I'm an engineer trying to get into a Ph.D. program for Sociology. Besides taking some online courses to boost my resume, I have learnt SO MUCH from this crash course. All the major terms, contributors, theories, data, everything. I'm so grateful for the efforts you guys are making. Supporting this channel like crazy! Thanks a LOT ❤
Roxy456 ah yes, all Sociology PhDs work at McDonalds, of course, I can’t think of a single person that has a degree in sociology that doesn’t work in fast food.
"Owned by the government" is incredibly deceptive. It's only socialism if the means of production are owned by the people, which means government ownership is only socialism if the people control the government
Regan ruined America with Reganomics, because "trickle down" NEVER happens. This is what catalyzed the wealth gap. Now politics wants to pit Deomcrats vs Republicans but it's really the Wealthy (any party) versus the poor and working class (any party)
"The government owns everything"... that's... that's Public ownership, not Collectivism! Collectivism is when workers directly own and control the means of production - such as being able to elect a company's managers.
I just want *one* crash course series to correctly define socialism. Please. Marx had little to say about state-ownership of the means of production. He was about *worker* control of the means of production. Please, look up a few lectures by Richard Wolff, he does a beautiful job of explaining this. Please, you're supposed to be an academic channel. Do your research on this subject. You're a great channel, lots of great series, but it's like you go out of your way to be adamantly wrong on this *one* issue, every single time it comes up. Learn the socialist side of the story instead of taking the capitalist narrative as unquestionable fact. You don't have to change your whole worldview, but at the very least understand us on our own terms, as we have been made to understand you on your terms.
Since nothing stops you from buying your own company's shares, by your definition we are already living in socialism. Such a pity people can't realize that...
Socialism economics system can be divided into planned socialism and market socialism, public ownership, cooperative ownership, common ownership, and hierarchical management, and self managed.
@@fatwildcatify I know pretty much everyone here is just romanticizing their own idea of socialism it aren't like really like most socialist countries is like.
I feel like it should be mentioned that this didn't exactly portray Adam Smith's ideas in context. Yes, he believed that markets could do a lot of good, but he also argued that just as there was an invisible hand there would be a necessary visible hand, and the states that Adam Smith used as an example would have been closer to aristocratic family-owned corporations than to any kind of democracy. He abhorred monopolies and wrote against them more than once. The episode also entirely left off hybrid economies which the Crash Course Economics team repeatedly made a point of demonstrating as the dominant form of functional economies today including most of the top richest countries in the world. Normally this series is on point with fair criticisms on both sides but I hope we will be touching back on this. While it does show the dominant western view on economics, this does not reflect an accurate historic view or do the usual break down of other modes of thoughts, and criticisms of different approaches.
The economy is made of people. I am a people. The economy is me. To understand economics you must first understand yourself. I now feel as sophisticated as the Tertiary sector. Thank you.
Socialism does not necessarily mean government ownership or involvement. Libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, and other related versions of socialism aim for more decentralized political and economic systems, and democracy in the workplace. Collective ownership can take numerous forms. Marxism-Leninism was the prominent ideology in 20th century socialist one-party states, but generalizing its features to all forms of socialism doesn't make sense, particularly as modern forms of socialism tend to be far more concerned with anti-authoritarianism as much as economic injustice.
So we're going to ignore the role of war, neo/colonialism, and economic sanctions on the failure of socialist economies? Okay... not saying things would have been rosey, but there were concerted efforts throughout the Cold War era to ensure the demise of any country and economy that put forward a socialist focus.
Gerard Miller while that is true, when those sanctions were lifted, say in China, those same socialist countries cease being socialist. Which does not aid the idea of sustainable socialist state if either the world won't trade with you or when the world does, it ceases to be socialism
This actually furthers my statement, because those countries were left in a position where the only option for solvency was adopting a capitalist model to become relevant/competitive. But my original point was that there was no mention of these pressures, whereas mitigating factors are at least noted in other CC videos.
OTOH, we should also consider the role of neo-colonialism in the relations between the Soviet Union and its satellite states, plus the role of ideological infighting at the cost of sound economic decisions.
yes, but does't that just show how utopian socialism is? States have to deal with the world as it is, not how they wish to be and I reckon if socialist countries didn't look to expand and foment revolution in other countries, the other countries may've left them alone. Say, if the Soviet Union did try and turn African countries socialist, then maybe the US wouldn't bother as well. Which leads nicely to +varana312's neo-colonialism point. Had these so-called socialist countries looked inwards, not outwards, they may still be here today. They would most assuredly be poorer, but if the ideology is sound (which i don't think it is, but if it is) then the relatively poorness would not distress the inhabitants. And yes, I do think CC should've discussed this
I brought up neocolonialism. And again, this is exactly the kind of thing that could have been included. It's a discussion, a learning opportunity for discussing these systems. I'd also like to push back a little and note that many African, Asian, and Latin American leaders gravitated toward socialism themselves after experiencing the effects of mercantile and apartheid colonialism, and hearing about Marx and socialist critique while in university. It did not take the benevolent hand of the Soviet Union to introduce these concepts to these countries; rather, the USSR lent support to these areas as a way to expand their own sphere of influence and further their containment strategy against the US and western powers. Neocolonialism affected these nations and their chances for success because the USSR's support made them 1) largely dependent on that support, as in Cuba and China; and 2) targets for western aggression and intervention, as in every coup/puppet government/assassination from Bolivia to Guinea to Afghanistan.
Great video, as always! One note, what about last 3 episodes? Socialist countries were much less developed countries or even just stopped beeing colonies. They were much poorer etc. but please don't pretend that comparison between capitalism and socialism make any sense... IT is like compering who will have a better chance to create big company son of a multibilionere or daughter of poor worker. Both can do it but it it is not just a questions of abilities, comparison of socialism and capitalism is of course possibile but global ineqalities are key factor here.
2:30 Factory workers weren't MAINLY poor women and children, they were MAINLY men. When justifying (rightfully so) the worker's right to unionize, the unions might have put women and child laborers at the forefront of their cause to gain sympathy.
I do remember commenters aching for an economic/sociological video in previous episodes. It's great that it's here. I wonder if it's satisfying enough.
I’ve seen every single episode and this is my only complain thus far, so when I say you need to add a thought bubble explaining that socialism is means of production owned by the PEOPLE, not the government, that’s all I have to say.
