Economic Systems & the Labor Market: Crash Course Sociology #29

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 16 гру 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 278

  • @roxy4568
    @roxy4568 7 років тому +104

    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 ❤

    • @roxy4568
      @roxy4568 7 років тому +4

      conan263 absolutely

    • @colinlouis2323
      @colinlouis2323 4 роки тому +2

      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.

  • @zachpackard4970
    @zachpackard4970 7 років тому +113

    "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

    • @pingukutepro
      @pingukutepro 5 років тому +2

      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

    • @gabrielrangel956
      @gabrielrangel956 4 роки тому +17

      @@pingukutepro Marx is not the only socialist intellectual

    • @MaxRamos8
      @MaxRamos8 4 роки тому +12

      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)

  • @mullac1992
    @mullac1992 7 років тому +108

    "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.

  • @ErikratKhandnalie
    @ErikratKhandnalie 7 років тому +74

    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.

    • @tommisalenius7501
      @tommisalenius7501 6 років тому +3

      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...

    • @alexhood3966
      @alexhood3966 5 років тому +7

      Socialism economics system can be divided into planned socialism and market socialism, public ownership, cooperative ownership, common ownership, and hierarchical management, and self managed.

    • @alexhood3966
      @alexhood3966 5 років тому

      @@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.

    • @pingukutepro
      @pingukutepro 5 років тому +2

      Worker control of the means of production tend to become state-ownership of the mean of production. Because that's how it work.

  • @peybak
    @peybak 5 років тому +47

    If you're poor, you can squint and see the Invisible Hand giving you the finger.

    • @mojibi
      @mojibi 5 років тому +5

      The question is...why are you poor?

  • @saaraav
    @saaraav 7 років тому +12

    Perfect timing! I'm studying economic sociology for my intro to social sciences course right now :)

  • @Mitsunosai
    @Mitsunosai 6 років тому +12

    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.

  • @kataponder9751
    @kataponder9751 6 років тому +10

    I just want to say I love your lipstick shade and how it perfectly matches your shirt. :D That is all, you may proceed.

  • @FreeTheDonbas
    @FreeTheDonbas 7 років тому +15

    6:55 - editing mistake. You just see the animation, but the words don't fully materialise.

    • @adamlatosinski5475
      @adamlatosinski5475 7 років тому +4

      It may be a mistake, or it may be because this revolution hasn't finished yet. Probably a mistake, though.

  • @jennasaysquoi5563
    @jennasaysquoi5563 7 років тому +7

    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.

  • @pezpeculiar9557
    @pezpeculiar9557 4 роки тому +8

    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.

  • @GDMiller419
    @GDMiller419 7 років тому +86

    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.

    • @victoresan
      @victoresan 7 років тому +1

      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

    • @GDMiller419
      @GDMiller419 7 років тому +13

      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.

    • @varana
      @varana 7 років тому +2

      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.

    • @victoresan
      @victoresan 7 років тому

      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

    • @GDMiller419
      @GDMiller419 7 років тому +3

      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.

  • @Nieosoba
    @Nieosoba 6 років тому +8

    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.

  • @mayankdeep8736
    @mayankdeep8736 4 роки тому +19

    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.

  • @jeiku5314
    @jeiku5314 7 років тому +31

    6:55
    ???

    • @GMPabs
      @GMPabs 7 років тому +1

      when animation tries to remove it, you are like nope. I see what you did there.

  • @SyrgakZhylkybaev
    @SyrgakZhylkybaev 6 років тому

    Your talks are just like poetry! Thanks

  • @nonyabiz9340
    @nonyabiz9340 7 років тому +6

    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.

  • @xlblizzard5665
    @xlblizzard5665 6 років тому

    Nice! . Very informative for new commerce and definitions makes it lucid.

  • @mustbeaweful2504
    @mustbeaweful2504 7 років тому +1

    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.

  • @bvec97
    @bvec97 5 років тому +9

    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.

    • @Theokamisenpai
      @Theokamisenpai 5 років тому +1

      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?

  • @norah4425
    @norah4425 6 років тому

    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?

  • @kevinvrich
    @kevinvrich 7 років тому +2

    Do a course on International Relations.

