Debunked: "Socialism Has Never Worked"
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Our long form deep dive debunking the false notion that "socialism has never worked."
Become a Member: www.davidpakma...
Support us on Patreon: / davidpakmanshow
Support TDPS by clicking (bookmark it too!) this link before shopping on Amazon: www.amazon.com/...
David's Instagram: / david.pakman
Website: www.davidpakma...
Discuss This on Reddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
Support Our Sponsors: www.influencerb...
Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
TDPS Twitter: / davidpakmanshow
David's Twitter: / dpakman
TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
Subscribe to The David Pakman Show for more: www.youtube.com...
Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe! --Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
--Donate via Bitcoin: 15evMNUN1g4qdRxywbHFCKNfdCTjxtztfj
--Donate via Ethereum: 0xe3E6b538E1CD21D48Ff1Ddf2D744ea8B95Ba1930
--Donate via Litecoin: LhNVT9j5gQj8U1AbwLzwfoc5okDoiFn4Mt
"Scandinavia isn't socialist."
"ok cool can we have their health and education system?"
"NO THATS SOCIALISM."
John Jaremchuk they may be heading towards a socialist state but the only reason they are able to fund it is because they used to be capitalist and got a LOT of wealth from that
@@businesspanda7197 Right because life in russia wasnt a complete fucking nightmare when capitalism came to town. Say what you will about commies at leas they're willing to admit when they fuck shit up.
Also call me crazy but I dont see healthcare and education as being stepping stones to worker controlled industry and a ban on capitalists classes. That sounds like paranoid reactionary nonsense to me.
Aberpolaster ‘used to be capitalist’ their entire economy is capitalist with the exception of Norway which has a regulated free market / mixed economy with a heavy capitalist underpin. They are not socialist economies and have free markets, which still make vast sums of wealth in GDP
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Finnish_parliamentary_election Nordic countries isn´t going socialism. 2 socialistic partys combined get 0,18% of votes in Finnish parliamentary election 2019.
And peopel cannot afford much there. They have a heavy drinking problem. They are getting their 'funds' mainly from North Sea drilling and we have been helping their asses after being bombed out in WW2.
Social programs in a country aren't the same as "socialist country"
Great. Lets do it then
@@rzu1474 already have social programs now. This push is for actual socialism which people are mistaking for social welfare programs. We need less of it, reduce the government to get our spending problem in check.
Ummm Jesus never said government should help the poor... he said Christians should help the poor. Not all people, and institutions like gov can’t be baptized.
@@gregorythompson5334
Social welfare is not socialism!
Great lets to it.
NO THATS SoCiALIsM!!
@@rzu1474 we already have social welfare and it's being abused. We need less of that, not more. The current programs need to be more strict on the use and to whom receives it. It's an expense to the tax player, and there is no incentive for people on it to change away from it. Therefore more welfare is not the solution. It should have a time limit and only available to US citizens. But in order to do that. Illegal immigration needs to be denounced, legal immigration incentivised, voting requiring citizenship and verified, before we push any other government program.
Also, government pushing welfare is a sign of danger. The more they trick the people into it, it begins the segue to people relying more and more upon the government. As each freedom is given up for govt welfare, the tilt to socialism grows. There's the problem.
There's a difference between a welfare state and a socialist country.
The difference being a Capitalist country can afford to pay for a welfare system. A Socialist country implements a welfare system, but also state controlled business that results in ever diminishing returns from the businesses and the welfare system, along with everything else, shrinks or collapses.
@@antonybooth4104 Capitalist countries can afford to pay for limited or poor welfare systems.
@@borisd4397 The CIA was established 99 years after the Communist Manifesto was written. To think that every single socialist country throughout history witnessed its demise at the hands of international economic bodies and/or the CIA is an incredible excuse for the irrational and uneconomic forces of socialism.
That’s what he was saying, they’re socialistic aspects, not socialism itself.
@@just.some.things3945 You think most commenting bother to make least understand that distinction?
Every socialism debate should be
1) a definition of socialism you want to be using (the end goal)
2) what would you do to achieve it (concrete policy proposals)
If any of these two points is unaddressed, the whole thing is vague and useless.
Sometimes the method of achieving it doesn't involve much policy at all, violent or nonviolent.
socialism is untested at the very damn least and any examples have been done at a small scale and thus cannot be applied to gigantic nations, and socialist revolutionaries have an unintended consequence of creating dictatorships of "socialism" or "communism", as well as causing mass genocides examples include hitler the nazis were a quote unquote "socialist" party the fascists in Italy benito mussolini was a socialist, Stalin was a "socialist or communist" mao was a "socialist or communist" and many many many more
Facts
@@Cecilia-ky3uw Fascists pretended to be socialist. The syndicates that were supposed to be workers unions in government were controlled by a governmental system that sold out to big business. Fascism is authoritarian capitalism. Mussolini even said that corporatism is a more accurate definition.
@N Gaming Nordic nations are not socialist, they are capitalist .Chicken and the egg. The socialist countries were impoverished and fragile so became socialist as a desperate reaction, the socialism was the symptom not the cause,
As a European it strikes me how extreme Americans are regarding economic policies. A lot of them have a completely binary view of things. There is a whole world between Stalin and Milton Friedman. What has never worked is extremes, and you're pretty close to one right now.
Pretty close?
After the 2016 election, I would say ... we're already there.
(btw, thumbs up)
@@bully3808 Nonsense.
Lyle Goofball,
Brilliant reply Bubbles!
It's easy to see why no one messes with you.
Absolutely fucking brilliant!
WHAT A FRIGGIN’ DORK !!!!!!!!!!
Well there are extremes. Personally, I would prefer as little government as possible. But there are those value added addendums like Military, Law Enforcement, and other Emergency Services that many people need. The trouble is twofold,
1. What constitutes emergency. Some people have a low threshold for panic.
2. The windings and convulsions of paperwork that make pockets of corruption.
@@LG123ABC I think Bully380 has a crush on you too.
This comment section makes no sense to me. The author states several times that Social Democracy is born under the umbrella of capitalism. He repeats multiple times that this systems are all capitalistic, and yet in the comment section people are claiming the opposite. It feels like the large majority of comments and votes come from people who have not watched the whole thing.
David pakman provides no evidence the sources no nothing
The so-called dictators I just had some leftist if not the most successful leftists in the world
Socialism as defined by the political class to dupe right wing voters is - anything that isn’t unfettered capitalism is socialism and hence the same as the worst possible form of authoritarian dictatorships.
@@whitkirtley4185 you leftist?
Seems like his click bait title worked.
Ppl are dumb. Once they hear the term welfare or stimulus package, the first thing that comes to mind is socialism when actually the system is still fundamentally Capitalist.
Most evangelicals Conservatives are Christians but not Christ like.
I would argue that they call themselves Christians but they do not follow Christian ethics
Cardboard Cape if you mean conservative in the sense of republican, and by default liberal as democrat (they are not, both parties are right wing once you start to look at the rest of the world).. but if that is the meaning... and if by Christian you mean a willingness to use religion as a political football, then conservatives do edge out liberals, but only by a little bit. If instead you mean conservatives as a right wing ideology that is highly resistant to change, and liberalism as a free-market ideology that is in favour of equality before the law and consent of the governed (probably should throw in social welfare). So outside of belief, which is personal and I will not comment on, what is more Christlike, tithing and following the modern day Pharisees? Or looking after the sick and the poor.
Cardboard Cape among western nations the us Democratic Party would be the right wing party .. the are only left of the republicans.
I am from Europe and I had finished catholic school and I find american christians, evangelics so so weird. They go to church, pray for Jesus, say they are christians, but in practice they don't act like ones. They don't inherit christian values. Don't help the poor or sick. It is very weird. They even call the pope socialist or communist. It's crazy, it looks like they have never read the bible or listened anything at church.
P. S. Democratic party is not left wing for europeans. They are right wing or liberal.
@@MrDjgalas no they kiss their dollar bills and their new bmws 2 times a day while pretending to love God more. Our people in America are extremely selfish.which means that giving God and christ like activities 2 hours of our week is a big deal from us and takes a lot of efforts. Please take our culture into account before judging how religious we are. ( I am entirely joking and 100% agree with you)
So I've a few things to say;
A) As a Finn, you're one of the few progressive Americans who has defined Finnish social democracy correctly. For example, social reformer like Bernie Sanders usually uses democratic socialism and social democracy too colloquially.
B) I would like to here some arguments on how the nepotism and authoritarianism are quote "inherently right wing traits" when they can be met across the board
C) Though the Nordic system is great, what you should be arguing is why the redistribution of wealth is ethically justified and what kind of powers should the state have. In Finland for example, the state mandates certain matters of health, education and business in a harmful way. We have started to see recently signs of systemic corruption from the grassroot Level to top branches of government. So instead of markets exploiting the people it's the government exploiting the people.
And unlike "markets" the governments can and historically have systemically oppress and kill people not only starvation but by guns.
I'm a European Democratic Socialist and I hope he stayed more on the difference it has with Social Democracy cause for me they're not similar at all.
Also your third point is so interesting! How is the governments intervention to public services affecting it exactly (like the infamous finnish education system) and how has that affected people's political believes there?
@@chamberv5261 he has a different video about that
The origin of the term right wing and left wing comes from the French Revolution. Those who sided with the monarchy sat on the right side of the room while those who wanted to democratize the process sat on the left side of the room. This is why authoritarianism is always right wing and democratism is always left-wing by convention.
@@LastThankG0DfreeAtLast not entirely true - left were the progressives and right were the conservatives, but not monarchists per se. More like constitutionalists.
As Bill Maher pointed out about Obama: "Socialist? He's not even a liberal!"
Which is a nonsensical thing to say. On numerous levels. For one, a person could be a socialist and NOT be a liberal of ANY SORT, modern or classic, since socialists AREN'T liberals. Socialists have only co-opted many of the causes of modern liberalism in the West, as a tactic to build voting coalitions. In that regard a person could masquerade as a modern liberal and actually be a closet socialist.... or an actual modern liberal with socialist tendencies. But, if Obama was not a socialist, or a progressive, then he certainly liked to keep close ties to all the above.
Biden has more liberal policies than Obama did. That's kind of weird. LOL!
Socialism is a liberal ideology lmao
@Samuel Fagbemi - Let me guess. You have a hard time with new things and different ideas.
@@CorgiCorner - Spend less time laughing your "ao" and more time reading some books.
POV: You didn’t actually watch the video and are now screaming in the comment section.
POV: this guy doesn't understand politics and calls everything that isn't anarchist right wing. Anarchism tries to directly establish communism while Marxism wants a socialist phase before communism.
@@daseapickleofjustice7231 what guy are you talking about? you? Are you speaking in the POV in that you’re speaking in third person?
@@estelasanchez. does it matter? I was pointing out how this video is an absolute joke. "socialism is actually just social democracy and antifa" "Stalin was right wing" man dissing the dude whoi beat the literal Nazis the defender of the revolution an absolute hero
@@daseapickleofjustice7231 you may be a fucking idiot
@@daseapickleofjustice7231 but nice reductionism. and yeah, it does matter.
Scandiavian countries are Social Democracies, not Socialist countries.
Some would consider social democracies as watered down versions of socialism.
@@williammatthew7290 Some would consider Social Democracies as watered down versions of Capitalism.
@@tiluriso That's ridiculous... Capitalism is an economic system, while social democracy is an ideology, there is no easy way to compare them. The world has never seen a country that runs on 100% capitalism, but it has seen countries that successfully (as shown in the video) run on full socialism. You also have the word itself, "social", and that's super important as it shows that this ideology favors the social/collective good more than a more right winged approach as "survival of the fittest".
By your logic nearly all ideologies or economic systems can be looked at like watered down versions of capitalism. Socialism includes versions were economic models as capitalism are included, and the umbrella term socialism includes social democracy, and that's it. You can be a socialist country, but you can't be a capitalistic country (or, you can, but it has never been tried because it's completely lunacy).