Brandon Vecchio Just curious, what’s the difference? How do people own the means of production in common if there isn’t some system (government) that decides how those means are used and makes sure no one is cheating the system?
Is it possible to elaborate on the rentier state in terms of economic systems and capitalism/socialism? Also could you broaden the studies, like third world countries and whatnot?
Regan ruined America with Reganomics, because "trickle down" NEVER happens. This is what catalyzed the wealth gap. Now politics wants to pit Deomcrats vs Republicans but it's really the Wealthy (any party) versus the poor and working class (any party)
Your reading of Adam Smith is wrong. Noam Chomsky explains why in some of his interviews. You can also check out the scholarly literature on his Wealth Of Nations.
That throw away comment about the decline of unions is extremely disingenuous. The decline of unions in America has very little to do with economic forces. It's mostly due to lobbying efforts paid for by corporations and political corruption.
Much of it has to do with smaller firms, and workers who are less interchangable, than in the traditional factory model. Politiacal changes have played a role, but many workers do not consider unions to act in their interests. As such, it's not so much corruption, as it is democratic pressures, from workers who oppose being required to join unions.
Partridge in a Pear Tree The invisible hand is the idea that a free market caused people to further their own goals, which then coincide with societal goals via voluntary exchange
Monopolies can be regulated by the free market. Just look at what happened with martin shkreli and his "unique" drug. After a few months (!) following the increase on his drug's price, new drugs came to market from independent doctors and biologists.
I think the facts selected for this video do frame a pretty liberal, pro-capitalist perspective. But they are facts. Maybe they could have included more pros and evidence supporting mixed or socialist economies, but it's not as if they got anything wrong. It needs to be cut down to around ten minutes anyway, so some nuance will be lost. I'm pretty third-way, so I can kinda see y'alls point here, but the argument could have been framed a lot worse.
The owners of factories and businesses improved the economy by increasing productivity, and gained both wealth and power in the process. They began to abuse this power more and more at the expense of the powerless, until public pressure shifted power towards the workers. The leaders of unions and such improved the economy by increasing standards of living*, and gained both influence and power in the process. They began to abuse this power more and more at the expense of the powerless, until public pressure shifted power away from the workers. Now we are again seeing leaders of business and finance improving the economy, but abusing their power. Hopefully, this time we'll get things right and avoid creating space for _anyone_ to abuse their power at the expense of anyone else. But realistically, the cycle will continue until the end of civilization. New groups will make new promises, reform the economy in new ways, and improve the standard of living, until the idealists are replaced by corrupt and cynical leaders who create conditions for a new revolution, a new change.
Timothy McLean A society that is almost completely voluntary is the only system that truly limits the abuse of power you care about. That society can only exist in a free market capitalist system
Zach Jones Until somebody takes enough power through political means to seize control and create a brand new autocracy. How do you thing autocracies formed in the first place, people wanted it?
Anrcho-capitalism could be the next economic system, especially with so much political division in the world. If some corporations had their own sovereign territory I'd rather live in land ruled by Koch Industries or Exxon than the US.
David Adkins You can't be this stupid! You want to mix feudalism with Capitalism or push a Corporate State. Yet right-wingers deny fascism as their ideology.
Joseph Smith, yes. Or at least it would take the place of any more common type of government. If the US ever failed, then I think we could split it up among companies in the S&P500, with stipulations for a common defense, and basic human rights.
Capitalism is the main creator of inequality in the world. We obviously need a more equal society if we want to be stable. So we need to focus on what technical means are possible for providing for everybody, instead of on who can make the most money.
No, taxation is the main creator of wealth inequality. When governments get to decide who gets how much of their money and who gets other people's money, the people with the most money get most of everyone else's. Only a truly free market can reduce the ridiculous wealth Gap, but anything less than a free market can only increase the gap.
David Adkins that productivity was not “because” of capitalism. Great things were created under capitalism, but it’s kinda idiotic to think that it’s the only system that can be creative. In fact, creativity and progress are hindered because of the desire to make profit and maintain market share. The best ideas aren’t always profitable, and that’s why we never see them. We need to move away from a labor-for-income based economic model and move to an access-based model. When we do away with what will make a few people very rich and begin thinking about how to design a society that is beneficial for everyone, only then will we enter “civilization”
David Adkins what I’m proposing is really communism. But all communist societies in the past never had the technical means to efficiently manage the economy. When the majority of people’s current jobs will be automated, we will have to turn to things like a universal basic income to allow people to maintain a livelihood. If we all begin to think about how we could redesign our society to meet everyone’s needs, not just the poor, I don’t see what’s wrong with that. The reality is that what is best for our species is the removal of jobs and the labor-for-income mentality, which is in stark contrast to how things operate now. It isn’t a perfect system what I’m proposing, but the idea is that we all take part in deciding how our society should be. I feel sorry for the poor man in rural America that fights to let the billionaires determine the rules for society.
You're comparing imperialist countries with socialist ones. If you compare regular non-imperialist capitalist countries with socialist ones, the socialist ones outperform them.
Soo. Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Canada and many more Rich Capitalist nations are imperialists. Dont even try. The soviets were so poor and had so little food they forcibly starved Ukraine to send the food to "real" soviets who were starving aswell
+Edward Larsen Yes, all former colonial powers are imperialist. Additionally, all capitalist countries are actually mixed economies, the best ones have an extensive public sector & a heavily regulated private sector, i.e. they lean more towards socialism. Let's not make 'starvation' a measure, since today the whole world is capitalist & half of it is starving for it. Socialist countries don't starve when there's plenty to eat, only capitalist countries do that. For instance, the Irish starved during the Great Famine while producing an agricultural surplus, but all their food went to the British Empire, because "free market".
Firstly the Irish didn't starve because of the free market they starved because of the British. Secondly a rich country would be able to import food for its people so starvation can be a good measure, but due to sanctions lets leave that out. If they outperformed non colonial powers that were capitalist then lets look at GDP(in dollars). For alot of the time the USSR had the second highest GDP in the world, sounds great only when you don't look at GDP per Capita(per citizen) where they ranked 32nd in 1982 with only 5,800 compare that to Norway a country which has never been imperialist. in 1982 they had thrice that of the soviet union with 15,000 per capita and Canada at 12.400 per capita. (bonus: USSR suffered from high inflation) Also you say the Soviets outperformed modern russia NOT EVEN CLOSE. when adjusted for inflation the gdp per capita of russia today is 10,000 in 1982. which is double that of the soviet union in 1982, but sure GDP isnt everything, but its a very good indicator of the economy of a nation.
