does not require one to be obscenely rich to profit from one's capital, but it is still a type of capitalism. Remember something like 50% of US households don't own any stock.
You did make one major mistake, that being that socialism is when the state owns stuff, instead of when workers own it. The major critique of State run Marxist socialism is that the capital was handed to the state that people had little control over, creating a new elite class. Therefore, the state should be more democratic. The mistake you made was here, you assumed that the democratic state would take control of the capital, instead of handing most of it back to the workers, in a worker owned business. An example of a worker owned business is co-ops.
@@jimbell3242 Communism does not equal authoritarianism necessarily, not everyone is a Stalinist. The fact that the workers do not own the businesses they work at here is proof enough. The reason why the government will take your personal property and then sell it as private property, is because most lawmakers don’t speak for us workers. They speak for our ‘masters’ who wish to pay us workers as little as possible. They divide us over a silly culture war, so they can oppress unfortunate and/or marginalized workers by forcing them to take a low wage and long hours, or else they will feel the wrath of both poverty & the state. This then drives down wages everywhere, because if we don’t take the low wage someone else will. While simultaneously strengthening the government and eroding workers rights.
Rent is just another one of the other many downsides of capitalism. The fact that someone can turn your personal property, your home, into their private property is outrageous. What have the landlords done to deserve your rent? Maybe they bought or inherited the land, but most renters pay off the cost of the land after 2-3 years. The renter is the one who uses the land, improves the land, and maintains the land, yet they must pay a tax to their landlord. A tax that is ever increasing because who can live without shelter. The landlord if displeased will can still steal that property that the renter has improved, and lease it out to someone who will be forced to pay significantly more than the previous tenant.
The climate is collapsing, yet the government doesn’t go to heavily polluting industries and force them to change, but instead they go after us workers. Why? Well, who pays our lawmakers?
I agree that our freedom is being eroded, but it is not due to communism, but the growth of capitalist power and the erosion of workers rights all across the nation. Whenever us workers come together to protest this we are beaten and shot at. Whenever we arm ourselves to protect our families and communities they steal and revoke our right to gun owner ship. I am not talking about the bs NRA, but groups like the Black Panthers, that frightened hyper-capitalist Ronald Reagan into banning guns in California by doing no more than the average militia would be expected to do.
Our nation was founded on the principles of no taxation without representation, yet who do our lawmakers represent? Not the farmers, cashiers, construction workers, nor the factory workers. Hell, not even the small business or our unions. No they represent billionaire tax dodgers who use capital to lord over us. Removing and defunding our hard fought for safety nets, while looting our nations treasury with grants they never pay back. When we go into recession it is not us starving workers who are bailed out, but the businesses that caused the collapse instead.
Yet, this is not a time to mope. We can fix this if we stick to principles of solidarity, if we join and organize unions, if our innovators and new business start co-ops instead of corporations, if we strike and don’t scab, if we help our neighbors when times get tough, if we convince our fellow workers to stay strong, etc. The current failure of our system is only a signal for us to build a new one, and we can not only do that with electoral reform, but instead by clawing and crushing the chains that hinder our freedom.
@@jimbell3242 Although I disagree with communism, what you called communism was not communism, it is state and capitalist oppression. When the government takes someone’s property who, at least in name, is it given to? The worker? No, they do not help the lawmakers get rich? The unions and the small businesses? No, they too are too poor for those lords. The monopolies and billionaires? Yes, they can do their bidding get bribes and have a cushy job after.
Capitalism requires the state to function. Why? Long story short, what stops a company from looting your home and selling everything for a profit? Guns? How much will that do when you are not there? What stops companies from going to literal war with their competitors? What stops companies from enslaving us? What stops them from cutting our pay?
The answer to that is the state. The capitalists figured out they can make more money and live safer lives if they create a state that can make sure that competition is done through the market alone. The state protects the free market from outside influence, while the capitalists decide its rules. At least that is how it should work on paper. Furthermore, every single one of those questions I proposed has happened in the past 300 years or less.
The state is a vehicle for oppression used by powerful capitalists to oppress workers and small businesses. A powerful state, communist or capitalist, can and will control and undermine the freedoms of the people. The more powerful the government the more similar the two become, because at that point the economy is a way for the state to sustain itself.