@@odinhaga5899 What is 'ridiculous is your inability to understand sarcasm and irony. Don't try to 'school me, because I already know that, the countries I refer to as Social Democracies (Scandinavian countries) apply that 'ideology' (Socialistic principles) within the bounds of the 'economic system' called Capitalism - even if the balance between privately owned assets vs. publicly owned assets is much more shifted towards 'the collective good' as compared most other countries. But this whole academic spiel you just spinned is debatable. 'Socialism includes versions were (sic) economic models as capitalism are included..' Why do some regressive leftists (Jimmy Dore comes to mind instantly) insist on selling something great wrapped in its psychologically less desirable package? Ideological Narcissism? Partisan Pride? Listen to your own words! ''...and the umbrella term socialism include social democracy...' So you just admitted that referring to 'Social Democracy' as 'Socialism' is placing SD under an 'umbrella term' - academically that's OK, but in the real world it turns out to be a generalization, devoid of nuance. I know there are common points, but the two are not the same. 'The world's never seem a country that runs 100% on capitalism'. Fair enough, but what countries that run 100% on socialism have actually 'worked'? And how are we going to define if a country A or B 'made it' or 'failed'? The countries David mentioned are Social Democracies. Courtesy of David Pakman himself @ 1:50 'You can say that some Scandinavian nations are 'SOCIALISTIC' by modern standards...' , meaning they promote 'socialistic ideals' of social justice, the common good, etc...I say he's referring to countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, not Cuba, Venezuela, Albania. Scandinavian countries are not '100% Socialist countries' simply because the means of production are not 100% collectively owned. Again from this video @1:13 - the textbook definition states that 'Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production'. Hardly the case of Scandinavian countries, definitely the case of Cuba, Albania, the whole former USSR/Eastern bloc/China and Venezuela to an almost full extent at this point. My point is: If you want others to embrace the Scandinavian 'SOCIALISTIC' ideology that promotes wealth redistribution, reduced income inequality promotes basic public services of quality like education, health care and public transportation, you will have a much bigger chance of success by calling it 'Social Democracy', what you don't seem to realize is that the term 'SOCIALISM' immediately invokes the words 'COMMUNISM", 'MARXISM", 'AUTHORITARIANISM" in the minds of most people - and especially so in the not well read, uninitiated minds. And most common folk are just that. So do ourselves a favor: Drop this ideological, puritanical and ultimately self-defeating and irrational need (typical of the regressive left) to name 'The Scandinavian Model/System with a term filled with historically heavy connotations that for the better or for the worse, like it or not, invoke negative and unfavorable appraisal in the minds of Man. I've talked to many Scandinavians who would agree. Moreover: if you say the the two are the same, why not call it by the more palatable term? 'Democratic-Socialism' has a less attractive ring to it, because the emphasis is retained on the last word, with its psychologically negative connotations in tandem. 'Social-Democracy' is infinitely better because 'Democracy stands last, as the backbone.
It’s like nobody even watched the video. David Pakman specifically says Scandinavian countries are capitalist with more social programs.
Most of the examples of "socialism" cited here were absolute monarchies where the "government" was "owned" by the king or emperor, not the people and was for the benefit of the rulers, not the ruled. It is stupid to argue the Pharohnic period was a time of "socialism." It is the exact opposite.
Instructions not clear. Ended up murdering 18 million people.
Don't know what to tell ya, bud. 🤔 Takes a special kind of person to screw up that bad when given step by step instructions. Read them next time?
It was obviously purposeful!
To eliminate All opposition.
Sincerely
based
ALWAYS ask the right-winger to define what they mean by “socialism” before engaging in a debate with them. You’ll likely find that they have a very different definition.
I havent speak with any American yet who know what Socialism is, even here in Sweden people have problem with it, alot of people think that you cant have capitalism in a socialism society, with is not true. This video was maybe the best one ive seen to explain Socialism =)
@@allaboutmusicmovies9606 and that’s precisely why you need to establish that you’re both talking about the same thing. To some Americans, a public healthcare system is “socialism”...🤷♂️
@@burkeyatm i agree. I think most Americans are scared shitless of Socialism because of all propaganda and compairing with Russia, Venezuela etc. Thats just dictatorship and under Trump you were going in that direction 🙂
Wow.
Ok. What? How was Trump a dictator? Answersbor gtfo.
Also Socialism is the redistribution of wealth. Healthcare for everyone is socialism because some one still has to pay for it. Its coming out of your taxes. To pay for other people who get hurt.
Same thing with welfare, section 8 housing. Good stamps. Shall I go on.
@@DraodVideos Sooo...by the definition you provided, TAXES represent socialism. Good one.
I won’t address the dictatorship part of your argument for one very good reason. I’ll let you work out why.
Communist Jesus
In all honesty authoritarianism isn’t necessarily right-wing, it’s really just... up on the political compass
Left - Everything Good
Right - Everything Bad
Get it right. It's really simple when you think about it, or when you don't think at all. 😁
@@enematwatson1357 hmm, not biased at all.
Yeah true, if you go to the extreme right and if you go to the extreme left, it sort of ends up being the same thing.
@@aayushdas19
I know, right? It's just insane but
it's the only definition by which leftists make any sense. 😉
@@enematwatson1357 oh and my favorite.
"rEaL sOcIaLiSm HaS nEvEr BeEn TrIeD"
If socialism works, why did you move from Argentina to America
argentina wasn't socialist when he leaved it and btw I moved from america to france and I am living with less money and everything is more expensive here but I am million times more happy, at least I wouldn't die from disease because I can't pay for healthcare
"Socialism has never worked" is merely an indicator the speaker is conservative and has zero interests in actually exploring subjects that are outside of his paradigm.
It's a statement about a persons mindset, not about socialism.
@@yt.be-r Its an indicator, not a conclusion. Saying socialism has never worked is a bit presumptive however.
Incorrect. Socialism has never worked its just a fact.
@@waddlesxdd8607 If its a fact, why don't you prove it?
@@jurrekieboom2208 sure. Why does Spain have a mixed economy now? What made Catalina move away from this narco socialism. It doesn't work bc it doesn't last.
@@waddlesxdd8607 You forget there was a civil war in Spain that the fascists won, partly due to them receiving better military aid and the division between socialists and communists. Do tell me about every other time socialism didn't work.
Socialism = it depends on what you mean by socialism
Derek Ketcher fax
Socialism is evil
@@dancingonagungef5537 Socialism is not even gay (you insults the standards of gay by attaching socialism), more like "the Joker" on steroids, delusional with victimhood to it's very core.
I feel like this is supposed to be a Jordan Peterson reference
Hey, their feels don't care about facts !
Private charity does not equal socialism.
Does medicare?
Yes, and Medicare is terrible.
you must not have ever dealt with a private insurance company. they are just as terrible, they DO have death panels, and they are much (cubed) more expensive. a family should not have to pay what equals a house payment each month. all men are created equal...some more equal than others
If the industry wasn't so heavily regulated and subsidised it wouldn't be as expensive and service would be better. Don't worry though, trumps cuts to regulation should encourage competition and lower prices :)
NIcolas Matthysen
lol. You're in for a surprise I hear. Just out of curiosity, why do you think medicine and healthcare is cheaper in these universal healthcare systems? I mean, since it's so heavily regulated, shouldn't they be waaaaaay more expensive?
Here in Europe, we don‘t have socialism. It‘s called „wellfare“: the government, rsp. the states provide a framework where all citicens have basic benefits like health care (free or at affordable cost), social security and (independet of companies) retirement plans or affordable access to legal procedures.
@ Scafusa yes, that explains why europe is DYING and the British want OUT of such a system. Freedom Works, Liberty Works, Independence Works and results in PROSPERITY! socialism or communism or liberalism or progressivism or whatever leftist liberal libtards call it DOES NOT WORK!
Europe used to have socialism, it was call urss
There are still socialist politicians in Europe. Just not influential enough to change the entire states.
@@Alvaricokemaureira if that's what socialism means than no one wants that (besides a fringe minority)
He talked about why those are capitalist countries that adopt "socialistic ideas", especially relative to other capitalist countries like the U.S. Finland is more "socialistic" than the UK. That doesn't mean he said Finland was socialist.
Scandinavia --x Democratic socialist
Scandinavia ---- Social democrats
Social democracy=Friendly capitalism
@Jaskaran Singh yeah I know. I am advocating for social democracy
@@khumomatlakane2009 then u killed Rosa Luxemburg. USSR was successful
Scandinavian countries are free market, capitalist countries with social programs, not Socialist. Without capitalism, they couldn't afford the social programs and pay high taxes for the programs they do have.
@@antonybooth4104 ik why you telling me. USSR was Socialist
There is no system or philosophy or idealism that is exempt from corruption.
Interesting screen name.
@@bully3808 Or religion. Not that religion is inherently bad.
Nothing made by human hands can be perfect. The only thing we are perfect at is imperfection.
@@MrStrikecentral Humans are flawed, and we learn by making mistakes. Babies learn to walk by repeatedly falling down.Your kids will do the same stupid shit you have done and it will drive you nuts because you tried so hard to warn them. Or maybe that's just me.
@@MrStrikecentral Humans are perfect humans. But, by the standard of your hidden mysticism, they are imperfect.
InB4Ethan wrote
“Came here to dislike.”
==========
Thanks for admitting that your mind was made up before the video,
which you probably didn’t even watch.
lol you are such a fucking loser.
No u
@@buddyguy4723 great argument, you have totally changed ANYONE'S mind!
/s
@@MichaelSmith-rn6pq what exactly do you think I'm arguing for or against you fucking idiot
@@buddyguy4723 idiot? ahhh yesss, I totally will listen to what you say now that you've insulted me!
/s
Again you still haven't proved socialism works.
This proves that if you look at socialism as a solution, you should be forced to explain it because you could mean 1 of 100 different things
I suppose but here is a pretty universal definition of socialism nowadays that most people subscribe to.
What is it because this video gives close to 50 different definitions
@Dim - Wrong! Reality is not the enemy of Socialism, Greed is the enemy of Socialism.
Socialism, in all it's myriad of definitions, seeks to curb human greed.
We have plenty of Social systems here in the USA. Here are some examples that conservatives seem to forget: The US Postal System, Public Libraries, Public Schools, Police and Fire Departments, Public Utilities, Public Defenders, Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, etc.
None of these programs and systems prevent free markets or capitalism from thriving.
Yet, Capitalism is never satisfied and seeks to destroy (aka privatize for profit) these institution each and everyday.
Socialism and communism often are confused The terms as well as the concepts.
Exactly, people often call socialists, communists. the same goes for calling conservatives, fascists. But in both examples, they are different.
@@JustAnotherAccount8 I think not many people could clearly define fascism, but I do not see it confused with conservatism. There is the use of "fascist" as a derogatory term for "very conservative", bu that's beside the point. I think it happens too that "communist" is used as derogatory term for "socialist", but again, beside the point.
I think socialism and communism is genuinely mixed up much more often.
The Left...Socialist, Communist, fascist, Confederates.
@@michaelkniatt7056 fascism and the confederates are on the right
@@michaelkniatt7056 Yeah, ask actual fascists and confederates what they think about socialism, communism, and “The Left.” They’re kind of sworn enemies, but let’s pretend they’re all part of the same group.
It's more accurate to say totalitarianism is undesirable. Maximising freedom of choice and opportunity is a good thing.
Maximizing freedom of choice? That's called a free market, otherwise known as Capitalism, the free market economic system.
You don't like the product, don't buy it.
You don't like the company, don't buy the product.
You don't like the ethics of the owners, don't buy the product.
You can get a similar product cheaper, buy that instead.
You can get a similar product of better quality, buy that instead.
You can get a better version of the product from another company, buy the improved version instead.
You don't earn enough money, work to get a better job.
You're tired of someone else profiting from your work, start a business.
You saved some money and want to make it work for you, invest it.
You have little money, but a great idea? Let someone else benefit from the idea with you, where they put in money and you put in your effort and vision.
Now try applying that to an economic system where business is nationalized, so state owned and the product choice is buy it or not buy it, because there's no internal market with businesses to compete with each other to sell the product cheaper, of better quality than the rival or an improved version over the rivals.
Good luck improving your financial situation when the state nationalized businesses and they are the only bank in town and they set wages, product prices and even choose which products to produce or allow to be imported, so imports don't impact the market for the products, the state owned industry produces (i.e. lack of choice).
@@antonybooth4104 I agree, under capitalism you have a completely free choice...between shitty abusive employer or death of starvation.
@Kyle Mortensen It did, of course. But it obviously didn't cross your mind, that when starving is your other only option, you won't be able to allow yourself to not have a job if only for a moment, because you have food to buy, and bills to pay. But that's just oversimplyfying, isn't it? There are also many other factors including what your childhood was, what was your environment you grew up in, can you rely on other's helping hand, what's your self-esteem is, etc. I bet it didn't cross your mind, did it?
Antony Booth Americans work the longest hours in the developed world outside of extreme examples in Asia. ‘Work to get a better job’ wouldn’t really work considering there are more people desperate for work that gives them the essentials to live than available employers. Practically all employers in the US require their employees to work longer hours with less perks than in most other western countries because no one can stop them. This is why government regulation is needed, like where my new home country(Im born and raised in the US) Germany does(40% of board of directors must be made of workers) along with strong and PROTECTED unions. Our jobs are rarely outsourced, despite us doing less work at a higher cost than the Chinese or others because WE, the people that enrich the CEO/founder have the greatest say in the decisions of the company. This is due to the previously mentioned points, as well as guaranteed housing, food, high quality healthcare, and access to public transport so that I can easily move to where the best jobs are. All of these combined makes businesses have to compete for workers with the best benefits, pay, lowest working hours, etc. This is the case in Scandinavia and most of Western Europe as well.