+Edward Larsen "because of the British"? Because of British imperialism specifically. Norway was a colonial power, & it is probably the most socialist-leaning mixed economy in the world. Two reasons it's probably the worst example you could have chosen. I don't agree that GDP is a good measure. I think something like mortality rate would be instead.
4:00 - "but in practise an economy doesn't work very well if its left completely on autopilot. there are lots of sectors where a hands-off approach can lead to what economists call market failures, where an unregulated market ends up allocating goods and services inefficiently" how would you know? how would anybody know? we have never seen an unregulated market. what you have to understand is that when economists talk about "the free market" they are referring to a theoretical model, not the real world.
@@armanke13 there was a federal reserve regulating the economy during the great depression. Not to mention a federal government enacting regulations (generally in favour of the rich) at that time too.
It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here... Corporations are taking over, man! Just don't make deals with dragons and you'll be fine.
Needless to say, this video is an extreme oversimplification. And it's actually a common misconception; the correct term of the type of socialism that is metioned should be "state socialism". Alot of socialist put major focus on things like decentralization and co-opertaive ownership of the means of production and so on (which is, more or less, the exact oposit of state socialism). There's alot of people who have strong opinions about socialism but a poor understanding of what it actually means. Socialism is an egalitarian, anti-racist, idealistic and a collectivistic supraideology and is not really a system but rhather a set of ideas and values that can be implemented in many differnent ways and settings, just like conservatism and liberalism. The way the term capitalism is used is also sloppy, it should be called "crony capitalism". Such a shame, cause I think this series have been very informative so far, and ofcourse it's not easy to give an overall understanding of big subjects like this in under ten minutes, and this time was sertinly a failure.
Why do people try to treat economic theory as an idealogy? They need to grow some pragmatism. I assume that pure socialists can be just as annoying, but pure capitalists are most prominent on my radar right now. It's so cute how they assume that a perfectly free market will automatically result in better and/or cheaper goods, and not just, say... more marketing. Or literally anything else that could potentially be easier than an improved product.
Compared to how much "literally anything else that could potentially be easier than an improved product" happens in unfree markets and government projects? Not a difficult assumption to make.
I see, so an increase in workers for a particular sector of the economy will decrease the wage they are paid. Therefore the millions of illegal immigrants in this country have decreased the wages for secondary market workers, the real cause of wage stagnation.
Zach Jones wtf? He didn't said that, it was Gregor Strasser and Hitler killed him during the Night of the Long Knives. mobmaniac Hitler sent socialists and Trade Unionists in camps or killed them Jeez no wonder why Trump got elected with this much misinformation
Even if Hitler had said that - since when exactly do we take Hitler at face value? (My guess: If it fits our narrative.) Nazi Germany was a curious mixture between the inherited capitalist system with private ownership and heavy-handed state intervention, and changed quite a lot in its short-lived existence. And after 1939, it was basically war economy, anyway.
Nonamearisto No Venezuela isn't socialist however the USSR, China, and Cuba are because again as it's already been explained to idiots like you. 1) Private Property has been abolished 2) The surplus from the people's labor went back into society. (Thanks to all the sectors being nationalized) 3) People had some control over their work.
@Nonamearisto Well, that is not how the "No true Scotsman fallacy" works. He didn't say something along the line of "no socialist country would do that", and then change it to something like "but no *true* socialist country would do that". Moreover, when it comes to economic systems, these things are pretty well defined, so you can't actually apply that fallacy here. Plus, there is a difference between *building* Socialism and actual Socialism. There are stages of development. You can't compare a country that just had a revolution (like Russia in 1917), when they just start to implement changes to the economy, to, let's say, 1950's Soviet Union, when Collectivization was finished and they were further on the path to Socialism. This process takes time, so you really can't say that the economic system in Venezuela is Socialism. You must realize that having socialists in power doesn't mean you live under Socialism. Greece is ruled by socialist Syriza, right? Is Greece socialist or capitalist? Bottom line, you use the fallacy wrong.
why the emphasis on wage equality? the gap between the high and low wages means absolutely nothing, you produce more or bring more value to the table then you get more.
Rowan Evans and that's what's called an ad hominem logical fallacy. Just because it's part of an idea you hate doesn't mean it's not an actual word with an actual definition which is actually used in the real world
your definitions are bad and you should feel bad capitalism is not just defined by private ownership, it's defined by property income. a free market propertarian system where property income is not possible is a kind of market socialism, not capitalism. you may note that Adam Smith never advocated "capitalism". He advocated free markets. "Capitalism" is a term coined by Marx as a pejorative for what he thought free markets would inevitably lead to. and government doesn't have to play a larger role in socialism. libertarian socialism is a thing, individualist market socialism, even anarcho-socialism which advocates for no state (or "government" if you're too lazy to distinguish those things) at all. But of course everybody routinely ignores libertarian socialism, and paints a false dichotomy between market capitalism or state socialism. Also ignoring, in the process, the existence of state capitalism, otherwise known as literal fascism, like the kind advocated by Mussolini. The opposite of that is libertarian socialism. Also worth noting that the Stalinist dictatorship of the proletariate was OPENLY practicing state capitalism UNDER THAT NAME "as a stepping stone to communism", but of course never got past it. No so-called communist country has ever claimed to actually practice communism; they claim to be trying to create communism, by using fascism under another name as a tool. All the things you hate about "communists"? Those are actually fascist things, and the very people who did them would tell you so.
Nicole (the actual human you are talking to) hasn't really appeared to me as a mean spirited person. Telling her that she should "feel bad" for using simplifications in a 10 min video is perhaps not entirely fair, especially seeing as her "job" is to give a balanced view of as much of sociology as possible and not just socialism.
wasn't "operating state capitalism with that name" actually used by Lenin (and Stalin for 4 years) in the NEP stage? And later replaced by Koba with his five-year plans?
just google it. an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. PRIVATE OWNERS. If you say Google is wrong, then at that point, you are changing the definition provided worldwide.