Another thing is that there is a difference in between personal property and private property. There is a lot of stuff that would make more sense if you understood the distinction in your last post.
Personal property includes items intended for personal use Like your house, car, gun, and everything in between. It must be gained in a fair manner, as in the property was not stolen. The owner has the right to exclude others from using said property.
Private property is a social relationship between the owner and persons deprived, not a relationship between person and thing. Private property may include artifacts, factories, mines, dams, infrastructure, natural vegetation, mountains, deserts and seas-these generate capital for the owner without the owner necessarily having to perform any physical labor. Those who perform labor using somebody else's private property are deprived of the value they deserve, and are instead given a salary that is disjointed from the value generated by the worker.
Solidarity is when workers come together against the state and capitalist oppression, despite their differences. How in the world is that removing freedom? Forcing the state to stop oppressing our brothers and sisters be that black, white, straight, gay, cis, and/or trans is removing freedom? From who? The business owner who can no longer pay our black colleagues 50% less than us?
Some unions are corrupt and undemocratic, such as police unions, but this does not mean that they are not useful. Assuming there is no government, you want a raise. You know that every minute you work you make $20 dollars for your boss after all expenses are paid. You want a cut of that for yourself, so you ask your boss for a raise. Your request is immediately declined. By yourself, you as a worker have little to no say in what you are forced to labor on and how much you are paid for it. You could quit and find somewhere else to work, but the bosses have banded together to keep wages down. Instead you could together, with all the other workers at your place of business, ask for a raise. The boss might give in and give it to you all, but might as well try to fire all of you and hire new workers, probably for less pay. This is where a union comes in. You and your coworkers are part of the union, the union is made up of a sizable group of workers from different businesses. You work together to prevent the boss(es) from hiring replacements by blocking the doors to the workplace. The union provides food, water, and shelter for those who need it. They also prevent your boss from hiring some fellows with guns and clubs and shooting you all dead. Which has happened before here in the USA.
Co-ops are run by the workers through democracy. If we were to abolish the state, and there was only corporations and llc’s where the worker has no say over their work, then we have traded one oppressor for another.
As for that whole rule of law thing, look up libertarian socialism, mutualism, and anarchism more broadly. The worker does not need a state to work, no the state needs the worker to submit to it instead.
As for landlords, the government does not own the land they are using to exploit their renters, the landlords do. When the renter refuses to pay their rent, they call the state (police) to kick you out while taking you to court. Yes, it is the state doing the exploitation, but at whose call? Not the renter and their neighbors.
The culture war is irrelevant. It is about splitting us workers apart due to silly things like a private business saying happy holidays before merry Christmas. Or an outrage over what this political figure did on Twitter. All of this is used by the state and its masters to drive wedges in between us working folk, so that they can keep their power.
Destroying the state and not creating a system to prevent another one will only lead to the formation of a state.
Electoral reform is a temporary measure used to give freedom to more people.
Governments and capitalists have no respect for the people. They destroy our lives for their own power. When they are in power, we are given three options die, be imprisoned, or be a slave.
@@jimbell3242 I understand what the Nazi party was, an economically centrist highly authoritarian racist and murderous group. Who did nothing good in their entirety. I disagree with all of their beliefs.
I agree, to an extent, with your second point, but it is not us free people who run the government. It is the capital owners, the monopolies, the big businesses, etc.
Who says I as a socialist want a government where some rules over me in some archaic hierarchy? Look up libertarian socialism friend, it will help expand this discussion.
I agree that there is nothing really stopping the government from doing that outside of us people banding together in solidarity and fighting back. This is the definition of solidarity.
I agree that us free folk must band together to stop capitalist also known as corporate oppression. What I was doing was deconstructing why capitalism requires a state. If we workers band together in a union of egos that anyone can join and leave to stop capitalist oppression that is not by definition capitalism, that is socialism. Socialism doesn’t require a government at all. Very few socialists are Marxist-Leninists who advocate killing enemies of some ‘ideal’ revolution.