Bob Steve It is matter of personal investment. Taking the time to get an education and show others your value. Capitalism is purely a system of agreements. Soooo people need to leverage this by getting skills or schooling, making their situation more agreeable to others. Also, publicly traded companies already answer to those outside their organization...their stakeholders. As far as Germany is concerned, the news I’ve been hearing over the last year is that Germany had pre-COVID economic stagnation along with wage inequality/gap issues. Is this the German people’s say? One of many articles mentioning this: theweek.com/articles/823805/why-german-economy-sputtering
But does it work better than capitalism?…
Yes - as long as you're using Communism
Capitalism needs legal restrictions, or it becomes exploitation
Even without restrictions, Capitalism without socialist economics only benefits the wealthy, as results in a restricted economy
Any Depression you can find in history was cured by socialist programmes, not Capitalist ones - in fact, the 1920s Wall Street Crash was made WORSE by pure Capitalist economics
Stop trying to look at things as one or the other
Which is
I would agree that maybe saying that x socialist country failed is a bad argument because many capitalist have also gone under, but I believe as do many others that socialism is against our primal doctrine because we’re not necessarily inherently selfish but we wish to do what’s best for our selves before others.
Yeah but regardless cooperation is used for ones benefit in most circumstances if you think about it
Since when is social a bad word? ... I take that back, I just remembered social media.
can we also use the same argument againts Conservative that religion does not work? because millions have died from it.
So "Conservative" is now a new religion???????? so please I'm all ears as to how people have died from being conservative????
@@tonyfraser1749 I would recommend you go back and re-read the original comment. It's less than 20 words. Shouldn't take too long.
@@toppersundquist Well being as it's less than 20 words,it didn't take you long,did it?? now you can advance to secondary school.
@@toppersundquist notice how the religionists/cons don’t even attempt the debate? Does that mean they’re incompetent at debate, or does it mean they have no argument?
@@MrSoonerCal Yes.
Remember that the United States turned partially to a command economy during the first and second world wars.
We already live is a society where we pay the price of socialism but have no benefits. We subsidize Wall Street and big banks for its failures, likewise GM, Boeing, we subsidize huge parts of the agricultural sector to produce corn for no other reason that to put sugar in our food and make us fat fucks. It might be that all of the debt that accumulates in our society ultimately gets written off by social decree. We might as well admit this reality.
@@puppet1-170 The two are not mutually exclusive, especially given, of course, that there is truthful irony in what I say.
@@puppet1-170 I obviously am using the term socialism here in the debased, corrupt sense that the right uses it as a point of ironic criticism.
yes, that works for a relatively simple goal like "win the war" you can assess actions on whether they help to win the war or not, so government control works. But outside of that the goals are very hard to define and are usually quite different for different people, which is why command and control is very difficult to make work in peacetime.
@@ENoob 2020 certainly was not a normal peace-time year. If the government is truly a democracy, then to some extent command and control is just democratic will, what we want, instead of command and control by the corporations, political ruling class, and billionaires.
Capitalism: *_fails_*
Also Capitalism: _See? Socialism doesn't work!_
Socialism is when the government does stuff
And the more stuff it does, the more Socialist it is
And when it does ALOT of stuff *then* its communism
*ENGINEER GAMING*
Correct, although oversimplified.
@@NeelBasu Incorrect and obviously satire
Generally, yes.
@@nadima.george9499 no you Fucking idiot, no lol
@Tyler Fox Yes both are. One has anarcho characteristics and the other has statist characteristics.
Wow, interesting like-to-dislike ratio XD All Pakman is trying to do here is to disentangle the different concepts..
Greetings from Sweden!
Click "Newest Comments" and read my reply to "Salem"
The topic is extraordinarily inflammatory in this era. 5 to 15 years from now, the information in the video I guarantee will be vindicated.
@@CaptPatrick01 5 to 15 years from now"
Have you looked at the fucking deficit? And your solution is "we need to spend more money guys".
If you respond try not to change the subject.
@@Shockguey how about we cut military spending in half and use that 343 billion to both pay down our debt and provide for the real needs (health care, education, food, housing) of the people. We'd still be spending twice as much on the military as China. Just a thought.
He called far left authoritarianism right wing. Authority isnt right wing its a separate political dimention
This was a really good summary of socialism. Especially mentioning Catalonia and Zapatistas as practical examples of socialist organizing is awesome, most people never even heard of these socialist projects.
Maybe I am one of the exceptions, but it's doubtful. You seem to believe that a murderous group of thugs who closed churches, stole family businesses, and suppressed free thought and speech under the guise of egalitarian fairness is awesome. Where are the Anarcho-Syndicalists of Catalonia now? Was their killing, pilfering, and oppression justified? The other group (numbered at 300 but not the famous 300), indigenous to Mexico who were rightly looking for a voice to improve their lot in an indifferent and politically corrupt nation; built on nepotism and cronyism were compassionately hopeful at best. They were overlooked and suppressed...living in the jungle...when they weren't causing insurrection in the surrounding communities...I find it hard to blame them. But how are they a practical example of Socialists organizing when they used violence to achieve a compromised end that fell well short of the goal? They were myopic in their planning and nearly overthrown before they got out of the gate. It's difficult to be a passive revolutionary. Unfortunate that Chiapas still remains one of the poorest states in Mexico. How could their plight be used in bettering a society that has an intrinsically different social construct, diverse in culture and economic means, and it's poor are given billions of dollars annually for support. The opportunity for mobility in the US is as good as anyone with motivation could imagine. The obvious culprits of Socialism were more organized and pragmatic...as Socialist projects go. They wrote books outlining their theories, made detailed plans, organized the right people, implemented their horrific version of empathy on the populace, and kept power for generations. The ones you mentioned are not popular because they were short lived and small versions of the Socialist genocide used to promote government compassion...and subjected to abject failure. Socialists always seem to purge the contrary mind then realize that human nature is less responsive to coerced happiness than Marx intended. A "good summary" should also be accurate.
@@anthonynichols3857 Fuck OFF, you window-licking mangina - Great Britain, France, Germany, Australia, New Zealand - all have wide-ranging "Socialist" policies, but ALL ARE DEMOCRACIES.
Well done for managing to post a comment to UA-cam, with your, all-too-obvious, disabilities, though - well DONE, indeed.
@Richard Smart typical NPC behaviour; freakout when you don’t have an argument and hurl childish insults. Continue to try and defend your perceived moral high ground built upon the foundations of genocide and incomprehensibly idiotic ideology
@@williambonac8157 Lol both comments above are cringe
@@richardsmart5532 ...And you are a prime example as to why Socialist should not be allowed to rule. The process always begins with compassion then they kill or jail the ones who don't comply. The kindness is always fake and the horrors are well documented.
As a conservative, I always have had that bible argument thought of in the back of my head. As well as thinking that life could be much easier in the sense that one could make more money with the workers owning all means of production. I don’t even know what I want.
It takes a lot of character to actually entertain that thought and be honest about it.
As an FBI agent*
"Smart people learn from everything and everyone, average people from their experiences, stupid people already have all the answers."
-Socrates
@@SkySouthern273 socrates also thought there's a separate world for ideas and our soul rides a car pushed by two winged horses, maybe smart people already have the answers because smart people have already though about them
@@Nationaliberty Save it for David Icke and Alex Jones. They know everything as well. Einstein had more theories than answers.
There was a 37-year-old man named Dennis, way back when, who was part of an anarcho-syndicalist commune, but he was being repressed by a man with regal pretensions who couldn't even afford a real horse. All he did was bang a pair of coconuts together . . .
How big was the commune
I heard he got to enjoy some lovely filth afterwards
... and he was a man, not a woman, as the man banging coconuts assumed.
How did you come to the conclusion that marxism-leninism and Hugo Chavez are right wing!?
Renegade Mannequin it means: socialism failed again, so it propably wasn’t socialist enough
@@janbasdegroot2186 how did you manage to watch the video and consolidate your nonsensical views without learning a single thing. you're clearly not open or willing to change
Quinn Gray that Area in Mexico that is desciped as working, is not safe enough for people from my country to travel to. Catalonia was socialistic for like 2 days. It would be a miracle if socialism failed that fast
I couldn't watch this whole video because it just gave me a headache, but Authoritarian Leftist Regimes such as what we saw under Stalin and Mao are not right wing perversions of socialism as this video claims... They're authoritarian leftist regimes. They were not free market where everyone tries to make money as Capitalism is - and how can you expect weak governments to survive when their existence inherently creates a power vacuum...? The most successful of socialist regimes which were not totalitarian end up failing because of outside or inside pressure, which is brought about by the fact they aren't totalitarian enough. The most successful socialist regimes are the more totalitarian ones, such as Stalinist Russia or Maoist China... The only way these regimes could succeed is if A) nobody within the society becomes greedy or power hungry, because if they did there'd be very little in place to stop them from amassing power, or B) nobody outside the society sees a power vacuum and decides to fill it. Every single socialist government in history has sooner or later either met one of those two fates or became totalitarian to avoid those fates... And to claim that the bible is inherently socialist because it says basically to help your neighbor if they're struggling is silly. Modern capitalism has social programs to lift up people who are struggling, just because someone doesn't go and give their neighbor a loaf of bread does not mean they aren't helping them. By paying taxes to the government that does help them they are helping their neighbor. Maybe some capitalist governments do not have enough social programs to help the poor, but the solution is to try and sustain better social programs, not to switch to a system which has devolved into authoritarianism every single time it meets any success...
So basically what I'm saying is: Russia didn't "lose control" because they became too totalitarian, they started losing control because they weren't authoritarian enough, and they shifted to being more authoritarian because authoritarians took control within the movement to prevent the instant failure of the system... Capitalist societies have objectively done better historically, if they hadn't, we wouldn't have the capitalist world we have today. These big business owners don't oppress their workers, because their workers would go work somewhere else if they did, and they'd be overtaken by competition if they did. And they don't pay their workers nothing either, because they need their workers to buy their products and other companies' products to keep money flowing in the economy to enrich themselves. It isn't a zero sum game, consumers gain goods through capitalism and producers gain money... and consumers gain money to buy those goods through their pay, without which producers would have nobody to buy their goods. Some companies mistreat their workers, sure - but that should be fixed on a case by case basis: boycott companies which mistreat their workers, quit your job if your employer treats you awfully, and those companies will fail, or if they don't then at least you won't have to deal with them. The only exception is monopolies, which are under the threat of the government stepping in and taking that away from them all the time - and the government is controlled by voters. In general, people will agree with you that monopolies exploiting their monopoly is bad, so if people create public campaigns to take down the people which protect them, in general they will fail. It is not as democrats claim, that the republicans are there to protect these big corporations that give them massive funds. If you look at the statistics, Hillary Clinton got more money from big donors than Donald Trump did (see "Large Contributions" at www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00023864 and www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=N00000019).
To put it simply, the evidence that capitalism is an oppressive system is weak at best, the only evidence there is is that there's a widening wealth gap between the top 1% and the rest of society, which has been happening forever, and doesnt mean that people outside of the top 1% are suffering - people are living significantly better today than they were in the past, and there's no evidence that stripping the top 1% of all of their assets and giving it to society would lead to long term success in society, in fact in the past when the top 1% has been stripped of wealth the only thing it achieves is creating a new 1% which has just as much wealth or more than the old 1% did... Higher taxes on the 1% is one thing, but there is a line where it becomes too much. In the 50s to the 80s the US had a top marginal tax rate of 90%, which means once somebody had made a certain amount, lets say $1m just for example, every dollar they made the government took 90 cents... That discourages people from even bothering to work at that point. People who make millions of dollars a year don't make that for no reason, they typically have very stressful jobs with high turnover rates... jobs which regular people would simply say aren't worth it.
Another note: Having a 1% which has a stupid amount of money isn't necessarily a bad thing... Just because that money could be used somewhere else to do good things does not mean it should be. Governments are notoriously bad at allocating resources, which is why most authoritarian leftist regimes fail. I've seen a myth recently that Jeff Bezos could pay for the Yemen famine all by himself and not break a sweat... Sure, he could pay for it, but he would have to liquidate a HUGE portion of his assets, which would have devastating consequences, and he would probably have to sell away his controlling stock portion in a few companies to do it. The wealth of these billionaires even in today's hyper unequal economic situation is still not even close to the spending power of governments. And that's not to mention that if Jeff Bezos felt so accountable to pay to feed a country embroiled in a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran that he would sell off a sizable portion of his wealth to do it that he would probably feel accountable to pay for other things around the world which would bankrupt him in a manner of days...