Yes, the Industrial Revolution brought great wealth and also great inequality. However, you're leaving out a key fact: before that pretty much everyone was poor. The Industrial Revolution didn't put more people into working more hours for less pay. They were working for more pay, which is why they went to work in those factories in the first place. Thus far we've just got an insult to those who are wealthy for being wealthy by labeling them as "robber barons" without actually establishing wrongdoing. Hint: they weren't robbers. "In practice, an economy doesn't do well if it is left completely on auto pilot" Yeah, no, that's completely false. The economy has done worse with government regulation than without. Saying that the market fails without government intervention because it doesn't allocate resources "efficiently" is just begging the question of what it means to be efficient. Monopolies didn't form in the absence of government like you're saying here. They have primarily popped up as a result of government intrusion. Look up the history of Standard Oil. Props for pointing out the problems with attempting communism and the state tyranny that it produces. Income inequality isn't a bad thing in and of itself. It's much better to be unequally rich than equally poor. This is shown time and time again with more economic freedom for the individual correlating with higher standards of living.
"Socialism is when the government controls the economy" that is completely, absolutely wrong. like you truly could not get the definition more wrong. collective ownership does not mean state ownership.
Your confusing the theory of socialism and how it has been implemented. That would be like saying crony capitalism doesn't work so we can't have capitalism at all.
It's very suspicious that you ignore worker owned cooperatives. Also, government run programs IS NOT the same as socialism. Worker ownership IS NOT the same as government ownership. Look up businesses run via work place democracy like Mondragon.
Market failure doesn't happen in a free market. Market failures are consequences of government regulations. Monopolies and oligopolies form due to government regulations such as incorporation, limited liability, and intellectual property.
Its not only Socialism and Capitalism! An alternative and in fact the only balanced and just system for the benefit of the whole humanity is Islam. But not just Islamic finance, which is not possible to implement properly if other aspects are not observed (just same like capitalism & socialism are not only financial systems, Islam is also not). Please study Islamic Econony (in combination with its implementation in early and middle ages of Islam)
Have you ever read word of marx, engels, kropotkin or bookchin? Actually read a book before you try to claim stalinist state capitalist dictatorships are socialist.
i'm ok with more critical video's across the board, since i'm sure capitalism is the best thing we have so far. it's not perfect but it 's better and more free for every individual.
@Dominick NL I don't usually insult people in comments. but I can't help it this time. You are the best example of an "useful idiot". "It's not perfect but it's better and more free [...]" - play in the hands of the elite, useful idiot, they want to maintain the status quo and dumbed you down into believing that you have no alternative to Capitalism.
but i want the status quo too... you're saying it like it doesn't benefit everyone. we're all better off in capitalism or all the socialists would move to a socialist country.... you are talking as if socialism is an actual option. it is not. at all. socialism just makes everyone poor. look at the loooong list of countries that tried. But i'm open to social programs within capatalism, as a country grows more rich you can even expand it. that's the bieuty of capitalism, it allows for social programs. but never would i accept any kind of watered down maxism. I like having property.
of all of the examples of failed socialist governments out there, why purposely leave out Venezuela? and you’re making it seem like sociologists don’t do much
I'm an engineer trying to get into a Ph.D. program for Sociology. Besides taking some online courses to boost my resume, I have learnt SO MUCH from this crash course. All the major terms, contributors, theories, data, everything. I'm so grateful for the efforts you guys are making. Supporting this channel like crazy! Thanks a LOT ❤
conan263 absolutely
Roxy456 ah yes, all Sociology PhDs work at McDonalds, of course, I can’t think of a single person that has a degree in sociology that doesn’t work in fast food.
"Owned by the government" is incredibly deceptive. It's only socialism if the means of production are owned by the people, which means government ownership is only socialism if the people control the government
You didn't read Marx's opinion on how socialism work. The state control major important production factor, not the people. You are dead wrong mate
@@pingukutepro Marx is not the only socialist intellectual
Regan ruined America with Reganomics, because "trickle down" NEVER happens. This is what catalyzed the wealth gap. Now politics wants to pit Deomcrats vs Republicans but it's really the Wealthy (any party) versus the poor and working class (any party)
"The government owns everything"... that's... that's Public ownership, not Collectivism! Collectivism is when workers directly own and control the means of production - such as being able to elect a company's managers.
I just want *one* crash course series to correctly define socialism. Please. Marx had little to say about state-ownership of the means of production. He was about *worker* control of the means of production. Please, look up a few lectures by Richard Wolff, he does a beautiful job of explaining this. Please, you're supposed to be an academic channel. Do your research on this subject. You're a great channel, lots of great series, but it's like you go out of your way to be adamantly wrong on this *one* issue, every single time it comes up. Learn the socialist side of the story instead of taking the capitalist narrative as unquestionable fact. You don't have to change your whole worldview, but at the very least understand us on our own terms, as we have been made to understand you on your terms.
Since nothing stops you from buying your own company's shares, by your definition we are already living in socialism. Such a pity people can't realize that...
Socialism economics system can be divided into planned socialism and market socialism, public ownership, cooperative ownership, common ownership, and hierarchical management, and self managed.
@@fatwildcatify I know pretty much everyone here is just romanticizing their own idea of socialism it aren't like really like most socialist countries is like.
Worker control of the means of production tend to become state-ownership of the mean of production. Because that's how it work.
If you're poor, you can squint and see the Invisible Hand giving you the finger.
The question is...why are you poor?
Perfect timing! I'm studying economic sociology for my intro to social sciences course right now :)
Same
I feel like it should be mentioned that this didn't exactly portray Adam Smith's ideas in context. Yes, he believed that markets could do a lot of good, but he also argued that just as there was an invisible hand there would be a necessary visible hand, and the states that Adam Smith used as an example would have been closer to aristocratic family-owned corporations than to any kind of democracy. He abhorred monopolies and wrote against them more than once.
The episode also entirely left off hybrid economies which the Crash Course Economics team repeatedly made a point of demonstrating as the dominant form of functional economies today including most of the top richest countries in the world.
Normally this series is on point with fair criticisms on both sides but I hope we will be touching back on this. While it does show the dominant western view on economics, this does not reflect an accurate historic view or do the usual break down of other modes of thoughts, and criticisms of different approaches.
