Understanding Democratic Socialism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 14 тра 2019
- The word "socialism" is loaded with incorrect meanings. Here's a look at the root definition of words like capitalism, communism, and social democracy, and how democratic socialism fits in.
-------
act.tv is a progressive media company specializing in next generation live streaming and digital strategy. Our UA-cam channel focuses on animated explainers, livestreams from protests around the country, and original political commentary.
Main site: act.tv
Facebook: / actdottv
Twitter: / actdottv
Instagram: / actdottv
My apologies to my Nordic friends for getting the flags of your countries all mixed up :-/ I promise when I come to visit I won't actually mistake your countries for one another.
acttv you nailed Finland tho.
Here in the U.S. we have a mixed economy. Democrats want socialism. Republicans want Capitalism. I'm a democrat (the middle man) but i prefer capitalism with a gold backed currency meaning in order to end inflation & increase value of the dollar, central banks are held accountable under law.
And this is what trump trying to place in. A gold standard ---> ua-cam.com/video/LdyHso5iSZI/v-deo.html
Don't worry, we mix ourselves up all the time.
I was wondering about something called welfare capitialism ??
We are not socialist is Nordic countries
"the downside of socialism is that it's vulnerable to corruption"
Yes because we all know governments in capitalist countries are an example pf integrity
Yea, but how much control do we give them? Do you think giving these corrupt governments more control will get rid of some corruption?
@@willtofstad8703 I see your concern, but there is no need to worry. The thing here is that it is the current corrupt government that is in favor of said corruption. When you elect progressive politicians that are in favor of changing the system, that also means you're replacing the corrupt politicians one by one. As the government gets stronger (and big corporations in turn weaker), this newfound power will also be in the hands of new politicians that actually represent our interests. Basically the ones that would take charge and change this system, are also the ones that want those in power to represent the people more than anyone else.
@@regileblindsea , that makes no sense. The progressive politicians are corrupt look at vax mandates, lockdowns, high tax, vaccine passports. these are all forceful corrupt things that progressive politicians do.
@pies_man The freerer the market, the freerer the people is bullshit. You know uncontrolled capitalism leads to a goverment and system that are just as corrupt as those of communist countries? Have fun with crony capitalism, cause it's the natural consequence of capitalism.
Remember, mixed economies are the best.
The thing Is that in a Marxist socialist country you give all control to the government they can tell u what to say, hoe much studd you Need to buy or sell, your property belongs to the state so yeah no wonder socialism gets corruption
So what you're saying is I should move to iceland.
Yo when this whole shit started to go down with the civil war part 2 I was like "... I heard Iceland is pretty nice" as a joke but now it's a valid option
No finlamd
They're not socialist tho
@The Guy With Unpopular Opinion haha, however most icelanders speak english fluently, so it would be really a nice option to move
I wouldn’t Iceland has volcanos and there active
I live in post soviet country, and I have to say that some American are more affraid of the world socialism, then we do.
Which country? I am from Lithuania
We are we take our rights seriously they say life is better in European countries it ain’t especially during covid
Nothing about it to be afraid of, if you're working class, at least.
this video sucks. Communism is state-less - and they describe it is as Soviet regime. What a shame.
@@troykeegan9258 wut about now when thousands are dying
*social democracy
**also the flags of the Nordic states are in wrong order
::facepalm:: Sorry about getting the flags all mixed up!
Bro can u pleaseeeeee tell me where he fucked up?! Cuz I don't know!
sven tabar names don’t correspond to flags.
@@sventabar5508 sweden and iceland are mixed up denmark and norway are also mixed respectively
Denmark prime minister: We are not socialist!
Liberals: Imma pretend I didn't hear that
Well, he did say: We are fare from a socialist plan economy. So the statement is kind of misused.
That is why it is calles the "Nordic model of SOCIAL DEMOCRACY"
The Free Market still rules, there is just a strong saftey net of Welfare and Social Programs.
Government owned industries is the absolute exception with it being raw matierals.
i think you mean leftists cuz liberals dont support socialism
Person: Socialism is good. You can see it by looking at the nordic countries
Person 2: NO NORDIC COUNTRIES ARE SCOIAL DEMOCRACIES
Person: Okay, we can try that
Person 2: NO THATS SOCIALISM
@Based American Hoxhaist your choice m8!
hold up... dr. dre isn’t an md?!
And neither is Dr John or Dr Hook, dumbazz.
@Tonom Amou
I KNOW it was a joke.
What I referred to went over your head.
If you didn't comprehend it, then ask me to explain it to you, dumbazz.
I’m pretty Dr Seuss has an md
Dr. Oz ftw
I'm pretty sure he did earn a doctorate. He has his PhD in hiphopanomics. That's a technical term 🧐
Bernie is actually a social democrat.
He's not a social democrat, he thinks he is but he's a demsoc not a socdem.
@@no3ironman11100 you have it mixed up.
What is important is that he's against having a country ruled by the few. One of few in the current government to dare to take that stance.
@@no3ironman11100 He called himself demsoc but his policies are socdem
@@fattahrambe Ah I see. I think I agree with you.
So in the end, answer was
"I don't know"
KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE!
For the good of information read this message.
I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong.
The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this:
-Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself.
So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state.
On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..)
-Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism).
For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free.
Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society.
Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify.
-Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality).
A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made.
It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period).
Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature.
These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company.
There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me!
I hope this was useful, cheers!
@@Alessandra-qk7hs Please give us some sources or books to read, thanks.
@@Faun471 I recommend this site for a first approach to socialism ecc..: www.socialism101.com
There is the voice ''basics'': it has explanations and answers to common questions.
There is also the voice ''recommended books for beginners''!
@@Alessandra-qk7hs So I should not call myself a democratic socialist but a social democrat????? Like seriously what do you call the people that fall under social democracy??
@@danielmann4159 Yes, if you support Danish, Swedish ecc.. economic system you are a social democrat.
Here a socialist consideration about socal democracy, just to clarify both positions:
- Many European nations practice an ideology known as social democracy. Social democracy is an ideology which supports "economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy", and thus it a capitalistic ideology, not a socialistic ideology. Socialism, by definition, opposes capitalism and seeks to dismantle the capitalist system. Whilst social democratic nations do well in some regards, they are only able to offer things like social security to their citizens due to the availability of cheap off-shore labour in the third world, and by high taxes on the working class. We socialists oppose outsourcing jobs to third-world nations and we oppose taxes on the general population. We believe in common ownership of enterprise, the productivity of which will be used to benefit all of society and not just CEOs. Taxes and redistributionism only attack the symptoms of inequality, not the cause.
We are not social democrats. We are not Democrats. We are not Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama. -
You confused the Swedish and Icelandic flags
And the Danish and Norwegian flags lol. Only flag that's correct is Finland
Socialism predates Marx. And there are different understandings of communism, even though we typically associate communism as what emerged when Lenin and others revolted to form the Soviet Union based upon Marxist principles.
Agree. I think the true father of this great teaching was Robin Hood who was first to take money from the rich and give to poor.
First socialists where democratically elected "Soviets". The word socialism is literally translated out of of Soviet. Started gaining ground circa 1905. Eventually won popular vote (ie democratic socialism) and soon after take over socialism collapsed the economy -- made it worse than it already was. Paved the way for Lenin's autocratic controls & communism circa 1917.