Anyways that's my rant on David Pakman's Debunked: "Socialism has never worked." I don't know why I felt like responding to any of this, considering odds are 90% of people in the comment section of a 2 year old David Pakman video disagree with 90% of what I just said and wouldn't agree with me no matter how much information I threw their way because of information they were spoonfed by David Pakman and who probably believe I was spoonfed everything I believe by some conservative counterpart to Pakman, even though me being in a David Pakman comment section at all challenges that notion even if I came here to say I disagree with most of what he said. This right wing and left wing "the other side makes no valid points and are fake intellectuals" theme is comical, because to say that is to imply that your own movement is filled with all the intellectuals, but if that was true people would be lining up to join. If we can't realize that each side has some good ideas and some bad ideas then we're just going to go back and forth between extreme right wing systems and extreme left wing systems until we're bankrupted by tax cuts from the right and spending increases from the left. Anyways I said I was done ranting and then did another mini-rant so I'm just going to force myself to stop, this is already longer than half the essays I wrote in high school and probably no more than five people will bother reading it.
@@garrettagan Your the kind of person I enjoy hearing from and debate. However, I agree with what you said here. I even go further This video is dangerous and disingenuous. I wish we would stop defending socialism vs capitalism. Socialism left to it's own does everything you stated here. Capitalism left to it's own gives the average joe a fighting chance but ultimately creates pockets of power based on efficiency and not based on common good. That's why we don't leave Capitalism to it's own , we don't support Monopolies.
ITT: People who didn't watch the video.
Right on. Because you know all the people on the right are experts on social economics. Was their Dissertation on "Counting the Ways I Love Trump"?
@@fluffymittens24 "I need to pay for a fancy degree in order to read books"
What a bunch of tards, especially that Kanye West guy who dropped out and made an album about it.
@@Shockguey album about "it" what is "it? I need to pay for a fancy degree to read books? I learned in first grade. Are you talking about scaming the government?
@@fluffymittens24 "I learned in first grade"
Not everybody is brave enough to admit they have such a low reading level. I pray good luck to you that it may improve.
@@Shockguey oh you must be quoting a rap song from a wash up that only you and him have heard. Him and Trump are a pair, legends in their minds, heros of their own egos.
“Ask the people in Eastern Europe how it worked! We’ll simply let them tell you the horrific stories of it all!”
“Life was quite good then, especially compared to the present day where nothing promised to us about capitalism has been delivered at all.”
“Wait, wait, wait. We didn’t mean like that.”
I am a Romanian. An eastern European. We have so much better today then in comunism era. Old people still love comunism because they hate foreigners. They hate LGBTQ which they associated with capitalism. Trust me for Romanians comunist far left from USA is the problem. They really hate progresive . Almost all old people loved Trump because they fought is fighting progressive
Comunist în România hate musls and immigration. They hate LGBTQ above everything else. But they don't hate the fact that now 96% of people have their own house 🏘️. And much more food and appliances then before. I
Depending to who you ask. If you ask to a Sovok whose father was high ranking in the military untill the fall of the USSR and then was destituted, seome that wants to have a secured money income while not doing shit at the fabric like in the good ol' days, someome that was atheist and didn't give a shit about the religious oppression or even liked it, then yes, soviet times where a blast, ofcourse there where objectively good things to like the (totally not indoctrination) free education, the (totally inachiebable without a soviet government) free healthcare and the (totally unachievable without a soviet state) big ass army and scientiffic organisations. If you ask a someone whose family land was stripped away just because, whose family members where purged or just "disapeared", someone that remembers how he had to hide to go to church so he wasn't put on a watchlist and had his sons taken away or himself taken to a mental institution for going there or even had to have the Divine liturgy in an attic missing all the elements to do it decently or someone that would like to actually have good quality food without being high in the politburo and not just fat filled potato soups (with whatever kind of maybe meat was in them just don't ask) or dried food. It greatly depends on who you ask really, generalising isn't good. Not all Eastern Europeans are reds nor them all are hardcore anticomunists, most just miss their childhood because childhood are times that always seem better because you weren't aware of how fucked up everything is and most also just want to live decently and don't care about left and right.
@@cristianion2056 Same with most sane russians, by the way I love Romania ☦️🇷🇺🤝🇷🇴☦️
Nordic Social Democracies are not socialist, they have market econimies. Ive listened to marxists and socialists of various types point to thr successes of their phenomenal markets, and simultaneously bemone capitalism. Scandinavian markets are burdened by fewer regulatuins and lower corporate taxes to produce a wealthy country that can afford to provide free college and healthcare. Capitalism enables their success
Literally nobody is saying otherwise
First of all, in political theory social democracy is labeled as a socialist ideology as he explained in the video, with "socialism" being a wider term for a bunch of sub-ideologies, including social democracy.
Market economies on the other hand are not ideologies, but a system of organising the economy and as such are part of various political beliefs, but not the beliefs themselves. Socialism is able to coexist with market economies. For example social or a socialist market economy (e.g. Sweden for the first and China for the latter). Of course there are also planned and centralised economies, e.g. the Soviet Union, but that doesn't mean that all socialist economies have to be like that, as previously stated.
A capitalist free market economy is discribed as an economic system, in which the state does not regulate any of it's components, with supply and demand being the only influences on how the market is arranged.
The nordic countries, however, do not fit this discription. There is lots of state research funding (not leaving it to the market as in a typical free market economy) and high government spending in comparison to the GDP. The public sector of the economy is also way bigger than in other countries, being over 50% with the state providing the most jobs. There is also much society planning as well as very high taxes, ensuring social welfare, security and justice. So those things which are vital for the good quality of living in the nordic countries are indeed not successes of capitalism, but of of state planning.
There is also something called "socialt partnerskap
" or social partnership, which means that employers and employees are integrated into the process of political decision making ("korporatisme") and shall settle problems that develop on their own, so that the state does not have to intervene (which it still does in certain situations). Another trait that doesn't match the dicription of a free market economy.
Besides that, there are regulations, for example that men and women have to be paid fair and their wages are not allowed to differ.
By the way, Sweden actively repressed companies in the low-wage sector
through state policies to influence the economy in their favour, not that capitalist free market-like.
Tuber plenty of people are.
@@yeboscrebo4451 Cool. If Scandinavia isn't socialist, then universal healthcare and tuition-free college are not socialist.
Oh wait, it's the RIGHT who likes to talk about how these are radical socialist communist terrorism satan policies.
If you think those policies are socialist, then you are saying Scandinavia is socialist. If you don't think Scandinavia is socialist, you don't GET to call those policies socialist.
@@yeboscrebo4451 anybody who has studied it doesn't.
It is not true that anarchists reject all hierarchy; non-coercive hierarchies of competence are natural and fine.
Also, one should draw clear distinction between coerced collectivism and freely chosen collectivism. Here too, there is no problem with people freely sharing their goods, while there are many problems with compelling it at gunpoint.
Thank you Steph I agree
How can a coercive hierarchy be defined?
Here's the thing everyone agrees with non-coerced collectivism, we have those, churches, charities, and clubs, but leftists want coercive collectivism.
I'm a libertarian leftist, but calling mao and stalin right wing is a little stupid lol
@@nuocnamphu5454 there are also leftist nationalists
@@nuocnamphu5454 uh huh...
Mao and stalin had right wing views
@@Gta4isgarbage *autoritarian
@@Gta4isgarbage authoritarian =/= right wing, conservative =/= right.
I am a relatively progressive right libertarian.
In it's beginning in the 1820s socialism was not only anti-capitalist but also anti-state. Only at the end of the 19th century came the idea up, that you can create socialism with the help of the state.
Democrats: We want social democracy, and by that we mean social programs like Scandinavia, not state ownership like Venezuela.
Republicans: Sure, Scandinavia is great, but that's not how we define socialism. We define socialism as Venezuela, which is bad, so democrats are bad for wanting socialism.
Democrats: Fine, whatever you want to call it, we want to do what Scandinavia does.
Republicans: But... Venezuela bad.
Democrats: Please look up the definitions of "semantics", "straw man fallacy", and "social democracy."
The problem is where Scandinavia strangely has school choice, economic freedom ranking at the top of indexes used by governments and major international institutions, and a culture praised for its work ethic and valuing of gender rights since the Viking ages. It is not so simple as naive Democrats like to think it is.
@@ArthurWuYeah211 I don't follow. Are you suggesting social democracy can work there because they have a good work ethic and value gender rights but it won't work in America because we're lazy bigots? And that makes democrats naive?
@@DRAT311 What I am saying is that Scandinavia has a whole set of different conditions, and using it to justify every component of the welfare state is misguided. A country's conditions shape the type of policy that will be most effective.
@@ArthurWuYeah211 Sure, it's not identical, but no two countries are. And those who argue that we can't follow the model that works in those countries because they're not exactly the same as the U.S. can't point to any nation that is exactly the same as the U.S. where THEIR prefered model has worked. If you turn that logic around it could be used to argue that even though communism has never worked well, those nations weren't identical to the U.S. so maybe it will work here.
@@DRAT311 Well, inherently communism is a collectivist ideology, and American culture is much more individualist, so I wouldn't call that analogy a good analysis. Scandinavia, and countries like Denmark and Sweden, have a complicated model with no property, wealth or inheritance taxes, and low corporate taxes. Putting Scandinavia as an example of how every tenet of social democracy can work elsewhere is a bit flawed when you consider that lots of their conditions are different from our own and how their policies are lightly Economically Liberal in some areas while Social-Democratic in others.
Socialistic ideas have worked but a complete socialist society has never worked.
Sure a country that evolved from a semifeudal society to threat the power of the main potency of our time is a proof socialisms doesn't work. XD
@@sergiocortes125 A country that had to adopt capitslist principles go survive, that used violence, killed tens of millions, and lasted less than a century. Just stfu and go get ur Medicare
@@danielm17 My friend, you can accuse every single capitalist potency of the same charges. And all of them have to adopt some kind of social policies in order to survive the distorsions private property of the means of production creates.
Capitalism is inefficient, all it had to give to the progress of mankind was given, at least, several decades ago. Now it only means a waste of the limited resources of a World wich its technologic development needs a more developed economy, lead by reason. Individual impulses are not the answer anymore.
@@danielm17 By the way, the implantation of capitalism cuased two decades of extreme poberty in almost all the former Urss countries. Many of them have never recovered and won't do it in a long time. Western Europe was full of migrants of the new miracle capitalists countries.
@5OWGPIN1GQ Catalonia was a try of anarchism that never achieved anarchism and didn't last. I think they could had better help the defence of the republic with the rest of democratic forces and they could have try it in a peaceful context (if that is possible sorruonded by capitalist potencies).
Wow 15k people didn't actually watch the video, likely because they didn't want to contradict what they think with facts
13:30 because they see excuses like this. What was blatant socialism is somehow twisted to be right wing?
@@skidmech2909 , well, because there's a difference between conservative socialism and liberal socialism.
Most conservative-socialist/paternalistic-conservative countries make lots of mistakes and they become a failure (peronist Argentina, Venezuela and Cuba are a few examples). Meanwhile, liberal-socialist countries like Norway, Sweden and Uruguay make a really good job.
Or because we do see the lies, propaganda and white-washing of history. And want to warn others
@@nmehr03d31 FFS stop telling the lie about "good" Sweden. I live in the nightmare caliphate of Sweden .... the rape-capital of the world. Did you know a couple of months ago even migrants who allegedly fled from war torn countries like Syria, Afghanistan etc declared they where returning home because Sweden was more dangerous and oppressive than where they came from?????!!!!!
Sweden is the laughing stock of Scandinavia! Both the Danes & Norwegian politicians declared Sweden a failed state and a warning to history. Prompting the Swedish social-democrats branding both Danes and Norwegians as "nazis". Despite Sweden being the only country assisting the Hitler and helping them in attacking Denmark and Norway. Sweden was NOT neutral during WW2, they supported Germany and its war effort.
@@joeldelgado3641, so yeah, stop spreading your stupid nonsense, alright? Thanks!
(YT deleted my last comment, 'cause it contained the word "r4-pe").
Success of Socialism themes, ideas or inclinations does not mean you've debunked the the notion that Socialism has never worked. Period.
If people had a better understanding of Socialism in America and include that ideology in our government things would be a lot better. But Socialism has such a stigma in the eyes of many Americans do to lack of education .
But welfare, like in the Scandinavian countries isn't socialism. I don't see how socialist can take credit for that when welfare and social programs have existed long before socialism.
But it _is_ socialism. It is society helping everyone, not just those that can "help themselves" in a capitalist system that is rigged against the many. The Soviet system was clearly evil - but the powers that be took fright that _some_ collectivisation (like unions!) would loosen their grip on 99% of the wealth, and thus used the whole Cold War period to strengthen their hold.
@@mickeythompson9537 "socialism is when the goverment does stuff, and the more it does the more socialistisc it is" - Karl Marx /s
Better educated and more undarstanding of Democratic socialismus than the Venezuluans.
They votet Democratic for the socialist Hugo Chaves.
@@kjsdlask Cesar Delgado Welfare is inherently socialist as it fulfills a central tenet of socialist philosophy: the provision of goods or services through communually owned resources on a basis of need rather than free market exchange. An example is the British and Nordic health Care system models, which are largely public owned and funded and provide care according to a patient's need rather than their ability to pay for it.