I just want to say I love your lipstick shade and how it perfectly matches your shirt. :D That is all, you may proceed.
6:55 - editing mistake. You just see the animation, but the words don't fully materialise.
It may be a mistake, or it may be because this revolution hasn't finished yet. Probably a mistake, though.
The economy is made of people. I am a people. The economy is me. To understand economics you must first understand yourself. I now feel as sophisticated as the Tertiary sector. Thank you.
Socialism does not necessarily mean government ownership or involvement. Libertarian socialism, democratic socialism, and other related versions of socialism aim for more decentralized political and economic systems, and democracy in the workplace. Collective ownership can take numerous forms.
Marxism-Leninism was the prominent ideology in 20th century socialist one-party states, but generalizing its features to all forms of socialism doesn't make sense, particularly as modern forms of socialism tend to be far more concerned with anti-authoritarianism as much as economic injustice.
So we're going to ignore the role of war, neo/colonialism, and economic sanctions on the failure of socialist economies? Okay... not saying things would have been rosey, but there were concerted efforts throughout the Cold War era to ensure the demise of any country and economy that put forward a socialist focus.
Gerard Miller while that is true, when those sanctions were lifted, say in China, those same socialist countries cease being socialist. Which does not aid the idea of sustainable socialist state if either the world won't trade with you or when the world does, it ceases to be socialism
This actually furthers my statement, because those countries were left in a position where the only option for solvency was adopting a capitalist model to become relevant/competitive.
But my original point was that there was no mention of these pressures, whereas mitigating factors are at least noted in other CC videos.
OTOH, we should also consider the role of neo-colonialism in the relations between the Soviet Union and its satellite states, plus the role of ideological infighting at the cost of sound economic decisions.
yes, but does't that just show how utopian socialism is? States have to deal with the world as it is, not how they wish to be and I reckon if socialist countries didn't look to expand and foment revolution in other countries, the other countries may've left them alone. Say, if the Soviet Union did try and turn African countries socialist, then maybe the US wouldn't bother as well.
Which leads nicely to +varana312's neo-colonialism point. Had these so-called socialist countries looked inwards, not outwards, they may still be here today. They would most assuredly be poorer, but if the ideology is sound (which i don't think it is, but if it is) then the relatively poorness would not distress the inhabitants.
And yes, I do think CC should've discussed this
I brought up neocolonialism. And again, this is exactly the kind of thing that could have been included. It's a discussion, a learning opportunity for discussing these systems. I'd also like to push back a little and note that many African, Asian, and Latin American leaders gravitated toward socialism themselves after experiencing the effects of mercantile and apartheid colonialism, and hearing about Marx and socialist critique while in university. It did not take the benevolent hand of the Soviet Union to introduce these concepts to these countries; rather, the USSR lent support to these areas as a way to expand their own sphere of influence and further their containment strategy against the US and western powers. Neocolonialism affected these nations and their chances for success because the USSR's support made them 1) largely dependent on that support, as in Cuba and China; and 2) targets for western aggression and intervention, as in every coup/puppet government/assassination from Bolivia to Guinea to Afghanistan.
Great video, as always! One note, what about last 3 episodes? Socialist countries were much less developed countries or even just stopped beeing colonies. They were much poorer etc. but please don't pretend that comparison between capitalism and socialism make any sense... IT is like compering who will have a better chance to create big company son of a multibilionere or daughter of poor worker. Both can do it but it it is not just a questions of abilities, comparison of socialism and capitalism is of course possibile but global ineqalities are key factor here.
As soon as she started talking about socialism and capitalism. I knew that she is going to wrongly define socialism. I knew it was going to happen.
6:55
???
when animation tries to remove it, you are like nope. I see what you did there.
Your talks are just like poetry! Thanks
Syrgak Zhylkybaev ,I think so
2:30 Factory workers weren't MAINLY poor women and children, they were MAINLY men. When justifying (rightfully so) the worker's right to unionize, the unions might have put women and child laborers at the forefront of their cause to gain sympathy.
Nice! . Very informative for new commerce and definitions makes it lucid.
I do remember commenters aching for an economic/sociological video in previous episodes. It's great that it's here. I wonder if it's satisfying enough.
I’ve seen every single episode and this is my only complain thus far, so when I say you need to add a thought bubble explaining that socialism is means of production owned by the PEOPLE, not the government, that’s all I have to say.
Brandon Vecchio Just curious, what’s the difference? How do people own the means of production in common if there isn’t some system (government) that decides how those means are used and makes sure no one is cheating the system?
Is it possible to elaborate on the rentier state in terms of economic systems and capitalism/socialism? Also could you broaden the studies, like third world countries and whatnot?
Do a course on International Relations.
If you've pissed off the market fundamentalists and the communists, you've probably presented a fairly balanced video.
Finally a new video!!! Nice
The real question is, as long as poverty is being dealt with, why is wealth inequality even an issue?
Regan ruined America with Reganomics, because "trickle down" NEVER happens. This is what catalyzed the wealth gap. Now politics wants to pit Deomcrats vs Republicans but it's really the Wealthy (any party) versus the poor and working class (any party)
Hey !!
Thank you so much. I like this video. 👍👌👍
Your reading of Adam Smith is wrong. Noam Chomsky explains why in some of his interviews. You can also check out the scholarly literature on his Wealth Of Nations.
This was too US centrist in my opinion. Europe has a very different system, and in my country we have 69%(Yes, not a joke) membership of unions.
Also, "jobs that don't provide healthcare benefits".
Exactly! Thanks you :)
That throw away comment about the decline of unions is extremely disingenuous. The decline of unions in America has very little to do with economic forces. It's mostly due to lobbying efforts paid for by corporations and political corruption.
I M Ofage Correct!
Much of it has to do with smaller firms, and workers who are less interchangable, than in the traditional factory model. Politiacal changes have played a role, but many workers do not consider unions to act in their interests. As such, it's not so much corruption, as it is democratic pressures, from workers who oppose being required to join unions.
Great video, can you do one on different monetary systems?
Counterrevolutionary. Ten years gulag.
I know the economic model for the world after the information revolution:
FULLY
Okuu AUTOMATED
Was the “invisible hand” not in reference to the government?
Partridge in a Pear Tree The invisible hand is the idea that a free market caused people to further their own goals, which then coincide with societal goals via voluntary exchange
Zach Jones Right that cleared it up; thanks mate!