@@michelem7786 Socialism comes from the french word "social." Which is pretty much the same word with the same meaning in modern English and French and other Latin-based languages.
The word "soviet" is from the word "sovét" which means council in Russian. Which comes from a slavic religious word "sŭvětŭ" which means advice.
None of these are nefarious words by themselves. The term socialism was created by Henri de Saint-Simon in the early 1800s. He used it in a positive way to talk about the good of society. Ironically, he wouldn't really be called much of a socialist by today's standards because he was a fan of economist Adam Smith. He believed in meritocracy and industrialization.
The use of the word "soviet" in Russia denoted councils...decision making bodies. There is nothing socialistic about the term. There were societs (councils) in Tsarist (imperial) Russia. However, the term "soviet" took on new meaning in the revolutionary era because the assumption among many socialists was that worker soviets would be the primary decision making bodies. The Soviet Union (in my opinion) betrayed this by focusing on a centralizing authoritarian party with party leaders (the Communist Party) instead of focusing on the worker councils (the soviets).
This is a whole big debate among leftists of the era and since. Trotsky, for example, wanted a more soviet-centric system. Many think that Stalin betrayed the vision of Lenin. And, of course, many felt that Lenin wasn't faithful to Marx's ideas either.
All of this is a long-winded way of saying: To boil "socialism" down to one particular understanding of communism in revolutionary era Russia is a huge mistake.
@@michelem7786 There were anarchists and "libertarians" (now referred to as "libertarian socialists," because the term was stolen by capitalists) around long before the Soviets. Even before Marx.
@@michelem7786 Dear Michele. You cannot imagine how ridiculous such democratic arguments sound in Russia. There was no voting in Czarist Russia, and in Soviet era voting was just a show with no more than a single candidate in every case. It is a very different world.
your not wrong about the definitions, but socialism as a philosophy is older than both capitalism and communism.
Socialism is the direct response to and critique of capitalism. It was born out of the ashes of the French Revolution, which institutionalized capitalism for the first time. Arguably, capitalism had existed on much smaller scales for decades previous. But socialism was developed in western Europe after the French Revolution.
Ancient Greece used capitalist systems
1:27 I see what you mean here, but child labor was already dropping in the United States before there were laws on the books, and by then most child laborers were working on their parents farms.
I’m not saying these laws shouldn’t be in the books, but I am saying that they didn’t play the biggest role in ending child labor
Yeah. The same could be argued in the way of pollution and also like you said, Child Labor. If there was 0 government regulation there, it would still naturally fall as consumers decide to not buy those products. For example, don’t like Nike? Then don’t buy their products because they use child labor. Don’t like Coca Cola because they contribute to the most plastic pollution? Then also, don’t buy it. The government isn’t the only force to stop that stuff.
key word: in the us
You see, with capitalism comes economic imperialism, that means that some of the clothes you wear were made by a child in some other country.
Unfortunally capitalism is very detremental to the workers, but more so to those who can offer more competitive prices, wich are poor countries easly exploitable
As a chinese，I've never been sure where I fit in the political spectrum, and I think I am yet closer to social democracy，so I hope to learn more about that. this video gets right to the point！Thanks for sharing🌹👊
A lot of inaccurate definitions here... 🗿
Yeah this videos cap
i will still seek medical and spiritual advice from dr dre
This was super clear, to the point, and even explained the differences between capitalism-democratic socialism-socialism and communism
They did get communism in particular a bit wrong though: The final stage of communism would not be governed by a state at all; rather, the workers would self-manage the economy and the rest of society, while abolishing currency and social classes. This is the most complete form of socialism. Socialism is more broad, and can, as the video described, include some market systems, but it does not have to. It simply stipulates common ownership of the means of production. This can be through an anarchist society, a democratic state, and possibly an authoritarian one, though whether that would really entail common ownership is up for debate. The one with the democratic state is democratic socialism. The video got the definitions of capitalism and social democracy mostly correct. Capitalism stipulates private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit, while social democracy is focused on the humanization of capitalism, usually through a strong welfare state. Sanders is free to self-describe as socialist, but, especially with the lack of focus on ownership of the means of production, Sanders-style “socialism” would basically be social democracy in practice.
Thank you for simplifying the meaning of democracy socialism
KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE!
For the good of information read this message.
I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong.
The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this:
-Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself.
So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state.
On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..)
-Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism).
For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free.
Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society.
Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify.
-Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality).
A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made.
It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period).
Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature.
These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company.
There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me!
I hope this was useful, cheers!
@@Alessandra-qk7hs I know it's late reply, but what do you think is best ideology from all of this examples?
@@zaklaj I’m a communist. The goal of the currently communist generation is to build socialism, to end capitalism and imperialism. Or at least keep struggling in order to create the material conditions for socialism.
Communism is the next social economic system after socialism, according to the materialistic view of history.
Marx called socialism “the low stage communism”, and communism “the high stage of communism”.
Then Lenin made the difference between the world socialism and communism, (the brief definitions that I wrote above), but they are two stages of the same path: the path of human progress and freedom!
For a deeper introduction to these arguments I suggest this site:
www.socialism101.com/basic
@@Alessandra-qk7hs Thank you very much!
@@Alessandra-qk7hs is china really communist? Is communism fragile and easily abused by somebody who dares to have power?
As soon as he described communism I couldn't take the video seriously
Came here to comment on his description of communism, dude is way off lol.
Cuba was socialist until it became communist.
People in power will always abuse the power
@@Panda_J1 cuba is still socialist. there should be no country in communism society
Its a perfect way to describe de facto communism
@@Panda_J1 socialism according to Marx himself is a step towards communism. Ie, if communism is bad then necessarily socialism is too because it strives to bring about communism
Great video! Could we get a version in Spanish to share before Puerto Rico votes in the primaries?
great idea!
@@actdottv Trash ideology
@@blokcomNativeFaces lmao seems legit
This is a horrible video. The creator doesn't understand capitalism or socialism AT ALL.
Capitalism is no, or low inflation (you keep your savings, no central banks), higher wages (very low or no taxes, so you keep more money) and you can invest (very low regulations).
Socialism is high inflation (politicians printing money and stealing poor people's savings), low wages (high taxes everywhere), you can't invest (horrible regulations, you can't save enough due to inflation and high taxes).
Socialism is basically slavery, with the politicians as masters. Free enterprise (or capitalism) is you keeping the fruits of your labor and you getting richer by saving and investing.
Don't vote for more taxes for god's sake. Learn how capitalism truly works, because it's your friend, it's the protection of your property, socialism is your enemy, it's giving your stuff to politicians.
The nordic countries are WAY more capitalist than the USA, that's why they got richer. They are NOT socialists, socialists are Venezuela, Cuba, almost all South America, all of Africa. Easy to see why they are poor, they are slaves of the politicians!
@JOSEPH DEJEU That's not how it works. The problems you talk about today are due to government (socialism, like central banks), not capitalism. Capitalism protects the poor (it protects private property), not the rich. Socialism protects the rich (they can enslave you through lobbying), not the poor.
You don't want power concentration and you want to solve it by concentrating it even more (in politocians' hands). That's just ignorance.
The robber barons are a myth btw. USA's people got rich when it had a small government, not due to it.