  • @vathek5958
    @vathek5958 7 років тому +13

    If you've pissed off the market fundamentalists and the communists, you've probably presented a fairly balanced video.

  • @ytJadi
    @ytJadi 7 років тому

    Finally a new video!!! Nice

  • @1raginganalyst692
    @1raginganalyst692 4 роки тому +4

    The real question is, as long as poverty is being dealt with, why is wealth inequality even an issue?

    • @MaxRamos8
      @MaxRamos8 4 роки тому +3

      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)

  • @All_Things_HR
    @All_Things_HR 5 років тому

    Hey !!
    Thank you so much. I like this video. 👍👌👍

  • @avery-quinnmaddox5985
    @avery-quinnmaddox5985 7 років тому

    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.

  • @thenorup
    @thenorup 7 років тому +7

    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.

    • @varana
      @varana 7 років тому +1

      Also, "jobs that don't provide healthcare benefits".

    • @thenorup
      @thenorup 7 років тому

      Exactly! Thanks you :)

  • @imofage3947
    @imofage3947 7 років тому +18

    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.

    • @Pridetoons
      @Pridetoons 7 років тому +1

      I M Ofage Correct!

    • @brettknoss486
      @brettknoss486 6 років тому

      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.

  • @kroggwaff
    @kroggwaff 7 років тому +1

    Great video, can you do one on different monetary systems?

  • @EtrielDevyt
    @EtrielDevyt 7 років тому +12

    Counterrevolutionary. Ten years gulag.

  • @ArK047
    @ArK047 7 років тому

    I know the economic model for the world after the information revolution:
    FULLY

    • @dnys_7827
      @dnys_7827 7 років тому +1

      Okuu AUTOMATED

  • @partridgeinapeartree5576
    @partridgeinapeartree5576 7 років тому

    Was the “invisible hand” not in reference to the government?

    • @zachjones6258
      @zachjones6258 7 років тому +1

      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

    • @partridgeinapeartree5576
      @partridgeinapeartree5576 7 років тому

      Zach Jones Right that cleared it up; thanks mate!

  • @user-oj3gb8nh2q
    @user-oj3gb8nh2q 7 років тому

    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.

  • @YisYtruth
    @YisYtruth 7 років тому +1

    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.

  • @angelathomas624
    @angelathomas624 7 років тому

    What she described as the agrarian revolution I thought was the Neolithic revolution..can someone explain the difference..?

  • @hubes69
    @hubes69 7 років тому

    The thumbnail has an error 'Economic Systems & AND the labor market'

  • @Markd315
    @Markd315 7 років тому

    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.

  • @GajanaNigade
    @GajanaNigade 7 років тому

    Why background music? And why so loud towards the end??

  • @Gregoryzaniz
    @Gregoryzaniz 7 років тому

    itt: everyone decides their own definition for the words socialism and capitalism and then gets mad when they're not used

  • @EzrazWorld
    @EzrazWorld 7 років тому +3

    CrashCourse, you accidentally wrote "& AND" in the thumbnail!

  • @timothymclean
    @timothymclean 7 років тому +64

    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.

    • @liliashort1688
      @liliashort1688 7 років тому +2

      Timothy McLean Well said :)

    • @zachjones6258
      @zachjones6258 7 років тому +3

      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

    • @chaosherald8879
      @chaosherald8879 7 років тому +13

      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?

  • @david_9607
    @david_9607 7 років тому

    Wait a second you're not John Green!

  • @DavidAdkins78
    @DavidAdkins78 7 років тому +3

    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.

    • @DavidAdkins78
      @DavidAdkins78 7 років тому

      Joseph Smith, corporations build things much better than any government.

    • @Pridetoons
      @Pridetoons 7 років тому +2

      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.

    • @DavidAdkins78
      @DavidAdkins78 7 років тому

      Pridetoons Reviews, imagine a benevolent competitive country, run with the efficiency of a corporation. Like the UAE, but secular.

    • @DavidAdkins78
      @DavidAdkins78 7 років тому

      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.