It is so sad that this very basic political theory has to be explained to people. Great video Dave.
Semore Pagne what would Jefferson have to say about this failed theory?
So sad that it takes Postmodern lies to re-explain the good intentions of an economic theory that has murdered over 100 million people...and it is purposely complex to confuse people like yourself into believing it is a "political theory." It is an economic theory devised to move a society towards Communism. That's what the father of modern Socialism states, along with one of its biggest proponents. It's designed as a path to Communism...it's the economic side of Communism, nothing else. Collective ownership of the means of production is not a social political issue...it's an economic issue.
Read the volumes of "Das Kapital" if you are still confused. Odd that Marx, Engels, Considerant, Proudhon, Lenin, Hitler, Zedong, Pol Pot, (et al.) all understood and published the workings of Socialism (or Fascism's brand of Socialism) and its purpose...and even argued their ideological differences publicly...but we are to go with your version of it and disregard the written history...brilliant try for the gullible.
Anthony Nichols true
Not basic about it...
Please put socialism on the table, I'll vote for it over this corporate greed.
We try, we try, be patient.😅
Please note the author of this work did NOT debunk that Socialism has never worked". Socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole" this is the definition of the word Socialism. By that definition there has yet to be any Socialistic country that has ever worked. The author of this work gives examples of economic systems that are NOT socialistic that have worked, but has failed to prove his claim. Requalifying and renaming different aspects of a economic systems as Socialism in hopes of claiming that socialism works is a poor tactic to take when trying to defend his claim.
I’ve heard a lot about socialism from a lot of people...turns out it just means whatever they want it to mean
Call it by any name that you want. It is still THEFT!
Hmm, and that seems to be what the video says as well...it describes socialism as a seemingly boundless set of different, even contradictory, ideas, almost a Rorschach test. But then it ends by talking about socialism, without clarifying which it's taking about.
Agreed. Cherry picking the positive parts, ignoring the negatives. If anyone wants to knwo what socialism is, why not ask those from the Eastern-Block? Multiple generations are still alive whom grew up in it.
Nowh Shea Not true I just laid out a strong case for socialism as coexisting with capitalism
Mark Viehweg You must mean capitalism A system where the poor are continually paying higher and higher prices so the rich get richer and richer A system where we are the only developed country in the world that bankrupts its citizens so that drug companies can make billions in profits or a country that incarcerates more of its citizens than any other country in the world because incarceration is a big money business Capitalism has become associated with corruption and for good reason Look at trumps presidency It will always be something America will have to live down Corrupt as the day is long but he gets away with it all because money talks and bullshit walks
I see a problem with you calling all of the famous “failed” examples of communism, socialism, etc as just a “right wing” movement. The point was is that they at the very least always started out as socialist/communist etc. movements, but transitions to tyranny (which is not right wing exclusive).
Robert Squier I wouldn’t say they always started out that way, but in more than a few cases that’s absolutely correct. Similarly, there’s more than a few cases the label of “socialist” and even socialist rhetoric was used as a farce to usher in an ultimately right wing authoritarian regime
Robert Squier I think it’s also worth noting that their falls to tyranny generally happened via right wing slides. This is something many have associated as a frequent feature of authoritarian regimes as the intense governmental hierarchy transitions nicely into a capitalist hierarchy.
But its still true. The failed pseudo-socialistic states failed, because some few took control (or initiated the whole thing like in Venezuela) only for their own gain, not for the good of the people. That has nothing to do with socialism. This is a dictatorship, which is a right wing greedy egoistic thing. The contrary of socialism.
@@designobservatory Why do you think that all attempts at a socialist states turned into "right-wing" dictatorship? Is it not unfair to believe that there might be a reason why they all failed?
That's probably my only problem with the video. You can still have center-left or left wing ideas and acknowledge and criticize tyranny committed in the name of those ideas. While most leftists don't want to repeat the USSR or replicate North Korea, it doesn't mean those regimes are right wing. They are authoritarian and oppressive, but state authoritarianism is not a practice exclusive to the right.
Venezuela: “Right wing authoritarian type of socialism”. The level of contortion you have to go to justify the failures of socialism: put “right wing” in the same sentence😆.
He isn’t justifying anything, you are just so entrenched in your confirmation bias that you view a description of reality as pushing some agenda. David made a video clarifying that point about right wing authoritarian types of socialism, so think before you smear.
Alex Coleman , let’s agree to disagree.
alarriag1 Let’s agree to prolong our idiocy.
Well nordic contries have private companies that respond for the safety net
Venezuala simply isn't socialist, 70% of it's industry is privatly owned and the reason why the country failed was because of collapsing oil prices, during the 1990's france had a social democrat president but you wouldn't call france a socialist nation would you
Venezuela was already falling apart before the oil thing bruh
@@cari77896 it was no worse than any other capitalist latin american country so what's your point, it was over reliant on oil and when prices collapsed, it collapsed
@@cari77896
Well Dude?
You gonna answer the guy or what?
(and while you are working on his answer,
see if you can find some evidence to back up your assertion
that Venezuela was already falling apart)
CHALLENGE ISSUED !!!!!!!!!!!!!
@@trabadoireacht6545 Nah mate, Chile for exemple was using Free market policies since the Pinochet gorvenment, and nowadays its the best country in latin america to invest or live.
And the GDP on other parts except oil was falling, and a lot of people were already starving
I live in south america, and my country is trying to copy the Pinochet's model, after the failure of our social democracy
@@cari77896as i said, it was over investing in the oil market and invested too much into social policies at the cost of developing infrastructure. That's just incompetent governance not anything more
2:31 “Socialism is an extremely broad umbrella term to describe a wide range of political, social, and economic systems, movements and ideas.”
To a Postmodernist, any word "is an extremely broad umbrella term to describe a wide range of" whatever...
@@Simon6621HD With Postmodernism, there is no "face value." I am not sure how feminism got on the list --what a woman wants to believe and how she gains empowerment is none of my concern ...well, as long as it's legal and doesn't affect me liberty. Until recently, Socialism had describable and specific tenets. It is a progressive design that doesn't stop until it hits Communism. However, then it's too late. It's like lighting a fire to get warm and depending on pyromaniacs to put it out. If we went back to the real definitions of words and judged social economic theories by what is produced, then political philosophies could be understood. You are adding to the Postmodern confusion by inferring biased nuances within each ideology/theory and distracting individuals from the term's function or goal. In essence, Socialism shows great compassion by murdering millions of contrary or passive thinkers, but our healthcare system sucks. Maybe we should call that part Machiavellian and the Socialists explaining it Postmodernism. I've spent years studying this stuff only to argue with people that are too lazy to read what I referenced then discount the information based on conjectures. Maybe you play with buzzwords, but I still have integrity and my words are based on their long standing meanings. Please be more specific in your criticism(s) so I will know what issue you would like to address. Maybe that will help with the ambiguity of your point.
@@Simon6621HD Marx himself said that Socialism is implemented by force. How am I to take it any other way when that is how it's always been done and confirmed by its father? Implementing collective government programs on a regular (and casual) basis will eventually hit a threshold that produces violence...instigated by the side who feels the most discontent. In part, a trait of Postmodernism is to hide the carnage of Socialism. If that warrants an eye roll, then you may be unfamiliar with how Socialism works and what it has produced...every time it has been implemented. How does my religion work within a Socialists structure? How does mobility work? Who decides the "according to their needs" portion of Socialism? Who will take on the difficult jobs with no expectation for just compensation? Who will risk their status quo to invent something that will be only taken by the collective? Who protects our information? Who decides what I am to think? All these questions are at the heart of collectivist theories. And the theory that has murdered people for asking them...yet you defend it...you are playing with fire. The history of Socialism itself brings the imagery of violence and totalitarianism and that is core of its essence, even with its innocent intentions. Serial killers have some redeeming qualities to the people who knew them before the carnage began.
@@Simon6621HD A government is the only entity with the means to kill millions of people. You will need to be more specific when describing the atrocities caused by capitalism. We can agree that conspicuous consumerism is a burden on society and Capitalism allows for a great deal of corruption…yet, Socialism has historically produced less government transparency and a greater amount of hardship due to corrupt and draconian government oversight. I personally have a friend who was at the brink of losing $millions and going to prison for six years because of government corruption. He was fortunate to have the means to fight federal prosecutors and the EPA. Both, the federal prosecutors and the EPA lied. Just think if he was dealing with a Socialist structure, with no means to get objective information. Government is indifferent whether it is a collective or free market. Corruption is more controllable in a free market. I know that people want Socialism because they care about other people, however, that has always been the reason. The problem is the unchecked power within a one-party system and the means to control public perception and policy. Capitalism is far from perfect; I have many frustrations with the way many corporations and the banking industry behaves. Look at the Progressive leadership of General Electric pretending to be a social “Liberal” partner to the Obama administration, all the while cooking the books and taking government grants. Many people need help, but too many are feigning hardships and infirmities leaving less and less to cover the expenses. What would happen if that became even more the norm? One of the basic tenets of Socialism is equality. (I wish I was equal to Tiger Woods) Anyway. The fundamental responsibility of a person in an egalitarian Society is to breath. That sounds compassionate but how does anything get done? In Catalonia, there was no currency (they had vouchers for the labor, which ironically, is what a federal note is.) They went to the butcher and was given the daily meat. From the baker, they got bread, seamstress, produce, and so on…yet there was a great deal of contentious jealousy and in fighting between the labor unions. Some were never pulling their weight, yet they received the same as everyone else. Look what happened in China and Ukraine during their respective purges or famines --depending how one discerns the history. What really happened is the inept government made decisions and quotas for industry. Socialists came up with arbitrary concepts like “surplus-value” --there is no such thing as surplus-value because value in a Socialist economy is based on utility and doesn’t figure in the work needed to research and make an efficient structure to produce a product. Profit is payment for the risk, the hours upon hours of research and failure a business owner endured while making a foundation for their business. And the Socials nonchalantly calls it a “means of production” without realizing the toil involved and is enraged that a business owner has the audacity to pay wages rather than including the employee in the fruits of the owner’s rewards. Maybe the employee should have gone through the difficult part of sacrificing to build a viable business. If murder always happens with Socialism, there is a good chance that it is inherent, but nobody is suggesting that murder doesn’t happen within other political ideologies…I’m still trying to understand the Clinton/suicide anomaly. I believe that it’s also irrational to pretend murder has NOT always happened at the core of implementing a Socialist economy. You should know the history of the passive Socialists -the ones who did not promote violence. I imagine you picked the wrong team of Socialists. The passives were murdered along with the Capitalists. Check the Girondins and the Mensheviks for starters…and Hitler had a big issue with the passive Marxists, which were also murdered; whether they were Jewish or not. People of my religion were thrown into the concentration camps with the Jews in Germany and the gulags in Russia and lost their lives for being passivists…because that’s how a collective society works.
@@anthonynichols3857
Anthony, you're spending a lot of your time trying to reason with someone who consistently says things like, "To conflate... progressive ideals with THE FAILURE OF SOCIALISM specific to historical instances is not productive."
You are attempting to reason with someone who literally just said that CITING HISTORY AND ITS' FALURES IS UNPRODUCTIVE AND HAS NO RELEVANCE. (Read that again!); AND, in the same sentence uses the word "progressive" when specifically referring to things in an historical context. They LITERALLY want us to PROGRESS to the past (an oxymoron in itself); and simultaneously claim that examining, said history, is "unproductive." AND ON TOP OF THAT, according to their own admission there are 'one or two' failures in socialisms' illustrious history (is that not puting it mildly?)
The astronomically counterintuitive hypocrisy of it all would make George Washington's head spontaneously combust.
I appreciate very much, you working so hard to reason with people who have none. You and i do it out of love -- not a love of proving people wrong (as they seem to believe), but of a love of country, truth, and ultimately a love and compassion for the lost. As you are aware, we have no small task, but our conscience insists that we keep doing it. I know i will, but it's good to know we're not alone, don't you agree?
Another place where socialism worked is the Panama Canal Zone. There was no private property or corporations and it was pretty close to paradise for its residents.
Really? You're referring to when the US ran it. That was a Federal protectorate, nothing to be confused with socialism. It was capitalistic, clearly.
@@robertthomas5906 Really? Doesn't capitalism require, um, like, private property? Private corporations? Your label of "Federal protectorate", whether it has any merit or not, what does it have to do with the economic system used to produce and distribute goods and services? Do you know anything at all about the PCZ or are you pulling this information from your ass?
@@shahrazade26 The PCZ wasn't a closed system. It would never have survived without heavy initial investment from the United States and a very limited population benefitting from an unusually profitable enterprise, i.e. the only passage linking the Pacific Ocean with the Atlantic within thousands of miles. If anything, the PCZ was more corporatist than socialist.
@@icemachine79 If state ownership of the means of production, no private property, no private enterprises and a classless society is what you call corporatism, I don't think there's anything I can do to educate you. You are deluded to an unusual order of magnitude. .