Concentration of wealth is always due to socialism, not capitalism. Ask Venezuela, Cuba, etc. who is rich there. You are falling for the same trap.
In basic: the way I understand and agree with “democratic socialism” being is that the government through essential services, social housing, even a ration program if needed, and a guaranteed universal basic income for everyone, takes care of it’s people\citizenry and ensures that everyone’s basic needs are met: while also having a country’s natural resources be publicly owned and harvested so that the actual country benefits from them rather then a few individuals: while at the same time there being well regulated free enterprise so that there is for lack of better words at least “civilized competition” and innovation can occur. In short; government deals with need: free enterprise deeds with want.
So what happened to individual freedom in this equation? Innovation will not occur if profit incentive will be confiscated and shared with everyone else.
+Erth Mann
(?)
Have you actually bothered to watch the video or read my entire comment before commenting yourself?
@@CommanderLVJ1 Yah, I heard your utopian wish lest through the end, It doesn't exist anywhere on the planet. First off this isn't the world I'd even want to live in. What's the guarantee that big government bureaucrats that you believe should control everything will always be honest with everyone's interest front and center? That hasn't ever happened anywhere either so dream on Klingon.
Actually I take that back, this actually does exist. What you have described fits how Indian reservations are run and managed by the US government department of Indian affairs. Ask any Indian how well that has worked out.
+Erth Mann
Where to begin...Firstly I suppose; especially considering that you have nothing good to say about it I find it very interesting that you would bother to watch a video part of which talks about actual socialism at all; regardless: if you think that throwing a little money at people in the middle of nowhere and then not either moving them to a larger community that can provide for their basic needs or otherwise not supporting them with infrastructure and essential services is socialism then I don’t think it means what you think it means...while I have no idea if this will help I will post a link to another video talking about democratic socialism:
m.ua-cam.com/video/XD94UUTvMts/v-deo.html
Secondly; while it may not yet outright doing a little research into things such as some of the especially Northern European countries and examples such as France’s healthcare system and Finland’s education system in trying to teach their children about miss-information and how to recognize it shows that while it may not yet exist we are getting their: so the only response I can think to give when you say “it doesn’t exist” is...and? Remember; “for everything there is a first time” and that nothing exists until it does.
Finally the statement “big government” is a standard republican\con unreasoning talking point and really truly does not mean anything: what they are really saying is that they do not want a properly funded government that can hold them and their...donors\contributors\benafactors\business buddies accountable for their actions.
You said the word "socialist" that angered 222 right wing news nuts.
Socialism sucks... social democracy ain't bad tho, idk if it would work in the US but it's worth a shot. People, my old self included, just scared they businesses gonna get over regulated. Long as we leave the majority capitalism with changes for areas that can be exploited, and as someone who is in the middle politically, I'm good w that
Carve Red it works quite well for Canada. So, it can work. However, it really depends on how it’s run and who runs it. If your not careful corruption will ensue.
@@brianisme6498 Canada isn’t socialist, what are you talking about? It’s capitalist.
@@ZZ-ex8py you don't know much about socialism do you. To be socialist you still be capitalist. Ever heard of social democracy, it's a type of socialism that takes the goods of capitalism and the goods of socialism and mushes them together.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy#:~:text=Social%20democracy%20has%20been%20described,as%20advocated%20by%20revolutionary%20socialists.
www.britannica.com/topic/social-democracy
I've also found a list of the most socialist countries that has Canada listed on it.
blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/
If you can persuade my neighbour to work a few hours more a week, than he is willing, so that I can eat for free , without compulsion, I will believe in Democratic Socialism.
Thank you for making this video! I was having such a challenge understanding the differences, it makes more sense now!
As a democratic socialist, let me tell you you got that scale very very very wrong.
Democratic socialism isn't in between communism and socialism (??), it is socialism it's just one that isn't authoritarian, it's democratic.
Democratic socialism is an umbrella term including any type of socialism that supports a democracy yet that isn't anarchism, libertarian Marxism or any type of communism.
Socialism is an umbrella term including in the narrow sense any type of Socialism or in a more broad sense any type of socialism and then the type of communism.
On a scale of ideologies with a comparable authority axis to DemSoc, this would look like this;
Luxembourgist communism - Democratic socialism - Liberal socialism (postwar social democracy a la Olof Palme) - Modern Social democracy (liberal socialism+more liberal capitalism) -Third Way neoliberalism and Ordoliberalism -etc etc
Why do you make a video busting misconceptions when you yourself dont know what socialism,democratic socialism and communism even are. You are just spreading misinformation
As I said above I am a democratic socialist. On the libertarian end of demsoc (NOT the american meaning of libertarian, rather less statist, libertarianiam used to refer to left libertarianism).
I support abolishing the vast majority of private property (excludes only microownership, that is a few hectares of land or a a business w a few workers), extending democracy into a semi direct democracy and decentralizing the government a la green municipalism.
Edit; And again you got communism wrong too......
Communism ISNT just Marxism-Leninism. Anarcho-communism exists, as does Libertarian marxism (council communism etc).
Please, learn the fundamentals here before attempting to explain anything...
I do agree with you here. I am a democratic socialist and I do see everything wrong with this video. Thank you for explaining this.
You've mixed up Sweden's flag with Iceland's flag and also Norway's and Denmark's flag at 4:12. Just sayin'.
Oh thank god you said that, if you didn't say that I dont think anyone else would notice.
@@marijanvrancic9266 hahaha... sorry.. I wrote it before I saw how many other people had written the same thing!
Peggy91193 sorry I got a bit riled up, it’s fine
Finaly a video on the subject that isnt bissed towards capitalism
thank you!!!
I just think they were somewhat misinformed about nordic countries in the sense that these are as capitalist as the USA by having less corporate taxes and no minimum wage and having a lower gdp per capita than the USA and having a less progressive tax rate. They once were socialist and back then they were growing way less than the other EU countries.Talking about Denmark and Sweden
Portugal, Spain, France and Greece are more socialist like Bernie Sanders
@@andrecarvalho1339 Honestly!!!
@Eric Cuevas What about countries where it currently works???
@Petros Kostianis ill go with the option of voting for policies, thanks tho
Still the same thing as Socialism. The only difference is that there is an option that workers' alliances take control of those important industries otherwise there is just no difference. It's like as if people are putting the word "Democratic" just to make socialism look good.
Socialism is inherently democratic by its core.
@@proletariennenaturiste How so?
I find it interesting how many people see pure capitalism as a solution to anything. We all seem to agree monopolies are bad and competition is good for controlling prices and getting companies to innovate. Some may even go as far as calling monopolies uncaptialistic since in a capitalism system competition driving the market is key to the equation. But then the right doesn't seem to think we need to regulate businesses and that regulations are bad. How do we stop monopolies without regulations? Hell, even with current monopoly laws we don't stop them. One industry that is a great example is internet service providers (ISP's). There are single digit numbers of major phone service providers and home internet providers in the US. They all agree to non-competition arrangements where they don't invade on each others share of coverage in the country in most areas. They still compete in major cities but a majority of america has 2 or fewer ISP options. As a result we pay one of the highest rates per speed of internet in the developed world.