Did you just say distrust of businesses is equal to hating Jewish people? Wtf?! Have you ever learned about the gilded age? Have you learned about the May Day massacre? Have you never met a Jewish person who is socialist? Hell, one of Hitlers’ evil regimes justification of killing our Jewish brothers and sisters was because his messed up tiny mind thought that Germany’s socialist revolution directly after WW1 was run by them. Anti-Semites are a scourge on humanity and her free sons and daughters. So too is the hate and repression of any group due to any reason.
I too dislike the government and it’s repression of our freedom, and for the same exact reason I dislike private businesses that do nothing but give their bosses the hard worked money of their workers. Just as the government can ship you off and kill you, so too could a business with no state whose only goal is profit.
We both believe that the organization of free folk to stop oppression is the only way forward. When you apply that definition to the workplace that equals a union. Just like an organization of free folk could twist and become about serving the group so too can a union. Unions, or at least the ones I support, are highly democratic and decentralized. All members get a vote on their leadership both local and union wide, and union policies are mostly optional. Unions do not equal government.
The suppression of personal property is not just a factor of an authoritarian socialist but also an authoritarian capitalist society. Even then I disagree with it, and I disagree that socialists want to take away your stuff. No, all they care about is giving the mine to the miners, the bakery to the bakers, the farm to the farmers, etc. Anyone who advocates for the stealing of personal property is not a socialist not a capitalist but a thief.
All people should be equal and free, free from the state, free from oppression, and free to do anything that doesn’t harm another. Those are are god given rights friend, and it isn’t just the communist governments infringing on it but the capitalist ones too. Break free of the bonds that hold us to submit, and use your freedom that we are all born with.
@@jimbell3242 Dude, just look up up Rosa Luxemburg and Leon Trotsky. If you want the constitution to be your god so be it, just don’t slander those who disagree with you. If you want to put your fingers in your ears and not listen just do so. I said multiple times I want no state period. If you refuse to pick up a history book and only read state propaganda then what can I do. The socialist cause is one of solidarity and not of hate, like the hippies. If you really want to bring up Hitler, then you must also know that the United States was one of his biggest inspirations. The whole living space thing was ripped straight from manifest destiny as well as the labor camps. Fascism works by pinning all a nation’s grievances on the marginalized. Where does that happen here? If you want to say Hittler was a socialist, when he wasn’t, then I will say Pinochet was a capitalist. There is soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo many history books, personal testaments, and just general counter evidence that the Nazi party was not socialist. They rose to power by saying that the socialists failed the people. Naming Rosa Luxemburg as one of them. She was a Jewish revolutionary who paved the way for libertarian socialism. She was assassinated. The Makhnovia, a anarcho-communist army and the liberated territory, would shoot any one who committed a hate crime against Jewish people. Libertarian socialism is based on anti fascism, democracy, the abolition of the central state, and the equality of all people. It is rooted in Jewish acceptance and the acceptance of all marginalized people. This is the last time I am explaining this, if you want to learn more look for the history of the 1890’s to the Cold War, from outside the USA if possible.
Democratic socialism is socialism but implanted by democratic means. But it’s the same socialism.
Socialism is not a spectrum. A socialist system is either socialist, or it's not. Your description of socialism is from within the framework of current society and how socialism fits in to capitalist society rather than a description of a socialist society seperate from capitalism.
As noted in the video, one of the challenges of defining socialism is that most self-declared socialists don't agree on what it means. I am sourcing these definitions from reputable sources like the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Macmillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy, but even those admit that there are many mansions in the house of socialism. You may have your own flavor of socialism that disagrees with some of the tenets offered here, but it is completely unsupported by the literature to claim that is the only kind of socialism, or that you somehow have the one true right kind of socialism.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Socialism is a broad thing, but your video only covered one area of it. The video was a description of socialism in a nationalistic sense rather than a general sense. The video implies that public ownership is the same as government ownership when there are other forms of ownership in socialism. To cover it broadly would be to describe how the means of production would be owned without an induvidual owner.
11:30 That isn't true. Socialism is not equal to "government owns stuff and government does stuff". What about free market socialism and worker cooperatives? Neither involve ownership by the government.
Many socialists would claim that "free market socialism" is an oxymoron, that it is simply capitalism in disguise. This underlines the point of the video that the term socialism is challenging to define because many that identify with it disagree about its use. I'm not saying that they are right, I'm saying that this is a basic introduction to the concept and most forms of socialism that have existed are about state control.