Monopolies can be regulated by the free market. Just look at what happened with martin shkreli and his "unique" drug. After a few months (!) following the increase on his drug's price, new drugs came to market from independent doctors and biologists.
What happens when the primary, secondary and tertiary sectors are taken over by automation? I guess we all go into maintenance to our robot overlords.
What she described as the agrarian revolution I thought was the Neolithic revolution..can someone explain the difference..?
They are synonyms.
The thumbnail has an error 'Economic Systems & AND the labor market'
I think the facts selected for this video do frame a pretty liberal, pro-capitalist perspective. But they are facts. Maybe they could have included more pros and evidence supporting mixed or socialist economies, but it's not as if they got anything wrong. It needs to be cut down to around ten minutes anyway, so some nuance will be lost. I'm pretty third-way, so I can kinda see y'alls point here, but the argument could have been framed a lot worse.
Why background music? And why so loud towards the end??
itt: everyone decides their own definition for the words socialism and capitalism and then gets mad when they're not used
CrashCourse, you accidentally wrote "& AND" in the thumbnail!
The owners of factories and businesses improved the economy by increasing productivity, and gained both wealth and power in the process. They began to abuse this power more and more at the expense of the powerless, until public pressure shifted power towards the workers.
The leaders of unions and such improved the economy by increasing standards of living*, and gained both influence and power in the process. They began to abuse this power more and more at the expense of the powerless, until public pressure shifted power away from the workers.
Now we are again seeing leaders of business and finance improving the economy, but abusing their power. Hopefully, this time we'll get things right and avoid creating space for _anyone_ to abuse their power at the expense of anyone else. But realistically, the cycle will continue until the end of civilization. New groups will make new promises, reform the economy in new ways, and improve the standard of living, until the idealists are replaced by corrupt and cynical leaders who create conditions for a new revolution, a new change.
Timothy McLean Well said :)
Timothy McLean A society that is almost completely voluntary is the only system that truly limits the abuse of power you care about. That society can only exist in a free market capitalist system
Zach Jones Until somebody takes enough power through political means to seize control and create a brand new autocracy. How do you thing autocracies formed in the first place, people wanted it?
Wait a second you're not John Green!
Anrcho-capitalism could be the next economic system, especially with so much political division in the world. If some corporations had their own sovereign territory I'd rather live in land ruled by Koch Industries or Exxon than the US.
Joseph Smith, corporations build things much better than any government.
David Adkins You can't be this stupid! You want to mix feudalism with Capitalism or push a Corporate State. Yet right-wingers deny fascism as their ideology.
Pridetoons Reviews, imagine a benevolent competitive country, run with the efficiency of a corporation. Like the UAE, but secular.
Joseph Smith, yes. Or at least it would take the place of any more common type of government. If the US ever failed, then I think we could split it up among companies in the S&P500, with stipulations for a common defense, and basic human rights.
Comments gon b good
please do one on unemployment
Capitalism is the main creator of inequality in the world. We obviously need a more equal society if we want to be stable. So we need to focus on what technical means are possible for providing for everybody, instead of on who can make the most money.
Capitalism has made possible most of the wealth of the modern world. It's truly evil to wish away all that productivity because of your envy.
No, taxation is the main creator of wealth inequality. When governments get to decide who gets how much of their money and who gets other people's money, the people with the most money get most of everyone else's. Only a truly free market can reduce the ridiculous wealth Gap, but anything less than a free market can only increase the gap.
David Adkins that productivity was not “because” of capitalism. Great things were created under capitalism, but it’s kinda idiotic to think that it’s the only system that can be creative. In fact, creativity and progress are hindered because of the desire to make profit and maintain market share. The best ideas aren’t always profitable, and that’s why we never see them. We need to move away from a labor-for-income based economic model and move to an access-based model. When we do away with what will make a few people very rich and begin thinking about how to design a society that is beneficial for everyone, only then will we enter “civilization”
Ian Nutter, you're talking about communism. No collectivist economy has ever worked. If you're not afraid of starvation then go start a commune.
David Adkins what I’m proposing is really communism. But all communist societies in the past never had the technical means to efficiently manage the economy. When the majority of people’s current jobs will be automated, we will have to turn to things like a universal basic income to allow people to maintain a livelihood. If we all begin to think about how we could redesign our society to meet everyone’s needs, not just the poor, I don’t see what’s wrong with that. The reality is that what is best for our species is the removal of jobs and the labor-for-income mentality, which is in stark contrast to how things operate now. It isn’t a perfect system what I’m proposing, but the idea is that we all take part in deciding how our society should be. I feel sorry for the poor man in rural America that fights to let the billionaires determine the rules for society.
You're comparing imperialist countries with socialist ones. If you compare regular non-imperialist capitalist countries with socialist ones, the socialist ones outperform them.
The Soviet Union performed better than modern day capitalist Russia, for instance.
Soo. Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Canada and many more Rich Capitalist nations are imperialists. Dont even try. The soviets were so poor and had so little food they forcibly starved Ukraine to send the food to "real" soviets who were starving aswell
+Edward Larsen Yes, all former colonial powers are imperialist. Additionally, all capitalist countries are actually mixed economies, the best ones have an extensive public sector & a heavily regulated private sector, i.e. they lean more towards socialism.
Let's not make 'starvation' a measure, since today the whole world is capitalist & half of it is starving for it. Socialist countries don't starve when there's plenty to eat, only capitalist countries do that.
For instance, the Irish starved during the Great Famine while producing an agricultural surplus, but all their food went to the British Empire, because "free market".
Firstly the Irish didn't starve because of the free market they starved because of the British. Secondly a rich country would be able to import food for its people so starvation can be a good measure, but due to sanctions lets leave that out. If they outperformed non colonial powers that were capitalist then lets look at GDP(in dollars). For alot of the time the USSR had the second highest GDP in the world, sounds great only when you don't look at GDP per Capita(per citizen) where they ranked 32nd in 1982 with only 5,800 compare that to Norway a country which has never been imperialist. in 1982 they had thrice that of the soviet union with 15,000 per capita and Canada at 12.400 per capita. (bonus: USSR suffered from high inflation) Also you say the Soviets outperformed modern russia NOT EVEN CLOSE. when adjusted for inflation the gdp per capita of russia today is 10,000 in 1982. which is double that of the soviet union in 1982, but sure GDP isnt everything, but its a very good indicator of the economy of a nation.