Edit: also they keep small companies from getting bigger by getting the local city councils to sell them sole rights to use the cable lines which means a new company would have to get permission to basically dig up the whole town to lay an additional set of lines. Plus the infrastructure costs of that are astronomical. Meanwhile the major companies often share lines/cell phone towers when in an area with more than 1 option.
most hard core liberals that i have talked to, do not like competition at all. i agree about monopolies, we used to have laws against them. our founders created an economy that they called free market and was based on the government being the soul creator and distributor of money, removing the need for taxing the people and assuring that, as long as the system was competently monitored, there would also be no goverment debt. this change completely when woodrow wilson opened the gates to the barbarians and allowed the federal reserve to be born. capitalism is not the free market enterprise system of our founders. it is the nation looting system of the rothschild globalists.
@@puma2378 Ok, conspiracy theorist. What's next? Holocaust denial?
Regulation of business hurts competition, because smaller less established companies are less able to absorb the cost of the regulation. This is why established companies frequently lobby Congress for increased regulation of their industry.
You just described a government-created monopoly through zoning permits. The only type of anti-trust law that should be used against monopolies are monopolies gained through fraud or coercion. Otherwise, you're basically punishing a company (and its customers) because it delivers too much value to its customers.
I don't know if pure capitalism is achievable, but striving for it is in the best interests of a society.
@@timmytimmy105 There is no science or history to support any of what you are saying. You have such a warped view of reality. We had mostly pure capitalism laissez-faire in the late 1800's. Children were working in factories with no shoes for nickels a day 18 hour days. Regulation of corporations is absolutely necessary. Plus, companies try to pay to keep small companies down. You can look it up ISP's pay towns money to not let anyone else have access to the cables. The rest of the developed world has a lot of these policies already in place. The math works out, no one has been able to disprove any of the doctors of epidemiology at yale's paper saying the bernie M4A plan payment works out. Do your own research, wealth inequality has skyrocketed due to a corrupt system since the 1970's. The working class get poorer and poorer, we can't have 45% of our country unable to buy basic things. It will tank the economy if that many people can't buy things. 78 million americans owe 81 billion in medical debts, 45 million americans owe over a trillion in student loans. These people will never be able to invest. That hurts everyone when people can't keep up with the worlds prices even working full time with a part time job. People spending 50% of income on rent in terrible living conditions. Other countries have passed us in international rankings in a lot of areas, infant mortality rate, education, rates of happiness, poverty rates, ... We really don't lead the world in much now. We need to modernize our country. Climate change is predicted to do over 100 Trillion in damage by the end of the century. The country would collapse. A true patriot would want the country to thrive by adopting proven scientific options to our problems instead of something some old guy got paid 3 million to say by a corporation.
@Michael Lochlann Because some people are sociopaths.
That's really all there is to it. There's no other reason to think that preserving competition and increasing profits for the wealthy could ever be more important than preserving human lives and increasing the happiness and well-being of society.
What the hell is even the point in existing for the bottom 99% of people? What is our purpose in life? To work for someone else's luxury, while we barely meet the basic costs of living, until we die? Absolutley not. We are free to make our own purpose, and it won't be dictated to us by the wealthy. Who cares what the overlords think? I couldn't care less.
Such a well made video and needs to be seen by a lot more people. Can’t believe it hasn’t even 3k views! Even some political channels with millions of subs wouldn’t be able to sum it up so well in such a short amount of time. Amazing work.
Except it's inaccurate and misleading
You kno that it says Comedy Central at the bottom of ur clip about warren buffet
Love how he tells that Americans don't know anything about Socialism. And then doesn't know anything about Socialism or Communism is either. Places like the Soviet Union was Socialist. Love, a communist. Remember kids, down with the state.
Fuck the state
Yeah, I’m personally trying to decide between social democracy and democratic socialism but I’m very sure that whichever I fall into it’s gonna be pretty anti-authoritarian
@@seamuswagner3458 Syndicalism, Anarchy
Was it really socialist though?
@@devonwesleyhahnkurkowski840 you know anarchism never work's, and will only lead to fascism in the end,its the human conduction for people to want order
Who else got a Racist Cheeto Ad?
Sabrina Mathews I keep getting ads from ben shapiros sister and I’m losing my mind
@@duckcylinder9903 wtf is up with American ads
@@duckcylinder9903 Ads usually target your interests based on data they collect from the algorithm and your personal info so heres the idea stop over obsessing with Ben Shapiro
Obamas Cock You can pay to give your ads more reach, i don’t watch political videos in general the ads just show up.
4:12 as a dane im offended you switched around the flags... Just kidding :p
anyone notice how they got the names and flags mixed up at 4:12
Here is a great explanation of democratic socialism. Well worth watching. Takes about 4 minutes of your time..
it's not a very good explanation at all, this guy got the definitions way wrong. You'd be better off checking out Second Thought for more accurate definitions.
socialized healthcare failed in most Nordic countries and they are moving back to private health
It worked in France and UK
Well, in that case, why did it work perfectly in the Soviet Union?
@@amanosolavery3561 free healthcare is Russia is really bad, the same in Colombia where I live
www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF124/CF124.chap5.html
@@christianpaez2624 I'm from Russia myself, so hi.
Nevertheless, the deplorable state of free medicine in Russia and the CIS countries is a consequence of the planned deprivation of its budget - the government basically put a big and fat dick on it and is quite happy with the situation. We can hardly expect otherwise from the capitalist elite.
@Ba Nana I see your point. I live in the UK and over the past 2 months I’ve seen how many people are just living off the government without doing anything. It’s disgusting and despite what other sources say it’s mostly just lazy assholes.
Democratic Socialism is still Socialism.
...yes?
@@chenjindiamat Therefore it's still unacceptable
This feels like PragerU for the left. The graphics and animation are on point. The audio could use a little work. The facts are spot on. Nicely done!
Maybe the Gravel Institute should be paying you to do some of their videos. I'll spread the word about the channel. Keep up the great work.
This video is what happens when you give children a political science book and video editing software.
Can you please add Spanish to the subtitles? Thanks!
Thanks, we need the latino votes!
But Dr dre is a doctor tho... He advices me to smoke weed and listen to creative music. It's healing and healthy for one to follow these instructions for a better life 🙌 R.I.P 2pac tho
This is amazing. I agree that the word “socialism” has lost all mean in US political discourse. People just throw the word around, but when you ask them what they mean they speak in platitudes and sound uninformed. I’m not sure where I stand on the issue, but what I do know if that calling yourself a socialist tell me very little about your views in today’s world.
thank you!
Yeah. They sound like Bernie Sanders! Lol.
The word has a meaning. Just because imbeciles don't understand what it is doesn't mean that the word doesn't have a meaning.
Actual socialism is authoritarian. It consists of a centralized government where the government regulates EVERYTHING (but they claim that the workers own it, haha). It's a centrally planned economy and results in almost no freedom. The government dictates who does what, sets prices and quotas. It's always horribly inefficient.
this got straight to the point i appreciate it thanks
This channel is great for visual learners :)
KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE!
For the good of information read this message.
I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong.
The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this:
-Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself.
So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state.
On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..)
-Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism).
For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free.
Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society.
Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify.
-Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality).
A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made.
It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period).
Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature.
These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company.
There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me!
I hope this was useful, cheers!
Capitalism:
Private ownership of personal goods and the means of production. It’s not necessarily in favor of markets e.g. state capitalism.