God, there way a lot of trash comments. Both right libertarians fighting strawpeople, and leftists using false empirical suggestions...
I mean, this is channel about philosophy, not about economics or history, and as one of the best political philosophers of 20th century - Jerry Cohen said "There are no place for empirical in political philosophy".
And some hot takes for my fellow so-commentators:
1. Austrian economics isn't empirical science, and it can't have any prediction claims.
2. Socialism in political philosophy(I make some distinction between political philosophy and political science) isn't about "plane economy works and state is good", it's about "private property is morally bad".
3. Self-ownership principle doesn't imply capitalism with necessity. There are "left Libertarianism" and authors like Valentine (He isn't socialist himself, but his views allow allow some sort of georgist socialism).
4. Modern socialists are liberal socialits. People like Rawls, Dworkin and Hahermas strongly rejecting outlaw bloody regimes like Cuba, China and Soviet Union and are methodological(and, probably, ethical) individualists.
5. Plane economy couldn't work well(look at calculation argument), competition and market is the best way to prosper. I mean, you surely could be in favour of some heterodox theories like MMT(which is still promarket) or Marxist Economics, but it's almost the same as being climate change denier or flat earther.
Thanks for good content mr Carneades.
Capitalism is a form of economy, how the fuck does that have anything to do with the government not having an army
I think I am a moderate socialist.
Most people are somewhere in between. Few people think everything should be state-owned. But few people think the military or the police should be privatized. Everyone is something of a moderate, only a few are willing to admit it. :)
Why do you define socialism as a state society? @@CarneadesOfCyrene
20:40 what? Technological change is made by state (like computer) and competition/private sectors mean lower quality of services and increase prices per quality (because they make things breaking easy/fast, we have to pay advertisement, pollution etc etc)
Man, you should really learn history and economics.
@@yangwen-li9117 I did. Internet was made thanks to military(public) spendings as with other discoveries especialy in fundamental sciences(public research). From these military/state spendings the digital revolution followed quickly.
@@arallskiant9923 your assumption is still false. I mean it's quite silly to think that one(to be fair there are plenty of them) example could lead to strange inductive proposition "Technological progress is made by state"(which is surely false if its exclusive assumption, and tautology to your internet examples otherwise). More than, second assumption about quality of competition is something really cringy.
@@yangwen-li9117
one could go on more details to see how some private sector appropriate knowledge(eg elsevier) or money(some steroid company or a company that sell tabacco or some kind of colorful iphone15) and waste it(private only see short term, do not care about common goods like ocean/forest/air/childs rights etc) but It is only a comment through a phone on yt. Also how stateless state does not exist and the most "free market" state is still a state that hide himself and how the market is socially constructed not essentialized in an invisble hand or alike. Companies get subsidies in many different ways...
To sell they pay expensive ads (they can because of inequal exchange, social/fiscal/environmental dumping etc) for instance or add chlorine in water instead of repairing water system etc and sell it only to those who have the means to pay it. They will also therefore not care much about research that cannot sell on short term(few years).
The OSRD or NDRC funded many things in that time in US, state tend to pay for education from primary school to thesis. Private labs get public fund (because it quite difficult to exploit enough child/poor to accumulate capital and because they already pay for a lot of lobbying) etc etc. Their lobbying/ads/marketing expense will be found in the price for a good with decreased quality (because of the toll on environment, agnotology, exploitation etc).
In fact private sector produce more ignorance (cf agnotology) than knowledge (knowledge that will be sell to those who can pay for it etc).
I am not english native and on my phone so more can be said with more fancy words(eg. I wanted to say "planned obsolescence" but I did not knew the english word) i guess.
@@arallskiant9923
1. There is a presupposition, that there are objective values of goods, both I and modern economics methodology cant agree with that. (There is really marginal(lol) metaphysical position).
2. About sort-term preferences: a) Its empirical question and I haven't seen any data, ill be happy to see some research. b) Have you ever heard about the tragedy of commons? c)State regulations could easily resolve that problem, I want to remind you, that state regulation != nationalization.