+Edward Larsen "because of the British"? Because of British imperialism specifically.
Norway was a colonial power, & it is probably the most socialist-leaning mixed economy in the world. Two reasons it's probably the worst example you could have chosen.
I don't agree that GDP is a good measure. I think something like mortality rate would be instead.
Two Ands great
Please do Crash Course entrepreneurship!
Or Administration!
That's kinda specific....
Timothy McLean why?
We entire graduation courses about those where I live.
J B I'm coursing engineering
Would’ve been better if more types of economy was explored...
4:00 - "but in practise an economy doesn't work very well if its left completely on autopilot. there are lots of sectors where a hands-off approach can lead to what economists call market failures, where an unregulated market ends up allocating goods and services inefficiently"
how would you know? how would anybody know? we have never seen an unregulated market. what you have to understand is that when economists talk about "the free market" they are referring to a theoretical model, not the real world.
Peter Miller, um.. the great depression?
@@armanke13 there was a federal reserve regulating the economy during the great depression. Not to mention a federal government enacting regulations (generally in favour of the rich) at that time too.
It's not the end of the world, but you can see it from here... Corporations are taking over, man!
Just don't make deals with dragons and you'll be fine.
I think am in love
Needless to say, this video is an extreme oversimplification. And it's actually a common misconception; the correct term of the type of socialism that is metioned should be "state socialism". Alot of socialist put major focus on things like decentralization and co-opertaive ownership of the means of production and so on (which is, more or less, the exact oposit of state socialism). There's alot of people who have strong opinions about socialism but a poor understanding of what it actually means. Socialism is an egalitarian, anti-racist, idealistic and a collectivistic supraideology and is not really a system but rhather a set of ideas and values that can be implemented in many differnent ways and settings, just like conservatism and liberalism. The way the term capitalism is used is also sloppy, it should be called "crony capitalism". Such a shame, cause I think this series have been very informative so far, and ofcourse it's not easy to give an overall understanding of big subjects like this in under ten minutes, and this time was sertinly a failure.
Shut up satanist
Social Studies Assignment??
=CrashCourse
Why do people try to treat economic theory as an idealogy? They need to grow some pragmatism.
I assume that pure socialists can be just as annoying, but pure capitalists are most prominent on my radar right now. It's so cute how they assume that a perfectly free market will automatically result in better and/or cheaper goods, and not just, say... more marketing. Or literally anything else that could potentially be easier than an improved product.
Compared to how much "literally anything else that could potentially be easier than an improved product" happens in unfree markets and government projects? Not a difficult assumption to make.
i like her glasses
Did anyone else notice the mistake in the thumbnail
its good to be rich
I see, so an increase in workers for a particular sector of the economy will decrease the wage they are paid. Therefore the millions of illegal immigrants in this country have decreased the wages for secondary market workers, the real cause of wage stagnation.
i think if u included the ussr for "socialist" countries you could have included nazi germany has capitalist country
ze diias We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalist system - Adolf Hitler
Zach Jones wtf? He didn't said that, it was Gregor Strasser and Hitler killed him during the Night of the Long Knives.
mobmaniac Hitler sent socialists and Trade Unionists in camps or killed them
Jeez no wonder why Trump got elected with this much misinformation
Even if Hitler had said that - since when exactly do we take Hitler at face value? (My guess: If it fits our narrative.)
Nazi Germany was a curious mixture between the inherited capitalist system with private ownership and heavy-handed state intervention, and changed quite a lot in its short-lived existence. And after 1939, it was basically war economy, anyway.
This video is wrong. Socialism had nothing to do with government and it was never tried.
But socialism IS inevitable, you got that right.
Anyone who defends the atrocities of communism as "not real communism" should be thrown out of an autogyro which is "not really a helicopter"
I learnt a new fallacy, thank you kind stranger. (y)
(I am staying out of the political discussion if at all possible)
Nonamearisto
No Venezuela isn't socialist however the USSR, China, and Cuba are because again as it's already been explained to idiots like you.
1) Private Property has been abolished
2) The surplus from the people's labor went back into society. (Thanks to all the sectors being nationalized)
3) People had some control over their work.
@Nonamearisto
Well, that is not how the "No true Scotsman fallacy" works. He didn't say something along the line of "no socialist country would do that", and then change it to something like "but no *true* socialist country would do that".
Moreover, when it comes to economic systems, these things are pretty well defined, so you can't actually apply that fallacy here.
Plus, there is a difference between *building* Socialism and actual Socialism. There are stages of development. You can't compare a country that just had a revolution (like Russia in 1917), when they just start to implement changes to the economy, to, let's say, 1950's Soviet Union, when Collectivization was finished and they were further on the path to Socialism. This process takes time, so you really can't say that the economic system in Venezuela is Socialism.
You must realize that having socialists in power doesn't mean you live under Socialism. Greece is ruled by socialist Syriza, right? Is Greece socialist or capitalist?
Bottom line, you use the fallacy wrong.
Yeah, the problem in Cuba it being socialist, not suffer the larger and illegal blockade in human history by the first world power. Not at all...
why the emphasis on wage equality? the gap between the high and low wages means absolutely nothing, you produce more or bring more value to the table then you get more.
"& and the labor market"
You forgot about state capitalism for some strange reason
Because "state capitalism" is just a codified version of the "not real communism" weasel?
Rowan Evans and that's what's called an ad hominem logical fallacy. Just because it's part of an idea you hate doesn't mean it's not an actual word with an actual definition which is actually used in the real world
This girl is really cool, but I really prefer Hank and John.
your definitions are bad and you should feel bad
capitalism is not just defined by private ownership, it's defined by property income. a free market propertarian system where property income is not possible is a kind of market socialism, not capitalism. you may note that Adam Smith never advocated "capitalism". He advocated free markets. "Capitalism" is a term coined by Marx as a pejorative for what he thought free markets would inevitably lead to.
and government doesn't have to play a larger role in socialism. libertarian socialism is a thing, individualist market socialism, even anarcho-socialism which advocates for no state (or "government" if you're too lazy to distinguish those things) at all.