Socialism:
Private ownership of personal goods, but public ownership of the means of production either through the government or directly through the public e.g. worker democracies and unions. It can be in favor of markets e.g. market socialism.
Communism:
Socialism plus the abolition of all private property and currency; it can exist with the presence or absence of the state.
Communism can't exist in the presence of the state.
3:24 what is this video called I been trying to find it
We need to pull back from the oligarchy we've become and go back to capitalism with social programs.
Social programs like health care, education, police, fire, ambulance and other necessities.
I don't believe in people living for generations off what is supposed to be a safety net. But if other countries can manage to do it, why can't the United States?
Go back? The problem is that average American has no idea about it. It seems like American type of socialism might be very controlling one. I grew up in Europe and we still had more freedoms then now in USA we do have.
Yes, go back...this is as per a study from Princeton. Regardless of the party elected, most laws that have been passed since Reagan in the 1980s benefits the top 10% of the wealthiest Americans...so yeah, go back.
Health Care should be managed the same as fire & police & education, locally. Why should farmer in Nebraska pay for NYC healthcare? Let AOC, DeBlasio, Cuamo, Schumer, etc solve their own problem. They have an abundance of resources.
I'm not saying I disagree with you, I just happen to believe government is the worst institution to accomplish these goals. If you put the government in charge of the Sahara desert, there would be a shortage of sand in less than 4 years.
I prefer capitalism with a gold backed currency. JFK style. We're already in 23 trillion & counting. Our dollar (is devaluing way quicker than americans see) & printing our way out doesn't work. Only way to end inflation is to keep the central banks accountable & placing metals as a way to get rid of inflation.
Nicely explained. Unbiased and straight to the point.
all the information is false, please this is not how socialism works 😭
Really neither though
LOL, did you watch the first 4 minutes of the video.
In Europe liberal means capitalist and socialism means the government owns the means of production. The Swedes, the Danes are consider them selves social democrats. But Americans likes to be originals. :)
In Portugal the left sees the nordic countries as selfish for not giving us irresponsible government their money
Sooo many mistakes on definitions
Right? Forcing employees to pay their wages back to the company can only be done with force, which makes it totalitarian by definition.
This videos major cap and misleads anyone who is trying to learn about socialism and what it means
Why would I work for a wage when I can lay in a net
eating minute noodles and living in a tiny appartment is not the ideal life
Because you want to be a productive member of society if you are healthy and able.
Have you ever laid in a net, its not that sweet.
Because presumably u like things. Like iphones or nice shoes and like to go out every now and then. A person in the net can only maybe eat and live.
@@debshipman4697 there's always going to be that percentage of people looking for a handout. Morals and principles don't matter.
The success of Stalin - the man who used to boast that he conquered the United States "from the plow to the atomic bomb in just a generation" - compared to Gorbachev's failure shows that a socialist economy is unable to function with a minimum of efficiency without requiring a massive dose of political violence. In an attempt to reform a decadent regime, Gorbachev moved faster with the process of economic opening in the hope of removing the predictable resistance that the Soviet bureaucracy would create to economic reform measures, as thorough proof with the failed attempt. coup d'état in August 1991 - which ended up precipitating the final crisis of socialism and the dissolution of the USSR itself
Its Chinese parallel - Deng Xiaoping - adopted a logic diametrically opposed to that of Gorbachev: it prioritized the achievement of economic prosperity (adopting in practice capitalism) precisely to delay any attempt at political opening, as was evident with the acceleration of the economy. reforms after the Tiananmen Square massacre.
It is important to note that it was Karl Marx himself who, in his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, discerned the scenario in which the conditions for a social revolution process are formed, describing it as follows:
'At a certain stage in its development, the material productive forces of society contradict existing production relations or - which is only their legal expression - with the property relations in which they have been active until then. From the forms of development of the productive forces, these relations are transformed into fetters of them. So, it is a time of social revolution. ' (Reproduced according to MARX, K. Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, organized by Florestan Fernandes and published under the title K. Marx: Theory and historical process of the social revolution, In Marx & Engels, Great Social Scientists Collection, History, vol. 36. São Paulo: Ática, 1983. p. 232. Commemorative edition of the centenary of Karl Marx's death)
By rejecting the pursuit of profit maximization as an instrument to stimulate innovation, socialist countries ended up condemning themselves to obsolescence. Thus, they lost the chance to incorporate the productivity gains made possible by technological progress. That is why the capitalist countries managed to provide a greater rise in the standard of living of their population, even without pursuing the egalitarian ideal. Therefore, until the “final crisis of socialism” (to paraphrase K. Marx's own definitions once again), it was only a matter of time. But religious fanatics do not give up on their faith, even against the indisputable proof of the facts, which completely refute it!
Primer, our fellow Americans still don't have the basics down pat ... "A Democratic Socialist is not Marxist, Socialist or Communist, A Democratic Socialist is still a capitalist, just one who seeks to restrain the self-destructive excesses of capitalism and channel government's use of our tax money into creating opportunities for everyone. Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically to meet human needs, not simply to make profits for a greedy few."
Social democrats are capitalist, democratic socialists are not hence the name.
Nordic countries consider themselves “Capitalist” they are small nations in population and DO have energy resources. Nordic countries have High taxes.
4:07 there is no minimum wage in Sweden nor in Denmark
You're right, there isn't. This is because Sweden and Denmark have much stronger Unions and collective bargaining power than in the US and other countries. Effectively, the can say "Either pay us a living wage or we won't work." where as if you tried this in the US you'd likely just get fired in most states.
@@Norgra69 so you can't get fired in those countries?
@@bigchungus920 Not for demanding higher wages via union, no.
They don't need one as they are not consumed by greed. America certainly is, thanks to Ronald Effing Reagan and Milton POS Freidman.
@@JustLikeGreta They don't need one because minimum wage law is either useless (when too low) or terrible (when too high). Why do you think they don't raise the minimum wage to (for exemple), 50 dollars/h instead of just 7~15? Don't judge a policy by its intentions, but by its effects. And the minimum wages consequences are always catastrophic, if not useless.
Like many Americans, I was told that Socialism was something horrible, something to be avoided or worse, done away with, like the plague. But even *I* don't know what *"real"* Socialism is, what it means, how it could benefit society, etc.
The red scare and McCarthyism is still living strong in the US. A dive down fascism road have also abolished education, so no, I don't see any real sentiment to actually learning something of these sorts over there.
“All you freedom loving left wing thinkers in the West! You may suddenly understand it all someday-but only when you yourselves hear “hands behind your backs there!” and step ashore on our Archipelago.”
Great video. Would be nice if more people understood these terms. Lots of people out there fighting for things they do not really know much about.
like those who listen to FOX propaganda.
@@JustLikeGreta Somewhat but more like the lying left that can’t or won’t explain their agenda but back groups like Antifa who have cause over 1 billion in damage in the U.S. unlike Bernie Sanders who explained his plan in laymen’s terms so the low iq liberal masses could understand, you know the blue/green/pink haired “i’m looking for a neutral binary gender bathroom”....people, the i’m a “they/them” not he/she person!!! The people that watch fox are pretty grounded and understand what exactly truth is, you know the non inner city people that don’t have tattoos under their eyes, on their necks or blue/green/pink hair that know it’s wrong to let trans boys compete in girls sports. But I’ll give you a few minutes to pick that one apart.