@@shahrazade26 The PCZ wasn't an independent nation. It was also racially segregated for most of its existence and, therefore, far from classless. You're the one who has lost touch with reality.
Americans don't understand what socialism and communism really is. I lived in Communism
It was AWESOME!!!!!
Obama is as much of a socialist as The Police is an alternative hardcore/nu-metal crossover crew...
A good portion of this video is “That wasn’t REAL socialism”
Because it isn't real socialism, jesus what is it about that that is so hard to grasp? Are you going to argue that China is a democratic republic because that's what they call themselves?
@dana gebel socialism is more of a set of principals. It's the idea that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned and regulated by the community as a whole. Social welfare, universal healthcare, affordable government housing, public schools. These are all socialist institutions. Socialism has not been realised in its entirety because a nation has never collectively owned all aspects of their own economy. It's always ever been owned either by capitalists under capitalism, or by the government under state communism or state socialism. That's also why people say "that's not real socialism". Some Scandinavian countries are arguably the closest any nation has come to socialism.
MrFrogNo3 bruh, chill. Of course im not gonna call china a democratic republic. But you dont gotta be so aggresive. Was just saying what I saw in the video.
@@seDrakonkill Sorry but the "that's not real socialism" talking point is generally used as a way to make out that socialists are in denial over failed socialist systems. It's just that it's a little tiring at this point.
Selfishness I imagine
Im yet to understand why people describe Venezuela as a right-wing government.
Because it is run by a dictator. The "socialism" isn't real socialism, its token favors the dictator hands out to stay in power. It's a big PR stunt, that's all. Most of the country never got out of poverty, it was a patch-job that worked while the oil money was flowing freely. They never were socialists.
@@gustavozaragosa So that's where right-wing is? I thought the definition of the spectrum was that the farther left you were, the more centralized the government is, and the opposite, the less centralized. Therefore, a dictatorship with full power would lie far more left than socialism itself, making Venezuela far-left, not far-right. I could think of far-right being the closest thing to anarchism.
agreed. How many dictators' military forces protect the lives of their violent rivals attempting to overthrow them?
@@dolphinking5416 This is pretty long and dry for a comment, but I hope you read it; I briefly explain the current model of the political compass.
The currently agreed upon political compass has two axis: left/right, and authoritarian/libertarian. This is because current political theory (official/in writings, not mainstream) recognizes that these are separate.
The left/right axis dictates the belief in natural hierarchy, capitalism, and social issues; where the left is more egalitarian, rejects capitalism, and is very aware of social causes/society. The right believes in meritocracy/hierarchy, accepts capitalism, and doesn't much consider society/social issues as relevant; taking a more individualized look at the world.
Meanwhile, the authoritarian/libertarian axis dictates the control the state has over people; where authoritarian is most power and libertarian is least power.
Therefore, if we adhere to this model, a far right authoritarian government could exist. A form of government where the government has control of almost every aspect of society while still implementing free market economies and adhering to strict hierarchies and an individualistic lens.
Also, a libertarian left can exist; where it's believed that to truly liberate the people and make them equal, the state must be dissolved and people themselves should collectivize without a state for the betterment of all people.
Basically; Authoritarian Right (Fascism,) Authoritarian Left (USSR/some interpretations of Socialism,) Libertarian Right (Free market libertarianism,) Libertarian Left (anarchy/pure Communism)
Of course all these things exist on a spectrum; almost no one falls purely into any of the corners I described. But defining extremes in this instance is helpful I think.
There are some interpretations that say that extreme leftism must eventually fall into a stateless society, and that extreme rightism must move towards an authoritarian state. That might be what David Pakman is conveying when he says authoritarianism is inherently right wing. That's just one of many interpretations, though.
I know it's very long, but I hope this helped to explain some of modern political theory :)
U are right. Venezuela isn't right wing at all. They are socialist by simple fact that their means of production are owned by state. Maduro is so pussy that lets the super rich to still buy some private products but for the rest of the country is fucked. They don't have enough to buy food because the state can't pay them. They are in a big debt due to Hugo Chavez . That's why they are poor.
Dude, the Scandinavians are not Socialists.
In order to have a social democracy in the U.S., first we need to get the democracy part down.
I don't know if I trust my countrymen that much. Might try to get schools figured out before trying this "democracy" thing.
Well we're a Republic not a Democracy, so you kind of have to figure that out first
@@JoseDiaz-pl5kk Oh wow, thanks for the revelation. I'll fucking uh, take pointless nitpicking for 200, Alex.
@@JoseDiaz-pl5kkIf that is what you want to think, you go for it.
@@KatheeDemontforte that's actually a fact, not an opinion, might want to know that if you're planning on making changes
Lol, this guy doesn't understand the difference between socialism and social welfare. Nordic countries are social democraties which is another word for welfare capitalism. Socialism has never worked, its stupid, let's move on.
literally gave you the example of catalonia
literally gave you the example of catalonia
He literally says that in the video. In this reply you managed to deny Scandinavian countries being social democracies by saying they're the definition of a social democracy.
Most people in this comment section are so consumed by American propaganda that they are unable to listen or think for themselves, using instead talking points made by others.
@@Bellyzbad1 where is Catalonia today?
@@alexanderchristopher6237 I'm not an anarchist anymore xD. I'm a Marxist Leninist
Famous quote by Robert Reich (secretary of labor):
"If patriotism means anything,
it means sacrificing for the common good,
participating in the public good.
Childless Americans pay taxes for schools
so children are educated.
Americans who live close to their work
pay taxes for roads and bridges
so those who live farther away can get to work.
Americans with secure jobs
pay into unemployment insurance
so those who lose their jobs
have some income until they find another.
And under the Affordable Care Act,
healthier and wealthier Americans pay a bit more
so sicker and poorer Americans don’t die."
bully380 You confuse social programs and Socialism, Roads and schools aren’t socialist, Roads are used by most people either through car bus or even walking, paying for road construction doesn’t make society different it just fixes infrastructure, also Education is required which you could say is a form of socialism, but the schools themselves are not equal, private schools versus public schools show also unemployment is for those who cannot work for a reason, disability, for example, and the affordable care act, actually lied about a lot of what’s happening to where everyone paid for the same amount of insurance, and poor people who couldn’t afford it anyways had to pay a large fee
But is your public good the same as mine? and more importantly, is it the same as the fascists? or the Nazis? or the xenophobes? because I'm fairly certain those people fought for a public good also, the main problem ended up being who was part of that public and who was excluded - and make no mistake, there is always someone excluded. Just look at the red terror in revolutionary Spain, or the literal gulags in the USSR, or literally any other place where actual socialism has been tried. There is always someone who isn't part of the people. Someone who has to be reeducated, or who can't be helped or who's death would make the world a "better" place.
@@parkerlarson6692 The ACA was hamstrung by the hospital and insurance industry. The reasons for its flaws stem from its inability to truly cut into the ridiculous private insurance market due to right wing resistance. Yet even then many more people have insurance or are better insured. It is a step in the right direction and in fact is proof of the flaws of private insurance on the one hand and the superiority of universal healthcare on the other. Moreover if you listen to what Dave and Robert are saying, socialism covers a range of meanings, and the more one rightly adopts the social programs Robert speaks of, the more one approaches a pure form of socialism. What is important is that one specifies what one's vision for society is, not the vague label.
@@AlucardNoir Pakman does mean the largest public good. Because it is obtained by democratic support, not authoritarian enforcement based on historically bankrupt ideologies. The others aren't.
@Alpha Strong42 No troll. Learn to listen, not speak before you think.
Why lump Lenin in with Stalin? Why is Castro “right wing”? What the hell is Pol Pot doing next to the rest of them?
They are all autoritarian
Because they were fascistic
@@Ash12428 Stalin was the leader of the Union of SOCIALIST Soviet Republics, key word; Socialist. Marx and Lenin viewed socialism as a stepping stone to true communism. By the time Stalin came along, the Communist Party in Russia was communist in name only. Stalin paid lip service to that ideal, but in reality the USSR was a totalitarian, fascist state.
Sometimes I hear socialism described as “ each according to his ability “ something like that, and communism as “ each according to his need”. If that’s an accurate if vague description, wouldn’t socialism represent something America once promised but cannot deliver? I grew up with the work ethic. The joke was always about how it didn’t matter how good you got with your hands, if you want to make money you must be good with your tongue ( Bullshit ). And compared to socialism, isn’t the American worker just a tool? We have no say in how the profits we generate are used, so in part the profits are used to hire lobbyists to influence laws that break our unions and basically keep us trapped. We don’t even ask the question “ should profits and tax cuts be used to automate and end jobs? Just because we can do a thing , must we ? Do we unquestioningly march toward the cliff like so many lemmings? Is that Patriotism? I’m learning but I get confused because I think people no so little about it they are easily misinformed by politicians and such. Many seem to equate socialism with authoritarianism and capitalism with freedom...which is weird, but these are folks who think America is not a state run economy as surely as China is. So, I would have to argue that Capitalism has never worked. Trump and others claim the problem is regulation, get rid of government interference, but to have “ free” markets and have “ faith” in markets to sort it out , there’s a whole lot of other stuff that must also be eliminated beginning with bailouts to corporations....then subsidies and tax cuts...just reading about those things should tell us we do not live in a free market capitalist society therefore we have no example of it to compare to socialism
from the sounds of it you got a pretty good picture already.
the idea that socialism implies authoritarianism is nonsense.
and capitalism provides freedom exclusively to those who own capital.
I think the expression you’re trying to recall is actually clause 4 of the founding principles of the British Labour Party; “ from each according to their means, to each according to their needs”. Interesting that you’ve heard the two phrases separately and used to describe different things when it was originally coined as a single concept to describe socialist aspirations.
You hit the nail on the head. That is what is so hilariously tragic. Americans (most people with any sense of compassion or common sense, really) seem to actually desire socialism; they want to be free masters of their own destiny and they want to know that they will still have access to healthcare and shelter if they ever fall on their face. I don't think anybody, not even elon musk himself, would choose homelessness under capitalism over shelter under socialism, if those were their only choices. That belief, of wanting the freedom to partake in life itself, is inherently more socialist than capitalist because socialism includes everybody, and not just those who are able to enslave themselves to wage labour and/or those who own the means of production. Somewhere along the line, those with vested interest reframed the concept of "freedom" as being a) free to purchase anything you want, and b) free to possibly one day become a billionaire yourself. Ironically under capitalism both of these things become very untrue for the average person. It is a freedom reserved for the rich, and they are the ones who now write the laws and control governments worldwide.
You are badly misinformed. Communism is simply a variation of socialism. Both are associated with the dictum "From each according to his ability to each according to his need." To accomplish that socialism dictates that everyone does what they are told to do and the central government will make decisions about what is made and what is distributed. You have no choice in the matter. In capitalism you can develop whatever skills you want, negotiate with an employer for your pay, quit, start your own business or start a new career. That's freedom - and you may fail because of it. You are correct. People with power and influence will often try to bend the rules in their favor - but that is true of all systems - not just capitalism. Because of its ideology of centralized power, socialism and its variants (communism, fascism, etc) ALWAYS end up as a dictatorship. A dictatorship which disposes of people who aren't useful and which uses a gun to enforce its decisions.
@@kirklaird8345 that’s a capitalist’s definition of socialism and communism, based on a misconception that China and USSR were actually communist countries and not just communist in name only. What you describe as communism is actually State Capitalism. In true Communism control is decentralised and decisions are made collectively. Individuals have more control over their lives because their workplaces are not owned by state or private individual but collectively by the workers. Imagine a coffee shop where the workers share the profits rather than making minimum wage, make decisions on what to stock based on direct feedback from the customers they serve, have no desire to cut corners on product quality because they aren’t driven by making profit but rather making their customers happy.
And before you say that’s just fantasy, the way you describe capitalism is just fantasy for the vast majority of people. If workers really could negotiate on pay we wouldn’t have poverty wages. Just look at the way the media derides workers who do actually fight for better pay and conditions. The cards are stacked in the bosses favour and freedom is an illusion.
This is probably one of you best videos. This should be basic common knowledge. It would improve the dialogue for which we need much improvement. Too many conflicts of understanding, stubbornness, and defensiveness.