  • @davyjones3319
    @davyjones3319 7 років тому +8

    Comments gon b good

  • @sidnotthesloth1827
    @sidnotthesloth1827 4 роки тому

    please do one on unemployment

  • @KlutchAndJerel
    @KlutchAndJerel 7 років тому +24

    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.

    • @DavidAdkins78
      @DavidAdkins78 7 років тому +11

      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.

    • @davidbledsoe7592
      @davidbledsoe7592 7 років тому +2

      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.

    • @KlutchAndJerel
      @KlutchAndJerel 7 років тому +2

      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”

    • @DavidAdkins78
      @DavidAdkins78 7 років тому

      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.

    • @KlutchAndJerel
      @KlutchAndJerel 7 років тому +1

      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.

  • @FreeTheDonbas
    @FreeTheDonbas 7 років тому +13

    You're comparing imperialist countries with socialist ones. If you compare regular non-imperialist capitalist countries with socialist ones, the socialist ones outperform them.

    • @FreeTheDonbas
      @FreeTheDonbas 7 років тому +8

      The Soviet Union performed better than modern day capitalist Russia, for instance.

    • @Edw101wolf
      @Edw101wolf 7 років тому +2

      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

    • @FreeTheDonbas
      @FreeTheDonbas 7 років тому +2

      +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".

    • @Edw101wolf
      @Edw101wolf 7 років тому

      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.

    • @FreeTheDonbas
      @FreeTheDonbas 7 років тому +2

      +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.

  • @TrueEithne
    @TrueEithne 7 років тому +1

    Two Ands great

  • @william41017
    @william41017 7 років тому +21

    Please do Crash Course entrepreneurship!
    Or Administration!

    • @timothymclean
      @timothymclean 7 років тому +1

      That's kinda specific....

    • @william41017
      @william41017 7 років тому

      Timothy McLean why?
      We entire graduation courses about those where I live.

    • @william41017
      @william41017 7 років тому

      J B I'm coursing engineering

  • @keitatsutsumi
    @keitatsutsumi 7 років тому

    Would’ve been better if more types of economy was explored...

  • @mulllhausen
    @mulllhausen 6 років тому

    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
      @armanke13 6 років тому

      Peter Miller, um.. the great depression?

    • @mulllhausen
      @mulllhausen 6 років тому

      @@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.

  • @Lady_in_Yearning
    @Lady_in_Yearning 7 років тому

    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.

  • @waynesaviour
    @waynesaviour 5 років тому

    I think am in love

  • @victortellander36
    @victortellander36 6 років тому +7

    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.

  • @sleepysandy1788
    @sleepysandy1788 7 років тому

    Social Studies Assignment??
    =CrashCourse

  • @TheRealE.B.
    @TheRealE.B. 7 років тому +1

    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.

    • @EvansRowan123
      @EvansRowan123 7 років тому

      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.

  • @Zwachta
    @Zwachta 7 років тому

    i like her glasses

  • @venaben3496
    @venaben3496 7 років тому

    Did anyone else notice the mistake in the thumbnail

  • @nickthewinner2194
    @nickthewinner2194 5 років тому +1

    its good to be rich

  • @sandyacombs
    @sandyacombs 7 років тому

    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.

  • @diiasze3743
    @diiasze3743 7 років тому

    i think if u included the ussr for "socialist" countries you could have included nazi germany has capitalist country

    • @zachjones6258
      @zachjones6258 7 років тому

      ze diias We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalist system - Adolf Hitler

    • @alexn.2901
      @alexn.2901 7 років тому +1

      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

    • @varana
      @varana 7 років тому +1

      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.

  • @zNathaniel
    @zNathaniel 7 років тому +24

    This video is wrong. Socialism had nothing to do with government and it was never tried.
    But socialism IS inevitable, you got that right.

    • @EvansRowan123
      @EvansRowan123 7 років тому +1

      Anyone who defends the atrocities of communism as "not real communism" should be thrown out of an autogyro which is "not really a helicopter"

    • @christofferneppare4530
      @christofferneppare4530 7 років тому

      I learnt a new fallacy, thank you kind stranger. (y)
      (I am staying out of the political discussion if at all possible)

    • @Pridetoons
      @Pridetoons 7 років тому +1

      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.