3. Don't really understand that take. I don't think, that agnotology is something bad(There is still a human choice), I don't use term "exploitation", cause it needs some strange presuppositions about freedom and just exchange. More then, I don't think that there is some "real" human needs and desires. And, surely, the only way to compare market produced goods quality is to compare it with alternative(state produced), and it will be surely in favor of the market in almost of all cases.
The usage of almost every terminology here is completely wrong. Types of socialism are classified based on socialist mode of production, to be precise, the ownership of the means of production. There is no category called Utopian socialism or Marxist socialism. Socialism is broadly categorized into Democratic socialism, Libertarian socialism, Communism, Anarchism, and Syndicalism. Marxism is a particular philosophical world view that involves 'labor theory of value', inherent contradictions of capitalism and perhaps some metaphysics like dialectics, etc. The present model of society for the Nordic countries is called social democracy (not democratic socialism) which is a form of soft capitalism. There has been academic exploration and critique of such matters among philosophers as much as the widespread stupidity and confusion among common people. Customization of such terms and phrases from self-made or inauthentic sources is culpable for severe epistemic injustice.
[4:16] Ownership of services necessary for living, such as food, housing, healthcare ... is moderate. So 125 sqft per person and one piece of bread and a bowl of gruel per dat for everyone!! yep that's moderate socialism folks.
We sometimes describe the effects of industrialism as if everyone worked on their own soil before that.
Read it out once before making the videos. Your english is not great buddy. Commas are a powerful punctuation.
I am Completely a Capitalist. As I believe the government should not have anything to do at all.
From the jump, this video seems to have no understanding of reality. It says self described socialists disagree on what positions are required to be socialist, and what counts as a socialist government.
North Korea calls itself democratic people's republic of Korea. Does that mean that all of a sudden people don't know what positions comprise a belief in democracy, and what governments count as democratic?
I'm not sure how intellectually honest this video is.
Socialism consists in a much wider range of positions than democracy. Most academics and practitioners agree on a definition of democracy and agree that the DPRK does not satisfy that definition. However, socialism has a much wider range of views, here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Angelo Rappoport canvassed no fewer than forty definitions of socialism, telling his readers in the book’s preface that 'there are many mansions in the House of Socialism'" The Oxford Companion to Philosophy notes the same "It is difficult to subsume all the various socio-economic beliefs that have been referred to as socialism under one definition." These works are not simply saying that there are people who claim to be socialist that are not, they are saying there are many different things that one may legitimately consider socialist.
There is a clear quantitative difference between two definitions of democracy, one that is clearly propaganda and another that is not, and the wide diversity of viewpoints that individuals call socialism.
The other challenge with socialism is that it has changed drastically over time. Democracy has expanded who is allowed to vote, but not changed substantively since ancient Greece. Utopian socialism, Marxist socialism and Democratic socialism are deeply qualitatively different positions all of which claim to be the "True" or "Real" socialism. Such diversity of views does not exist in democracy. MacMillan's Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes that "Socialism has seen enormous changes" in just the last few decades as do The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, and The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. If you think there is complete agreement on what constitutes socialism and that such a position has not changed drastically over time, you are out of line with the academic consensus. My work is in line with the prevailing literature on the history and evolution of socialism and the diversity of viewpoints it encompasses. I don't see how standing in line with such literature could be considered intellectually dishonest.
You may be expressing the substantive viewpoint, which I cover in the video, held by many democratic socialists that previous incarnations of socialism were not actually socialist, since they were not sufficiently democratic. This is a real viewpoint, but it is not the only viewpoint.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene I'm pretty sure the definitive characteristic of socialism is workers/the masses own the means of production.
It should be easier to identify socialism if you specify the context, the discipline, the framework in which you're speaking about it. That was the only point of the dprk example. You seem capable of distinguishing context on other subjects, so it appears there is some inconsistency.
You could have specified whether you were speaking about socialism as a philosophy, political ideology, an economic theory, a framework for individual policy, a mode of production, a model for organizing labor, or even how it has manifested materially.
When you say that it has changed, that is like saying science has changed, there is new and updated information that has developed it further, but that does not change the meaning of the key word.