Why should this Postmodern nonsense be promoted as "basic common knowledge?" There are too many flaws in the information to do anything other than relegate it as Leftist demagoguery meant to reinvent history. E.g., Inferring that kindness is only done through Socialist principles is horrifically narcissistic and appalling--Socialist hijacked compassion (and Social Justice) as a political tool, they did not invent it. Using Biblical text as proof for Socialism's egalitarian tenets is misguided. The dividing up one's assets was within the context of "between Christians" so they could continue the preaching work and not for nonbelievers, of which, the scriptures clearly states the difference. Being kind to immigrants did not require giving them money and is consistent with loving our fellow man--this was meant as a directive towards Christians to tend to the basic NEEDS of an immigrant and not treat them poorly-not to fulfill their every demand. Even back then, an immigrant was required to be registered. Distribute resources according to people's needs...not their wants. There were many wealthy people in the Bible--farmers were told to leave rows of crops around the fields unharvested so poor people could glean sustenance-hardly a statement to support Socialism but is compassion for the needy. So, poor people were required to harvest their own food, which did not require the added labor, nor did it take from the expected profits or storehouse of the landowner. I noticed that the speaker left out this Biblical principle: "He who does not work, neither shall he eat." Anyway. The inference that Capitalism intrinsically exploits labor while Socialism blatantly steals the labor from all participants in the workforce is mind boggling. Stating that the tyrants of China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cuba, Cambodia (and there are others) were founded on the Right-Wing exploitation of Marxism is the worst kind of Postmodern manipulations that cannot defend the contempt one should have for the orator. All were Leftists before they identified with Marxism or Socialism...including Hitler, Mussolini, and Gentile...which makes Fascism a collective Leftist ideology. To defends this video as neutral shows how much our society has lost their minds and history. To state that Socialism does work because people don't know all the types of Socialism is disingenuous. I know all the variants of Socialism and have read the books of those who were its proponents and leaders. Please tell me which brand of Socialism produced a better society than Capitalism? btw...Marx considered his ideology "Scientific Socialism" as coined by his (one-time) good friend Pierre-Joseph Proudhon and was confirmed by his ideological partner Engels...not "Utopian Socialism." I don't believe the Postmodernist should have the ability to redefine what Marx's Socialist brand was when Marx was quite clear how he defined his own work. Up through the 1960s and early 1970s, Socialism would never be seen in a positive light. So, the Postmodernist needed to reinvent its history to bring it back to life. Everyone knows, except a Postmodernist, that Socialism's greatest proponents have always murdered...even the "Utopian" Anarcho-Syndicalists of Catalonia...the mecca of classless egalitarian compassion realized through pilfering family businesses and murder. ...the Bible says "...you will know them by their fruits ." A Socialists "fruits" are well documented within the deaths of over 100 million innocent souls.
Anthony Nichols democrats and neocons are cspitalists. lawless evil capitalists. republicans are socialist populists. you is smart. u know what is. your brain = powerful.
@@user-se5gg5cy4y The Democrats, Neocons, and Republicans are Capitalists...and many of those have Progressive Socialist tenets which may lead us into a Socialist economy and eventually into a Communist social/political structure...as it always does, because that is it's design. Very few members of congress are classical in any sense of the ideologies. Many Republicans are collective populists, however, I believe in populist dualism so many Democrats and Leftists are also populists in their own right. Populism isn't necessarily intrinsic to left or right ideology (even if that's what academia-and elites-want you to believe) but much of populist dogma is--except nationalism-most Communist states are nationalists...which makes it odd why the sides even argue the concept or why there are so many academic papers written on the subject explaining superficial nuances of Kripkean dogmatism passed of as populist ideology. There are millions of people from all walks of life smarter than me. I learn by reading their words--so, I am not sure what the last portion of your post
is about.
@@anthonynichols3857 Oh fuck OFF, you window-licking waste-of-an-egg - have you ever traveled as far as, say, Great Britain? Or even Canada? Perhaps if you had, you would have noticed that nobody who lives there is starving, and everyone who falls ill gets treated, irrespective of their ability to pay.
However, keep on screaming "Venezuela" or "Cuba" whenever you hear the word "Socialism", and continue to live your life in ignorance - I guess it really MUST be bliss, right?
@@richardsmart5532 Judging by his post he is a follower of the embarrassingly ignorant Jordan Peterson. Like Peterson he does not understand postmodernism, socialism, or capitalism.
So when a country is authoritarian it cant be left.
It can be. Stalin's reign was pretty authoritarian but was also relatively left wing considering the time period.
@@hyperion3145 No, In that nation it can't be.
Saturninus but Stalin was against equality for minorities and gays
It does. Try to take a look "Political Compass"
@@deisk2707 i know right the most left are commies. Claiming otherwise is like claiming hitler was left and a globalist
I don't know who thought Buddhism is similar to socialism BUT that is the most horrible conclusion I have heard. Buddha asked to TREAT EVERYONE EQUALLY & COMPASSIONATELY, DID NOT MEAN THAT IT IS ACHIEVED BY SUSPENDING INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY OR PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DEFINITELY NOT VIOLENCE.
Buddha & many of his disciples were guests at & advisors to Monarchs.
very true, i agree 100% as a orthodox Buddhist.
You lost me at Bolshevism and Maoism are inherently right wing lol
Authoritarianism is inherently right wing. The right wing originally referred to monarchists.
He said right wing perversions of marxism, as in a farther right version of what marx envisioned
They're not further right.
Left and right are an economic axis
Authoritarian and libertarian are a different axis entirely
@@ryebread3417 perhaps I need to read more theory, but I don't see how, for example, the mass line is to the right of marxism. If anything it would be accelerationism, no?
He's referring to the "socalist right" and the "socialist left". They're still left wing, however their ideal societies was with them at the top as they were only conserned with their own power and ideaological dominance. Have you ever heard of right wingers called "reactionaries" and left wingers "revolutionaries". Or how the right is inheritanly wanting higharchy and the left opposing them. The USSR and the PRC were (and are) inheritanly totalitarian with extreme totalitarian. That's generally what he means by them being "right wing".
"Venezuela is right-wing" Yeah sure.
@Jamie 70% of industry is privately owned.
That still means 30% of the entire industry is owned publicly. That is absolutely NOT a percentage right wingers would support.
@@iakushi12 Where the hell did you get that from? Not even jokingly, 70% of companies are private.
There's no legal term of "socialism" it can be used in numerous combinations of private and public ownership.
So there's no way of measuring the viability of it.
Two things are definite: neither pure capitalism or pure communism do not really work over time, a healthy society needs to let individuals have the opportunity (and responsibility) for success AND have a safety net for hard times, including old age.
Capitalist wealth and freedom is the biggest safety net in history.
TeaParty1776 : Hm well US is failing big time. Of do you just believe in what DT says?
@@TeaParty1776 Add family units and values to that, and I agree.
@@MoneyStrategiesSOULutions Fail in what context? Right and Left both hate individual rights.
@Charles Nicklestein “Democratic” in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule . . . a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose....Fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory . . . both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state.
-Ayn Rand
You can lose yourself in semantics if you want. The problem is that at the end every form of socialism to be apply needs the use of force wich unavoidably leads to tiranny. So, unless you are a brutal dictator in being, yes it fails every time.
Very misleading. Every system needs to use force. Do you think the US was established as an independent country by asking the king really nicely? No. They used force. The only difference is that the American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, not a workers revolution. The reason why many socialist countries use authoritarian means is because of the numerous threats, capitalists who don’t want to give up their shit, and capitalists from other countries who don’t want you to nationalize your shit. It’s disengenuous to say they’re tyrannical if they are enforcing the Democratic will of the people. If the people decide they want to decommodify housing, and a counterrevolution arises and is crushed by a strong state, it isn’t the fault of the state, it is the fault of the people who want to deny the Democratic will of the people. Just as anybody who breaks our laws, they are jailed. This can be said about literally any revolutionary change. You could say the civil rights movement is inherently tyrannical because the strong arm of a centralized state must necessarily force everybody to not discriminate, by threat of prison. Another issue with your premise is that you’re applying modern western liberal standards to underdeveloped countries. It is commonplace in countries to have a strong centralized state with the use of military for domestic matters. This is a necessary evil in a country with developing institutions and political instability. If you really understood the literature on the matter, you would get that this is a temporary necessity. With any revolutionary change you must necessarily have the power to enforce that change, up until the transition is made and the people have adequate control over their institutions. And it isn’t a failure every time. Look at Cuba. In comparison to their similar capitalist counterparts, they have made incredible achievements. The Soviet Union did too. It wasn’t dissolved because they were communist or because of some tyranny. Literally nobody educated on the matter thinks that.
You’re way of thinking will necessarily damn us to stagnation. Any great change ever made in the world happened through revolution or revolutionary action. It is mean and it is bloody, but it is also necessary. We would be living under a monarchy if it weren’t for revolution. And we’ll likely be living under effectively an oligarchy soon without it. And I don’t know about you, but I consider an elite class with a stranglehold over our political and economic institutions to be tyrannical, even if it’s thinly veiled in democracy. And I promise you, they don’t intend on giving up that power any time soon
If only all political videos could be this well researched and informed.
What pak didn't tell you was that all those ancient governments that used socialism were totalitarian in nature lol.
Boyishdude go watch the video again. Bottom of the class for you.
@@wtorules4743 I did, and the governments that used socialism "successfully" in ancient times were all totalitarian in nature, which further proves that socialism can only be enforced at gunpoint.
Socialism primarily doesn't work for two reasons: because its immoral and because it relies on the government forcing it, a body that cannot be trusted. What's morally right about stealing from others, or scamming them? Or forced transactions for that matter? And the government, which is required to enforce socialism, is a body that cannot be trusted at all and is corruptible by its sheer nature.
Previous governments may have used socialism, but that doesn't mean it actually works, considering objective morality and that governments cannot be trusted under any circumstances.
@Ben Schocket-Greene is there an instance where its moral to initiate the use of force or to coerce someone?
The video's biggest issue for me is that he didn't have a source list to back up some of the nuance in the video. Really though, some of his facts and evidence are correct when I searched them up some of them. But not having a proof of where he sourced his video certainly lowers its impact to report a reality.
A minor correction - Diocletian was 3rd century AD not BC.
The guy literally said that Stalin, Mao, Fidel, etc were not trying to achieve communism and were right-wingers 😭😭😭😭 my brain hurts
Socialism is control by the people. Stalin and the other mentioned played people for a fool and were autocrats/dictators who took all the power of government into themselves. They were literal dictators. Right wing political parties in the 21st century love nationalism/autocracies. It’s why they loved Trump, who famously said things like “only I can fix it” and himself would praise dictators like Putin and Kim Jong Un while disparaging our more democratic allies. This really isn’t that complicated, assuming you aren’t an idiot.
@@tomjackman5920 Didn't thought about that, still disagree, but from this perspective make some sense. And Trump doesn't like Kim Jong-Un, neither him likes Trump :)
All evil comes from the rite and for years the catholic church wfo touture u for writing with your left hand make u wonder
@@kevinrezende2531 Whether Trump likes Kim Jong Un or not has literally nothing to do with this argument. Wtf bro.
@@stephanoconnor4823 That's a red herring. How did Rome come into the picture?
Worked in Germany before WW2.
Some argue that there were successful 'communes' in Britain before the coming of the enclosures. A community would have access to common land, and would resolve disputes such as who owns which cow and who has access to firewood without recourse to a higher authority. Unfortunately, England in particular had a greedy dishonest aristocracy who simply stole the common land so that they could become immensely rich.
I have to apologise for sharing when I'm far from an expert, but I find the idea interesting, and there were certainly groups who emerged - particularly in the seventeenth century (the diggers and the levellers) - who seem to have had many ideas that we might regard as socialism.
I have a feeling that the British class system (particularly in England) is more pronounced because there was a period of legalised theft that simply robbed ordinary people of their livelihoods to enrich the aristocracy by 'enclosing' common land.
Because of their wealth, they send their kids to what we call public schools (actually private schools) where they learn to speak with the right accent, assume the right manners, and incidentally usually fail to learn Latin and Greek. That's why they all sound like Boris Johnson, although I understand he's quite a good classicist.
English snobbery is weird. I think we genuinely ought to feel shame rather than pride when we find an aristocrat among our ancestors. They have pretty well all been useless dicks. Actual achievements in innovation, literature etc. have been left to their so-called social inferiors. It's amazing how FEW books are written, for instance, by aristocrats (with the honorable exception of Lord Byron). when they had all the advantages of superior education and the leisure to write. If anyone knows more about pre-enclosure communities, I'd love to hear from you.
Actually, (sorry to go on) whenever there was a choice between looking after the needs of their tenants, and making a shitload of money, the aristocrats chose the latter. Hence the Scottish and Irish diasporas.
This guy conflates morality with action. The Bible teaches of the positive attributes of charity, aiding the poor etc. However, these are lifestyle choices and not at all a cause for government action. If that were the case, the statement "love thy neighbor as yourself" would be contradicted by socialist policy, as well as the eighth commandment (thou shalt not steal). You cherry pick Bible verses without giving full context. Yes, the Bible, especially the Tanakh, supported the idea of a monarchal system - with the kings of Israel being in the line of David. The Bible, in that sense, would support a traditionalist approach to government (right-wing in the classical political sense), as opposed to socialism; a left-wing ideology. What does this prove? Nothing, really. Monarchies were dominant in those days, and barely any examples of republican systems existed (some notable exceptions of course).