Excellent user name haha
Oh my. You are a mess.
@@KillerMcDiller k
This all sounds good... but here’s the catch. Really what socialism is all about is sounding great so the voters will vote a bunch of socialists in power then they will change the laws on the name of “what’s best for everyone” and then you no longer can vote them out😓 this exactly what happened in Venezuela
not at all what happened in venezuela, that was a violent militant overthrow of the government, there was no democracy, there wher eno checks and balances
Axiomology Official what happened to the Nordic Countries? I swear everyone just wants to point to Venezuela it makes no sense.
Correct, you are! Even the very first socialists movement in USSR was done via democratic election. After they caused the economy to collapse, they starved people an paved the way for communist authoritarianism.
The "Soviets" were formed sometime around 1905 and eventually won popular vote. Everyone thought this was awesome until the peasants learned they would eventually come for their little farms, their seeds, and their goats.
The ENVY celebrated by today's youth is vulgar and ignorant.
My mom's a refugee from the USSR so I know a little bit about how this all works.
@@michelem7786 " first socialists movement in USSR was done via democratic election" true that the first movement was done democratically, but it did not lead to socialism soo
@@magnusorn7313 It did not lead to the socialist utopia because socialism will never work. It is a toxic ideology that goes against the very grain of human nature and drives out the top producers by plundering and pillaging them.
When you continuously drive out the top 10% ("the rich"), you are left with poverty and a demotivated workforce. This should be self-evident.
Yes, they DID implement socialism and the peasants didn't want to give up their means of survival. People who backed the Soviet movement became coined "useful idiots". They help instigate a movement that immediately turn against their own self-interest.
All of this has been long known and widely accepted. This glorification of "socialism" is new and it is due to lack of education and an embittered and spoiled population who resents the fact that "the rich" exist.
The U.S. has a MORE progressive tax system than in the nordic countries. "The rich" pay a higher contribution to overall collected taxes. The top 10% of earners pay most all of the income taxes collect (70% of the total 4T collected).
In Bernie's utopia (Denmark) even the poor pay taxes. Food / groceries are taxes at 25%. Every single thing is taxed. Cars are taxed at 180%!!! It is theft by government and that is what Bernie supporters are wishing for.
I wish this went a bit more in depth.
Im a DemSoc, and this video was total bs.
It's called democratic socialism wrong and it got communism wrong and so on.
If you wish to learn I am open to questions (If UA-cam sends me notifications because it's become common that it doesn't)
Denmark's leader literally said that they aren't socialist. Scandinavia isn't socialist.
4:10 you messed up the flags of Sweden and Iceland
Thanks bro you helped me a LOTTTTT. You explained this easy that everyone can understand it.
sven tabar ua-cam.com/video/FrtDZ-LOXFw/v-deo.html
What's so difficult to understand? Socialism takes what capitalism makes
Source(s):
*Dude trust me*
Mountain Months 😂😂😂
Here, I'll give you a source: ua-cam.com/video/_ulc8U_9KNE/v-deo.html
@@dashripkin Thank you.
Please please make videos like this for other subjects as well.. Like economy,geography, psychology related topics
Again they do not explain the national budget and economic development ration between capitalist and Democratic socialist societies. Because if they do the argument in favour of socialism falls apart pretty quick
I find that when arguing with a capitalist the argument usually comes down to defining socialism.
The definition of ‘Socialism’ has always been contested turf- even the left doesn’t fully agree on what it fully entails, but it does have core tenants like ‘workers owing the means of production’ and ‘worker empowerment’.
Can't the workers own the means of production in a capitalistic economy if they desire to do so? They could all come together and start there own company, right?
@Sp00ky Socialist M-26-7 Why can't they? Why can't hundreds of people come together, pull their resources, and start their own company?
I was the 4.9K like! So satisfying haha!
Norway's Social Democracy is a term for moderate and reform-oriented forms of socialism.
This is a typical political discussion in the United States.
There's a video here on UA-cam called. "Shapiro: Norway is not a socialist, it's a capitalist country with expensive social programs"
Sinjin Reed Wrote this comment.
MAN 1: Communism does not work!
MAN 2: Norway is communist and it does just fine!
MAN 1: Norway is not communist, it just has a large social safety net!
MAN 2: Okay, let's do that!
MAN 1: NO! THAT WOULD BE COMMUNIST
I have stopped discussing Norwegian politics with people from the USA. Then I would rather go to a kindergarten and talk politics with the children.
We have a problem here in the video at minute 2:02 because it's assume that Communism pre-date Socialism. Socialism started in 1879 in Marseille France when Union Laborer came back from the Philadelphia World Fair. They broke away from the Anarchists to form the Socialist Party. They used the Ben Franklin circle discussion model which remain in use today. In 1920, Lenin broke away and created the Communist Party. Socialists were there all along.
I’m sorry but your scale where Medicare for all and free college is not just a smidge from capitalism. That is highly misleading. The philosophy of socialism is to take and redistribute. The problem is the government when given an inch tends in time to take a mile. Sorry but this has a whole lot of nonsense.
Actually you're comment is factually incorrect. Many capitalist societies have "Medicare For All" systems, while they may not call them Medicare they are identical. Great Britain, Canada , Denmark, Italy (I lived here for years), France, Norway, Finland , Switzerland, Sweden etc, etc, etc. None of these countries "take and redistribute". This link is the result of unregulated capitalism usdebtclock.org
randy stevens 😂. Unregulated capitalism created the out of control debt? Oh ok😂. Sometimes it’s not even worth a conversation.
@@redplanet76 It's not worth it because you have no rebuttal. Yes, by funding corporate subsidies and cutting revenues to the Treasury via tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations dating back to the 1980's (coincidentally about the same time the debt began to explode under Reagan) you create massive debts that snowball and result in numbers that even a parrot repeating OneAmercaNews talking points like yourself can not dispute when confronted with. ...and where's your rebuttal to my examples of other capitalist countries that employ democratic socialism to their health care programs? CRICKETS :))))) Remember, numbers never lie.
randy stevens you’re right. What was a I thinking? I thought debt was caused by out of control spending... but no, it was tax cuts 😂. And the fed has nothing to do with it either.... You know the roach motel of QE where checkout is never. This is the issue. I want the government to stop spending money in the first place, but evidently you want more taxes to compensate. That is a fundamental difference of opinion. One is capitalistic and one is socialistic... one leads to prosperity and the other a meltdown... but keep blaming free markets for your spending insanity.
@@redplanet76 now we come to a common ground. Out of control spending. So let's look at what that means. Other than promises we've made the generations that built this country, where do we spend recklessly? The Military. Yes, that socialist organization funded by the public giving free housing , health care and tuition assistance to it's members. FAR AND AWAY our biggest discretionary sinkhole. So what precisely fuels that consumption? Since we are surrounded by oceans on two sides with friendly countries to the north and south and possess the world's largest nuclear arsenal what purpose is served by this ever growing Cookie Monster? Corporate enforcement. The allocation of territory and resources for corporate enrichment, you know the same corporations that benefit from these ventures but now pay a smaller portion of revenues to the Treasury than ever before. If you are looking for a welfare queen sucking the country dry there you have it. As far as QE is concerned that has been and continues to be a gift to Wall Street by inflating an asset bubble and keeping interest rates low. With reference to the debt it is the result of corrupt capitalism, any economist worth their weight would tell you that. I am not a socialist, I love capitalism and I want to preserve it BUT our current form of it is dooming it because we have allowed the imbalances to grow too large.Are democratic socialist policies a way to restore balance? Absolutely, because they will lower costs that far outpace inflation in health care and education to start. Twenty three trillion in debt and our roads are the laughing stock of the industrialized world? Nearly 30 million people will no health care? The system is severely out of balance and if takes democratic socialist policies to correct it then I don't care what you call it, let's get to work.