The title suggests you're speaking about socialism. Not democratic socialism, or utopian socialism, the different ways that socialism can be implemented, or to what degree, or to whom it serves, or in what arena it is implemented in, does not change the definition.
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Has the definition of "democracy" really not changed since ancient greece?
@@josejaquez4100Agreed, he claims that due to the various amounts of definitions he wasn't able to find the universal (though the ownership of the means of production bt the workers and decommodification seem to the the trick) but at the end he was just fine with concluding how it's when the state does stuff... eventhough being stateless is like one of THE universal agreements within socialism unless you're a leninist which is what he went for it seems. Classical liberal bs
Finally! Marx was the missing piece in your channel (not even in the map of philo). Still quite lacking in quantity of content.
Terrible understanding of the topic.
Why do you say that? If you have an argument to offer, or specific objections please provide them. If you are just here to provide insults, please do it somewhere else.
I noticed ‘National Socialism’ is missing from the list, as well as ‘fascism’ (born out of Marxism, is state-centric, corporatisation of the syndicalist unions…)
If you want to know what Marxism is ignore this guy! Go read the wsws.org
I am speaking about the broad philosophical definition of these positions, on the political viewpoints of a particular organization. As I note in the video, socialists disagree as to what constitutes socialism. The site you reference does espouse one version of socialism, but it is not the only version. There are people that claim to be socialist who don't fit into your definition. There is nothing objective about the world that makes your definition right and theirs wrong. My goal is to provide a broad definition of the position as defined by the philosophical literature writ large, not some specific organization's opinion. Specifically for this I am drawing from Macmillan's Second Edition Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and the Oxford Companion to Philosophy with some drawn from the SEP and the IEP.
but marxism isnt scientific. Karl popper criticized marxism for being a pseudoscience. But I dont think marx himself said it was scientific.
What do you mean by owning the "means of production?" As a black guy, when you say socialism is government and capitalism is individual, all I'm starting to hear is socialism is closer to enforcing slavery than capitalism ever will be.
Good question. Economists think that for a business to create goods it needs two things: capital (the factory, the office building, the land, etc.), and labor. The question is who keeps the profits? For the capitalist, the capital (whoever owns the property) keeps the profits. For the socialist, the capital should be owned by a democratically elected government, and the labor should share in the profits.
Slavery goes a step farther. It says that there is no such thing as labor, everything is capital, even people. The "labor" is included with the "means of production" The capitalist or slave owner keeps both the profits and the wages. If anything slavery is capitalism taken to an extreme. Socialism, under most modern conceptions would be completely antithetical to slavery as they are about returning the power to the workers. Capitalism is ambivalent at best on slavery.
That said, questions of slavery are often based in social questions of human rights, which fit on a different axis of the political spectrum. Usually it is the government's responsibility to protect people from violations of their human rights. That said, sometimes the government goes too far and ends up infringing on those rights itself.
Here is the 411: Socialism and Capitalism are normative claims on economic activity. Those proposing socialistic programs believe *only* labor should benefit and those proposing capitalistic programs believe *only* capital should benefit from the market. Marx literally believed that labor value was a real physical substance like phlogiston that is literally imbued into physical objects by labor.
Marxism is *pseudoscience*. Fascism is likewise pseudoscience. If indeed economics is a science then there is no such thing as a "socialist" economy. You can no more choose to ignore economic laws than you can choose to ignore the law of gravity.
@@thotslayer9914 The political compass is a biased survey designed by Libertarians to promote their ideology. The way the questions are framed presupposes their political priors.
Democrat Socialist: There is never enough control of the economy. Moderate ..... ROFLMAO
What OVER-COMPLICATED NONSENSE: socialism is where the needs of the State are PRIORITIZED over UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of the individual; whereas democracy is the opposite; where, in democracy, the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of the individual are equal for all and are PRIORITIZED over those of the State. Any particular govt either PRIORITIZES one or the other; BOTH cannot be prioritized. IOW: one cannot serve two masters; or, a house divided against itself cannot stand.
We here in the USA fought our Civil War over this general argument: were some people to be favored over others --- the State picking winners and losers --- or, were ALL, in front of the law, to be respected equally.
This is why there is no such animal as "social democracies". Social democracy is an oxymoron.