+Jess Cameron
You can't steal something no one owns and in a pure socialist society no one owes anything so theft is not possible also "You cherry pick Bible verses without giving full context" how very Christian of him
When people say “socialism has never worked” they are not talking about ideas concerning the egalitarian and social tendencies throughout history within human societies but they’re talking about the socialist projects tried since Marx. They ‘probably’ know that Jesus and Buddha acknowledged that poor relief is desirable but that has very little to do with Marxist revolutions and governments in the modern era.
pneumatictrousers haha
I don't really see how you can make this claim, when the US has done everything in their power to destroy any, even mildly, politically socialist government, in Central and South America. Calling what the USSR, China and North Korea have done Socialism, is pretty ridiculous.
I also like the way David tries to claim Chavez as a tyrant, when in reality they have been utterly squashed by US sanctions. I'm not saying Venezuela doesn't have it's issues, but it's not as black and white as David tries to make out.
Indeed, "relief" for the Poor can only come when 'surplus' WEALTH is created! And that ONLY comes from Capitalism.
What a complete diatribe of horse-crap.
Socialism is an experiment with a good sales pitch that's contrary to human nature, so fails every time, but keeps getting tried because people who haven't suffered it, still think it's a good idea "If done right this time". And so it goes on at the expense of those forced to live through its next iteration.
@@antonybooth4104 Yeah this is just not the case at all. Socialist governments were working fairly well in the Central and South American states in the 50's-70's - it was only US interference that caused them to fall apart.
In what way is socialism contrary to human nature? I suppose most babies are born with a bunch of stock in their hands.
Authoritarianism is not synonymous with right-wing, libertarianism and anarchism aren't inherently leftist.
The problem with human beings is that they continue to being human.
Nick Land spotted
{_____M E L T D O W N_____}
Fuck off
And being human included being part of a community and caring for each other. This is why we have evolved to be so good at understand social cues etc. Human kind has been able to evolve this far because of socialist behaviour. It only makes sense to create a system that promotes that behaviour instead of discouraged it.
Michael Teeple wrote
“It will never be in my country.”
=========
Don’t give up hope on Ethiopia so easily.
Nordic countries are socialist?
Their markets are even more than so called land of freedom, they're closer to communo-capitalist than everything you've been spouting for
You know the most important thing they privatized?
Their pension system is private their welfare system is also private
Exactly the point. Socialistesque policies arent bad in small doses. Too much though and the government can easily take over and do what they want leading to an authoritarian gov. Secondly too much leads to a waste of money, labor, and quality of life
@VIET KING CONG You think it happened because they've low crime rates and everything you stated not the other way around that freedom of economic means achieved that.
Sweden tried actual socialism in 70's (in about 1974) yet they acheived about half in everything achieved prior using that system.
Do people not realize that countries who used capitalism to achieve great wealth are only then able to even try socialism. Capitalism literally got you all the best place out of all previous economic systems and then you go "lets experiment with a crackpot idea for a whole country no smallscale testing" its idiotic
@VIET KING CONG Education reform in US?
Well i support that just look at universities in the US right now, full of retards that dont understand how economy and real life works.
Also if you want something "useful" you dont go to university you go to trade schools.
Another problem with your claims, your claim of egataliarian society is backwards at best or totally wrong at worst.
People can think about someone else if they achieve economic stability for themselves and their closest family members then they can starts helping other people in needs.
@VIET KING CONG Which one is working which one isnt?
Well the status quo right now isnt a pure form of capitalism, if we're alking about pure form of capitalism aka Anarcho-capitalist we wont have goverments
Capitalism with all of its side effects are working decently, every country that implementing socialism/communism (not social programs)
Even china is adopting capitalism under Deng Xiaoping regime and now you can see how powerful china is, before that china is nothing under Mao regime.
Im not wise or smart im just slightly above average, the problem is you dont want to challenge yourself eventough the proofs an d facts are there.
Name one sucesful country that adopted socialism/communism and you know Scandinavian arent socialist countries, name one mate
I don't understand how you can call authoritarian communism right wing.
Socialism good. Orange man bad.
Apparently they think the Nordic countries are good. If they’re doing so good, why is Denmark panicking and slashing tax rates? Why does a car cost 2x more? Why is healthcare a huge crisis in Canada? Tired of hearing the Nordic country myth. Those countries aren’t the success people think they are.
@@CitizenSnips69 Logic....Facts....system errorrrr
Nordic countrys are not socialist they are more capitalist in ways then usa
Actually
m.ua-cam.com/video/0lxD-gikpMs/v-deo.html
@@romanmax8561
Every country on Earth has Capitalism.
Every country on Earth has Socialism.
That's why you can't name one country that doesn't.
The U.S. economy has always been profoundly socialist, with Conservatives making every effort to put control of the state into the hands of the same people who control production and finance. The Conservative ideal is a militaristic superstate in which an aristocracy of billionaires lords it over a population of passive, controlled, penniless workers and peasants.
SOUNDS LIKE WHAT WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW, HUH !!!!!!!!!!!
Nordic countries are Wellfare states. They have a very few thigns that socialism also had, yes. Sharing common ground doesn't make them socialist at all. Also would be interested to hear how Denmark has the second biggest shipping company i belive in the world, as a socialist country. Socialism died with the Cold War. And all the Socialist countries converted to Capitalism as soon they were free to do so.
Lots of excuses....... what about solutions? Ask any Cuban about socialism!!!
Have you asked?
@@junglized Yes. They said no, which explains why there are so many in Florida!
@Cameron Thiele thank you.
Great explanation!
So my question to you Pakman. When has Socialism worked?
Like he mentioned Socialism is an umbrella term. You have to be more specific. Like you heard, Anarcho-Syndicalist Catalonia was a famous example of Socialism in action.
@@caraxes_noodleboi what he did didn't tell you was that Catalonia failed later due to heavy oppression because of no judiciary or executive which then led to heavy conflicts. And then they ended up making hierarchy and these socialist got power which was then see as hypocritical and then again civil war.
It’s worked in Cuba: they have a great free healthcare system, they have increased the literacy rate, they have sent doctors to help during crisis situations to over 150 countries, and they would do more if there wasn’t an embargo on them.
It’s succeeded in the USSR where it’s brought a country of peasants ruled by a monarch to a wood superpower in 3 decades. It got women a year of paid maternity leave, very cheap childcare, got equal rights for women and people of all races, it got the first person to space, and it would’ve done more if not for what happened in the late 80’s when they began to open up to private corporations and eventually collapsed because of that.
It’s worked in Burkina Faso, where Thomas Sankara vaccinated most of the population, built many schools, planted trees to stop the spread of the desert, fought for women’s rights, but he got killed and cut into pieces by the US and France (the country that owned it in colonial times).
Also, I am a communist, and I do agree that this video sucks, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Hahaha try seeing the video of that chilean communist asking for help because there was a shitty healthcare and she was lacking toilet paper...if you are a latin american, stop it...the cuban tale is straight bullshit. Greetings from Ecuador.
@@Ysna-re2or how many sanctions, embargos, cia sponsored terrorism, or outright invasion plus bourgeoisie propaganda is necesarry to understand that socialism doesn't work 😂
Equality is evil because it has to be enforced. Capitalism works because there’s winners and losers in life. The question is, how much welfare to provide to the “losers” in a capitalist system. Thomas Sowell is a great economist with a fascinating insight into this.
Famous quote by Bill Maher (comedian):
"The free market is free ...
in the same way a reality show is real."
Sure if you're six and never read a fucking thing.
@@MegaSandyvagina gotta love idiots
By idiots I mean you
Will you Debate me?
Yes or No?
It's your choice.
Your choice to either be a Man, or a weasel that lives in la-la land.
If you deflect again without answering, that means you are saying NO and thus choosing option B, and I will be forced to make my final comment.
yes, Snek, expose Pakman for who he is, it's long overdue
@@AryaFairywren oh no, I was talking to this guy who is always re-posting everyone's comments and making shitty strawman comments against them. (Bully 380)
I offered to physically debate me on discord to prove that he's actually capable of defending his talking points, but obviously he refused because he's a coward.
Packman dosen't read the comments, but it would be fun to debate him.
Das Snek
But what if I came here to see Right wingers to get enraged and fight with leftists and sit with a bag of popcorn watching the world burn? Also, what if I’m a woman?
@@Pistolemaster I was just trying to get Bully 380 to have a realistic discussion.
You must have seen his pathetic attempts at discussion. He's a weasel, stuck in la-la land.
I just wanted him to realize his own ignorance and shatter his little bubble.
Honestly, he's probably the most ignorant person I've ever met, in reality and online.
Das Snek
You met him in real life?
What's with the "right-wing perversion of socialism" business? It's dishonest. Also, totalitarianism is neither left nor right. Wut???
It's the use of force I'm against. It's not charity when someone takes it from you at gunpoint.
dickless wrote
"It's not charity when someone takes it from you at gunpoint."
============
That's what laws do you fucking idiot.
They force losers like you to pay up or go to jail.
If I EVER find out that you refuse to pay your share of taxes,
I will PERSONALLY sign the indictment papers
and have that saggy baggy Fox Fannie of yours
thrown into Federal prison where you belong.
HAVE I MADE MYSELF CLEAR !!!!!!!!!!
@@bully3808 you're such an idiot you don't even realize that what dick is saying is what you said. You called him an idiot for what exactly??? "This is what laws do" NO KIDDING! THAT WHAT HE'S SAYING. And what exactly did he do to you that earns him the title "loser"? You're a dick.
Democratic socialism and social democracy are NOT the same!
Social democracy implements socialistic ideals into capitalism.
Democratic socialism wants to replace capitalism with socialism meaning they want a socialistic economy in a democracy.
Those terms are not the same so please differentiate!
Some social democratic parties, like the one in my country, does strive to establish democratic socialism.
@@ducksareurlords3782 then the name is misleading. In my country we got the SPD the "social democratic party of Germany" which fits perfectly the definition on a social democratic party like many other social democratic parties in Europe. We also got Die Linke "The Left" which has at its goal democratic socialism. So we got both ideologies in Germany in two separate parties and the names are not misleading.
Wow nice bait and switch in this video. But please stop using half facts. Let see half of the places he talks about didn't start with and money or never came up with that idea. And his best point about Spain how long did it last what 2 maybe 3 years? I could make a half hour rebuttal on this video.
MmM well, it didn't last that long but it is because it was immersed in a civil war and the communists were screwing them over at the same time as the fascists.
So, yes, it is not a good example in terms of how long it lasted.
Why does it matter if they came up with the idea all that should matter is whether or not they worked
It has never worked. And this guys so dumb he called communists socialism. Aka Russia.
Do it
"inherently right wing..." @9:12 why does this trigger me so? no articulation, just stated. No real context or what it means and how it is applied ......and after 13 min it is straight intense. Sounds good tho, it is difficult to hear a positive socialist perspective in my bubble. David always gives solid info.
Yeah I agree they aren't really inherently right wing, because from what I understand "right wing" means pro capitalism. I think it would be better stated as inherently authoritarian, where we value libertarian ideals.
Thats what's known in the biz as an unsubstantiated assertion, or an "opinion"....
I agree, that doesn't make sense, because right wing can mean either anti-authoritarian, capitalist, or both.
@@hazbro3489 Right wing doesn't mean capitalist where the fuck did you hear that stupid shit?
@@MegaSandyvagina Basically any high school class room or political economic chart. Give me an explanation of what it means if it doesn't mean leaning towards a free market system.
totalitarianism is not a right wing phenomenon (not exclusively)
communism is not right wing
the modern mainstream conception of the left/right is largely an extension of communist/fascist propaganda. It's not the greatest abstraction, but communism on the left and fascism on the right are axiomatically built in.
whenever you hear something like, "the Nazis were left wing", or inversely, the nonsense in this video, you know you're dealing with ideological "my side good other side bad" distortions
Chris C I’m sorry, but did you even watch the fucking video?
@@carolebeni30 lmao probably not
He's correct that both left wing and right wing political systems can be totalitarian. In theory socialism or communism would have to be egalitarian, as a pure economic system. But economics and politics can not be separated.
The Nazis were left wing .They are Nationalist Socialists and fascism is described by Mussolini as "corporatism " .Private enterprise would control production, but it would be supervised by the state.Fascism presented the economic system of corporatism as the solution that would preserve private enterprise and property while allowing the state to intervene in the economy when private enterprise failed.
Where people get Nazis and fascism are right wing is beyond me . If anyone says that Socialism /Communism is good they are talking out of their ass . Ask anyone who like my father has lived under a Communist regime . If Communism is so good why have people fled Communist countries and not flocked to move to them to live.
@Leon Aurelius :It still is collectivist and still Socialism no matter how you dress it up
Everytime socialism failed and killed millions. This guy says 'it was right wing groups'. My guy, can you hear yourself?
Well this is a american that never experienced socialisim, unlike me even in the modern age in Montenegro we only got rid of the socialist dictator in 2020, but north korea is still controlled by this dictatorship