I know this is supposed to be a brief overview, that political terminology is inherently vague and messy, and that how words are used partly determines their meaning. But the fact that people can take this seriously simply shows that Americans don't know what political words mean - not surprising in a country in which 'liberal' means left of centre and where there are people who unironically think Warren Buffet is a socialist.
There are, for instance, some democratic socialists who do support varieties of economic planning but who are not communists, unless we arbitrarily redefine both words to mean something different from their conventional meanings. The type of 'democratic socialism' you describe is what the rest of the world would just call social democracy, or even plain Social Liberalism in its less radical varieties.
I also think it's pretty high-school level stuff to regurgitate the conventional blandishments about the 'pros and cons' of ideologies, as though they are undisputed facts, under the guise of informing people about the meaning of different ideologies.
The socialist Michael Harrington, when asked why the Socialist Party had not gained support in the U.S. responded that the reason was that liberalism had gradually come to embrace most of the socialist agenda. That era of left-right compromise came to a crashing end with Reagan.
It's a 5 minute video meant for the casual observer and not Political Science majors.
@SamGurney88
This response misses the point of the video in the same way you suggest Americans misunderstand socialism. You're of course generalizing and leaning on anecdotal fallacy to make your point that Americans don't understand socialism - but a majority of Earth's humans don't understand socialism to the extent that you or I do. This video is an introductory tool and not a published, peer reviewed study. If your concern is that not enough people understand the basic tenets of Socialism, surely you'd instead celebrate this video as being easy to digest. If your ACTUAL concern is a perceived misrepresentation of socialism, then you should consider writing about it in a more factual way (but that can still be interpreted easily by the layman)
I should make a video on this as it seems only people who have no idea about what Democratic Socialism is are making such videos.
How is minimum wage and Medicare for all not socialist? Government dictating price of labour and owning the production of healthcare?
As a German I can tell you that social democracy is good (that’s our system) but be warned about democratic socialism!!!
Ist fast das gleiche aber egal. Die SPD vertritt auch die Werte vom demokratischen Sozialismus. Willi Brandt war ein bekennender demokratischer Sozialist.
@@victord9814 As a Capitalist my self I do think Capitalism is a good thing however when it get out of the reach of anyone able to make sure they don't do something unethical then things go down hill. It only really works as long as we can make sure everyone is being ethical in how they treat there employees. Plus not all forms of socialism is bad everyway for example the Nordic country's seem to be making it work. But I do have to say I think that what they have there probably won't work everyway and if it works or not comes down to if a country can afford to do it, VERY good decision making and a very tiny bit a luck and it always has to be social democracy.
Well done! Thank you
To me democratic socialism has always meant community owned as in the workers are shareholders of the companies
Hi! I’m a student from a small town that is extremely conservative. Due to quarantine, I have tried to expand my knowledge about politics by viewing information from both parties and making my own decision on the matter. I have a lot of views that lean towards the left, but I currently do not support a particular party. I had a question about one particular topic. Do democratic socialists think education should be a constant price across the board? I definitely think that secondary education is extremely overpriced, but not all colleges are the same. There is a large difference in quality between random universities that popped up out of the blue and well established schools that have been educating for years right? I’m just looking for some opinions on the matter. I’m not looking for a fight 🙂. Good day.
I believe democratic socialists believe it should be free or that it should be affordable. There’s a country in Europe that pays 18 euros a semester for all the classes they need.
hey, democratic socialists (same as social democrats) believe that all education should be free for all students (paid by taxes)
Really nice how you've explained this.
thanks!!!
Agreed. I am much less confused now.
@@aross5035 KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE!
For the good of information read this message.
I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong.
The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this:
-Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself.
So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state.
On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..)
-Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism).
For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free.
Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society.
Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify.
-Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality).
A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made.
It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period).
Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature.
These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company.
There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me!
I hope this was useful, cheers!
@@Alessandra-qk7hs wooooooow
Communism is Stateless classless society so how can it be authoritarian?
You mischaracterised Dictatorship of the Proletariat as Communism.
In theory. But in reality, it always winds up being advocated by people who believe they need to force it on everyone else. Or, authoritarians.
@Flat Earth Communism Flat Earth Communism it's a fantasy. The dangerous and unrealistic idea is expecting to jump directly into a theoretical system which has never been validated. Smarter to start from what works, and improve stepwise.
But what's the point of sticking to theoretical definitions that we have never, ever seen in practice in human society? Even literal communes have some psycho running the show that gets to have sex with everyone's wife and has a bunch of nice things.
@@idakoric73 What communes are you talking about? Please share your evidence.
Israel was founded on communal structure called Kibbutz. They weren't run by some psycho who had sex with everyone's wife.
All I can think about when I hear Warren Buffet is "...only 47 'TedEx talks where I talk about Warren Buffets' in my 'TedEX talks where I talk about Warren Buffet' account"
The traditional definition of socialism is government control of the means of production. Communism is a brand of socialism, that differs mostly because of a dictatorial system. This video is pretty inaccurate. Socialism is not a balance between capitalism and communism, it's the economic system of a communist system as described by Karl Marx. Bernie Sanders says he doesn't want to take over the grocery stores, that may be true, but his social policies for medicare and healthcare do include controlling the means of production for those services. That's what makes his policies socialist. What he seems to be proposing is a mixed economy.
Man thank god for this video, everyone else goes off on tangents when explaining this topic,
too bad this channel doesn't know what they're talking about
Onyx Cotton Alright then what can you refer me to that can help me understand what Democratic Socialism is?
I’ve heard the term thrown around but when people explain what it means it’s always muddled in personal opinion. Or that’s what it sounds like for the most part. It also seems like there isn’t an agreeable definition of it.
@@Snackyyz KEEP ATTENTION PLEASE!
For the good of information read this message.
I'm italian and I studied this stuff deeply. Almost every information in this video is wrong.
The term ''Democratic socialism'' used by Bernie Sanders isn't actually socialism. The correct term to indicate what he really means is Socialdemocracy. Now reset all the bullshit that you heard in TV, let's get into this:
-Socialdemocracy, called also walfare state, is a regulamented form of capitalism. It's regulamented by the state that intervenes in a market economy, to ensure the assistance and well-being of citizens, by deliberately and regulatedly modifying the distribution of income generated by the forces of the market itself.
So in a socialdemocracy we would have a large public sector (most of health, education ecc.. as Sanders always says) and more walfare/support by the state.
On the other hand, in a marxian vision of society, socialdemocracy won't put an end to the internal contradictions of capitalism (surplus value's theft, exploitation of the international working class, absence of democracy on workplaces, alienation, imperialism, dictatorship of the bourgeoisie ecc..)