This distinction is NOTHING NEW --- there have always been those who have wanted to control others --- where, such has been the WAY OF THE WORLD since the beginning of world history.
What you are assuming is that the needs of the state are distinct from that of the people they rule, which is by all means a fair assumption under the current paradigm. However, when the people are united under the state, then true democracy, by which we do not mean the mere counting of the masses, but rather the discerning of the true interests of the spirit of the people, and true socialism, by which we do not mean merely material ownership of the means of production but the mobilization of the whole nation, working towards a united goal, as concepts do in fact become united. This is, however, distinct from what Bernie advocates, or at least what he now advocates. It is what some have called fascsim, and by some I mean Mussolini himself.
@@piquant7103 Very common misconception of the Nordic model: "They are not capitalist America! They are socialist"
Sweden is a failing model because their government is currently at the heart of a great cultural and internal divide with failing policing and immigration issues which is creating a rift and also generating harsh nationalism as a necessary backlash.
Lets take Denmark, who is a shining example of your Nordic model that many deem as "socialist" or "social democracy". Yes, they have high taxes and high government spending, a social mentality, but in every aspect it is a full-on free market capitalist country with some of the strongest protection on individual property rights in the entire world. Less bureaucratic red-tape than most countries, easy to open small business, and no minimal wage laws. It is ranked as one of the top free-market economies in the entire world.
They are not a socialist country, they are a small capitalist country where its citizens pay huge taxes for huge benefits. This means citizens make enough money to pay those taxes, which is only possible in a free market capitalist model.
The problem is that there are other issues with this model, such as lackluster public healthcare and public education, insurance, pension plans--these are inevitable issues that come with government spending and high taxes.
So Denmark and the Nordic model is NOT a socialist utopia, it's a capitalist free market economy on a smaller-scale, albeit with slight variations--but the notion of private/individual rights, business enterprise, and free-market economy is there just as capitalism entails.
There isn’t a single Nordic country with a socialist economic or parliamentary system in place. Not one of them is heading toward socialism either, so people should use Nordic model as a VERSION of capitalism, not a version of SOCIALISM.
@@sethapex9670 "What you are assuming is that the needs of the state are distinct from that of the people they rule ..." is NOT AT ALL WHAT I AM ASSUMING. That is NOT the point. Are you sure that you meant your reply in response to my comment? If you did mean this from me, why are you complicating it: govts are instituted among men to protect the rights, fairly and equally, of each and every citizen; where the govt derives its JUST POWERS from the consent of the governed.
Such is where one and all have the same rights --- there is a single-tier legal system --- where the SAME LAW, the law OF THE PEOPLE, is for one and all, and such is democracy.
Democracy is 180-degrees out of phase with socialism. They are mutually exclusive.
In such a situation, the UNALIENABLE RIGHTS of the citizen MUST be prioritized over the State.
IOW: the PEOPLE RUN the nation; the govt DOES NOT; where the govt is there to protect rights for one and all. The govt is the referee. Where protection of rights is the SOLE TASK of govt. The people created the govt to SERVE the people; not the other way around.
In the meantime, the true interest of the spirit of the people, as you wrote --- being of NO CONCERN of the govt --- is NOT the business of the govt. Again, the sole purpose of the govt is to protect the rights of the citizens; where, as long as the individual is NOT VIOLATING THE RIGHTS of other citizens, it is of no business of the govt. Why should it be? How should it be?
True "socialism" --- actually, such would be democracy, which is totally incompatible with socialism --- is achieved when the citizenry, its individual rights being prioritized, is able to realize its own respective life, liberty and pursuit of happiness ... as long as such citizens are not violating the rights of others. History has shown time and again that there is a much better chance for social harmony when individual rights are respected, that the people run the nation, and, that the govt is there to protect those rights.
@@piquant7103 is your reply in response to my comment, or, is it for someone else? My comment was all about the PRIORITIZATION OF RESPECT FOR INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. The SOLE TASK of the State is there to protect rights, equally and fairly, for one and all. The people RUN the nation; the govt DOES NOT. The govt, deriving its just powers from the governed, is to respect the people; not to serve itself.
Cuyana2020 Ivan Are you fond of John Locke?