But of course everybody routinely ignores libertarian socialism, and paints a false dichotomy between market capitalism or state socialism. Also ignoring, in the process, the existence of state capitalism, otherwise known as literal fascism, like the kind advocated by Mussolini. The opposite of that is libertarian socialism.
Also worth noting that the Stalinist dictatorship of the proletariate was OPENLY practicing state capitalism UNDER THAT NAME "as a stepping stone to communism", but of course never got past it. No so-called communist country has ever claimed to actually practice communism; they claim to be trying to create communism, by using fascism under another name as a tool. All the things you hate about "communists"? Those are actually fascist things, and the very people who did them would tell you so.
Pfhorrest your opinions are intriguing and i wish to subscribe to your newsletter
Nicole (the actual human you are talking to) hasn't really appeared to me as a mean spirited person. Telling her that she should "feel bad" for using simplifications in a 10 min video is perhaps not entirely fair, especially seeing as her "job" is to give a balanced view of as much of sociology as possible and not just socialism.
wasn't "operating state capitalism with that name" actually used by Lenin (and Stalin for 4 years) in the NEP stage? And later replaced by Koba with his five-year plans?
Christoffer Nordenskjöld pfhorrest was just referencing a meme, it's most likely just a lighthearted jab
just google it.
an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.
PRIVATE OWNERS. If you say Google is wrong, then at that point, you are changing the definition provided worldwide.
crash course poly sci?
Where is the dude that speaks fast?
She is so beautiful
Really surprised how honest she was about communism...most of these videos have been pretty slanted.
soc 102 brought me here like if ur from cuuuseeeee
Yes, the Industrial Revolution brought great wealth and also great inequality. However, you're leaving out a key fact: before that pretty much everyone was poor. The Industrial Revolution didn't put more people into working more hours for less pay. They were working for more pay, which is why they went to work in those factories in the first place. Thus far we've just got an insult to those who are wealthy for being wealthy by labeling them as "robber barons" without actually establishing wrongdoing. Hint: they weren't robbers.
"In practice, an economy doesn't do well if it is left completely on auto pilot"
Yeah, no, that's completely false. The economy has done worse with government regulation than without. Saying that the market fails without government intervention because it doesn't allocate resources "efficiently" is just begging the question of what it means to be efficient. Monopolies didn't form in the absence of government like you're saying here. They have primarily popped up as a result of government intrusion. Look up the history of Standard Oil.
Props for pointing out the problems with attempting communism and the state tyranny that it produces.
Income inequality isn't a bad thing in and of itself. It's much better to be unequally rich than equally poor. This is shown time and time again with more economic freedom for the individual correlating with higher standards of living.
"Socialism is when the government controls the economy" that is completely, absolutely wrong. like you truly could not get the definition more wrong. collective ownership does not mean state ownership.
Giant Turtle In reality it does
Yeah it does. There isn't a single socialist country where the government isn't the one owning the means of production.
Your confusing the theory of socialism and how it has been implemented. That would be like saying crony capitalism doesn't work so we can't have capitalism at all.
This is where i point out anarcho-communism is a thing.
exactly!! she meant state capitalism. this episide was poorly researched
Please do Crash course good stuff to know / generel tips
Anyone else bothered by the thumbnail saying "& and"
It's very suspicious that you ignore worker owned cooperatives. Also, government run programs IS NOT the same as socialism. Worker ownership IS NOT the same as government ownership.
Look up businesses run via work place democracy like Mondragon.
Yes, but in reality, socialism leads to a large government. Stop reading Marx and read a history book.
Watching it at 2x speed makes it look like she has tremors.
I need Arabic translation
& and?
Socialism worked in Burkina Faso tho
Yes, the prosperous democracy of Burkina Faso, with its booming economy and world power status.
When Thomas Sankara was in power, not when the French puppet came into power, duh.
That's why I use a past tense.
it is my brain fooling me or this woman has really sharp teeth?
She needs braces.
mm, no, is just sharp, not misaligned
dont get me wrong she's cute
Market failure doesn't happen in a free market. Market failures are consequences of government regulations. Monopolies and oligopolies form due to government regulations such as incorporation, limited liability, and intellectual property.
First!!!
Omg I’m actually first
OMFG yes XD
Why she talks so fast
& And
Its not only Socialism and Capitalism! An alternative and in fact the only balanced and just system for the benefit of the whole humanity is Islam. But not just Islamic finance, which is not possible to implement properly if other aspects are not observed (just same like capitalism & socialism are not only financial systems, Islam is also not). Please study Islamic Econony (in combination with its implementation in early and middle ages of Islam)
socialism sucks...communism, however, is great!
yo
Rakesh Kundu
wassup
Gathering Knowledge What about You?
This episode is biased
I love you! Will you go out with me (shy face)?
ew minimum wage
Shark teeth
Have you ever read word of marx, engels, kropotkin or bookchin? Actually read a book before you try to claim stalinist state capitalist dictatorships are socialist.
Szabu ua-cam.com/video/vum0-y47cvw/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/reKDSMvBWEY/v-deo.html
Listening to sociologists discussing economics is like listening to blind men discussing rainbows.
please criticize socialism more
I'd hope she criticizes capitalism more, but I don't think either of us will get their way yet.
i'm ok with more critical video's across the board, since i'm sure capitalism is the best thing we have so far. it's not perfect but it 's better and more free for every individual.
@Dominick NL
I don't usually insult people in comments. but I can't help it this time.
You are the best example of an "useful idiot".
"It's not perfect but it's better and more free [...]" - play in the hands of the elite, useful idiot, they want to maintain the status quo and dumbed you down into believing that you have no alternative to Capitalism.
but i want the status quo too... you're saying it like it doesn't benefit everyone. we're all better off in capitalism or all the socialists would move to a socialist country.... you are talking as if socialism is an actual option. it is not. at all. socialism just makes everyone poor. look at the loooong list of countries that tried.
But i'm open to social programs within capatalism, as a country grows more rich you can even expand it. that's the bieuty of capitalism, it allows for social programs. but never would i accept any kind of watered down maxism. I like having property.
Nice half ass'd rebuttal +Dominick NL. If the USSR was still around I'd move there if I had the money to do so.
You forgot Venezuela D:
of all of the examples of failed socialist governments out there, why purposely leave out Venezuela? and you’re making it seem like sociologists don’t do much