-Socialism is an economic and social system. Marx and Engels distinguished the scientific socialism (communism) and utopian socialism (the non scientific view of socialism, that existed before marxism).
For Marx communism (scientific socialism) and socialism (the socio-economic system in general) ARE NOT interchangeable.
Socialism is when the workers own the means of production: the surplus value is managed and distributed from who creates it, the workers, according to the principle ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his work'' (so yes, an engineer will earn more than a farmhand). The workers are organized in a vanguard party that is democratically elected. Of course health, education, housing, transport ecc.. are free.
Socialism can be achieved after a proletarian revolution (marxism-leninism), or through election (actually the real meaning of democratic socialism). Both of these form of socialism have a goal: a communist society.
Look, i've never nominated the State, because socialist IS NOT when the governament does stuff, socialism is not statalism nor socialdemocracy. Just to clarify.
-Communism is a socio-economic system. It's also a set of philosophical and political ideologies (in marxism, ideologies should be the fruit of a materialistic analysis of the reallity, and not a set of ideas which has the task of distorting reality).
A communist society is stateless, classless and moneyless. Of course it can be possible only on a globale scale and it was never made.
It works according to the principles ''from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs''. It requires a high level of social and technological development (that we will build during the socialist period).
Communism is the final stage of welfare for the humanity, it is the emancipation of every man and woman in the society, it is the reunification of humankind in its proper nature.
These are the explanations of these terms in nutshells. Please, PLEASE, if you wanna know something about a such delicate and vast argoument read the authors, the philosophers, first.. don't start with a random video on youtube of a television company.
There are a lot of disinformation on this stuff around. If you have some question you can ask me!
I hope this was useful, cheers!
Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York who is widely considered the father of fascism studies, defined fascism as "a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda."
www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.html
So??? has someone invaded someone I do not know about? Have their been mass arrests or killings I am unaware of?
Nazi party was socialist, at first... then they turned. As always happens with socialism! NOT one country has been successful under socialism and Nordic countries are CAPITALIST, just taxed to death to pay for the freeloaders with tax rates over 60%!!!
@@MaryBrownForFreedom Aeroplane Jelly must really confuse you, hey? Get some credible sources, you farking dangerously ignorant farkwit. SCIENCE isn't wrong, of course, it's you who's full of crazed fascist propaganda, of course.
@@MaryBrownForFreedom Here's a list of democratic socialist societies,you farking lying, fascist goon: Armenia
Bolivia
Brazil
Croatia
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
Germany
Greenland
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
Moldova
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Norway
Peru
Portugal
Serbia
Slovenia
Sweden
Tunisia
Turkey
UK
Venezuela
Of these nations, the countries that have a socialist party that serves as a governing party are:
Armenia
Bolivia
Ecuador
Iceland
Nicaragua
Northern Ireland
Portugal
Serbia
Venezuela
worldpopulationreview.com/countries/democratic-socialist-countries/
I am Swedish and I consider öyself a demokratic socialist.
Everyone complaining about the accidental messing up of the Nordic flags but no one mentioning the accidental Spanish Second Republic flag
Right of Ronald Regan...this was a good explanation
what do you mean by right of Ronald Reagan? Just asking cuz idk wut dat means bruh
I hate having political views in 2020. Carful what you say, you might be ostracized.
All these political "isms" mean nothing if people continue to get screwed while the people who are doing the screwing continue to benefit at the expense of those getting screwed, irrespective of political "ism", including democracy (even though democracy does not end with an "ism").
Wait. You skipped over a few categorizes.
These are not very good definitions of communism or socialism. Completely ignores that the goal of communism is statelessness, not extreme statism.
Nothing is free there is always a cost
You pay taxes now 🙄 wow what a horrible thing to pay a little more in taxes , since you do that anyway when tax laws are revised almost yearly!
Yep, those wars in Vietnam and Iraq cost a few trillion$, not to mention the lives lost and hatred they created.
If Democratic Socialism rejects authoritarianism then why does it force those who want Capitalism into their prescribed economic model?
Not with Capitalism @Michael Lochlann. It's called the free market because it's free of government regulation. One is free to use a Socialist model or a Capitalist model for their business in a free market but with Socialism that choice no longer exists. How is that not authoritarianism? How is Socialism not antithetical to democracy?
What is Democratic Socialism part'sa stance on religious freedom? Closer to China or the current USA? Very important question for me to decide if I can get on board or not. I will only respond to people willing to conversate and not to those who are hard headed about their hate towards religion in general . Thank you.
i mean if you look at the people who are self described social democrat is they definitely are very accepting to people of the islamic faith and i personally think that christianity will never be unpopular or frowned upon in the US since it has such a hold on a majority of the population but religions that are discriminated against will definitely become more socially accepted.
how do people disagree with democratic socialism tho 😃
Democratic socialism - somebody here needs to explain how it differs from just plain old ordinary socialism.
Same exact thing, as far as I'm concerned.
Beautifully explained. Let’s make this go VIRAL & everybody VOTE!
thanks!!!
acttv you are most welcome. THANK YOU. We need simple and clear educational tools like this to share with the masses. We have no time to waste. This video will be shared widely ☮️💖🤘🏼
acttv I think semantics are of the essence. I wish Bernie would use the term “social democracy” rather than “democratic socialism.” The word “socialism” scares too many people.
Yes, let's vote to collapse the economy by implementing socialism (because it always fails) because we envy the rich even though we are all spoiled Americans who live in luxury compared to the rest of the globe. What could possibly go wrong?
Michele M I lived in the Netherlands for many years. A wonderful, well organized society where everyone has healthcare , higher education is very affordable, there are virtually no homeless, and there is income equality. If that’s “wrong”, I’ll take it.
Both Stalin and Mao referred to their policies as socialist.
There’s no distinction to the meaning of socialism between their version of socialism and that of Bernie Sanders. The only reason why Sanders’s version of socialism has not revealed itself as authoritarian is because it isn’t put into practice. When socialism is just an idea, you can only discuss the nice sounding parts (such as free stuff) and not mention the ugly parts (such as confiscate stuff via state violence).
Socialism is pretty rich term with really big difference between socialist ideologies. There are super authoritarian (like under Stalin and Mao), anarchist and with everything in beween. Stalinist USSR has almost nothing in common with many different socialist ideologies.
@@tefky7964 anarchist socialism in practice is limited to worker co-ops. This is something you can have, right now, in any capitalist economy. These are voluntary arrangements… perfectly fine, but this doesn’t move the needle.
Any socialism run by the state will be involuntary and will require violence to enforce. If I refuse to pay for Bernie’s socialized Medicine, he will send men with guns to kidnap me and confiscate my wealth, in a mafia style shakedown. And if I were only to protest such authoritarian measures, I would risk being denied of healthcare or whatever other social services by the state apparatus.
Now, there’s not much difference between this socialism and that of Stalin and Mao. It just a matter of it being put into practice for the similarities to be made more apparent.
@@cl5619There is no difference between not paying taxes for social healthcare and not paying any other tax in the current system you don't like. Paying taxes will always be enforced cos otherwise nobody would pay them.
I live in Finland, but I'm originally from and grew up in New Zealand and spent some time living in Australia - The difference is like day and night. I won't ever move back to New Zealand nor Australia they way they are now.