    • @strictlyunreal
      @strictlyunreal 7 років тому +1

      @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.

  • @NomeDeArte
    @NomeDeArte 7 років тому +1

    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...

  • @TheNameIwantedWasTkn
    @TheNameIwantedWasTkn 7 років тому

    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.

  • @user-er2dz5dc1z
    @user-er2dz5dc1z 7 років тому

    "& and the labor market"

  • @kasstape
    @kasstape 7 років тому

    You forgot about state capitalism for some strange reason

    • @EvansRowan123
      @EvansRowan123 7 років тому

      Because "state capitalism" is just a codified version of the "not real communism" weasel?

    • @kasstape
      @kasstape 7 років тому

      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

  • @jayneeojeda5677
    @jayneeojeda5677 7 років тому

    This girl is really cool, but I really prefer Hank and John.

  • @Pfhorrest
    @Pfhorrest 7 років тому +54

    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.

    • @marlond5579
      @marlond5579 7 років тому +4

      Pfhorrest your opinions are intriguing and i wish to subscribe to your newsletter

    • @christofferneppare4530
      @christofferneppare4530 7 років тому +17

      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.

    • @heldertoons1776
      @heldertoons1776 7 років тому +3

      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?

    • @naomiseiler9450
      @naomiseiler9450 7 років тому +3

      Christoffer Nordenskjöld pfhorrest was just referencing a meme, it's most likely just a lighthearted jab

    • @theneedlessopinion
      @theneedlessopinion 7 років тому +2

      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.

  • @flotsamMM
    @flotsamMM 7 років тому

    crash course poly sci?

  • @Black_from_sprunki45
    @Black_from_sprunki45 5 років тому

    Where is the dude that speaks fast?

  • @ransom4734
    @ransom4734 7 років тому +3

    She is so beautiful

  • @ryunz9639
    @ryunz9639 4 роки тому

    Really surprised how honest she was about communism...most of these videos have been pretty slanted.

  • @viedaz.4291
    @viedaz.4291 5 років тому

    soc 102 brought me here like if ur from cuuuseeeee

  • @ExPwner
    @ExPwner 6 років тому +1

    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.

  • @DJGiantTurtle
    @DJGiantTurtle 7 років тому +61

    "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.

    • @zachjones6258
      @zachjones6258 7 років тому +12

      Giant Turtle In reality it does

    • @stormelemental13
      @stormelemental13 7 років тому +6

      Yeah it does. There isn't a single socialist country where the government isn't the one owning the means of production.

    • @kylekreick6085
      @kylekreick6085 7 років тому +7

      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.

    • @seamusogdonn-gaidhligarain2745
      @seamusogdonn-gaidhligarain2745 7 років тому +10

      This is where i point out anarcho-communism is a thing.

    • @trying-to-learn
      @trying-to-learn 7 років тому +10

      exactly!! she meant state capitalism. this episide was poorly researched

  • @bjarke7886
    @bjarke7886 7 років тому

    Please do Crash course good stuff to know / generel tips

  • @andrewsellers1014
    @andrewsellers1014 7 років тому

    Anyone else bothered by the thumbnail saying "& and"

  • @xenoblad
    @xenoblad 7 років тому +5

    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.

    • @zachjones6258
      @zachjones6258 7 років тому

      Yes, but in reality, socialism leads to a large government. Stop reading Marx and read a history book.

  • @petitio_principii
    @petitio_principii 6 років тому +2

    Watching it at 2x speed makes it look like she has tremors.

  • @raghadabo9843
    @raghadabo9843 6 років тому

    I need Arabic translation

  • @seethrough_treeshrew
    @seethrough_treeshrew 7 років тому

    & and?

  • @alexn.2901
    @alexn.2901 7 років тому +1

    Socialism worked in Burkina Faso tho

    • @zachjones6258
      @zachjones6258 7 років тому

      Yes, the prosperous democracy of Burkina Faso, with its booming economy and world power status.

    • @alexn.2901
      @alexn.2901 7 років тому

      When Thomas Sankara was in power, not when the French puppet came into power, duh.
      That's why I use a past tense.

  • @leo33125
    @leo33125 7 років тому +3

    it is my brain fooling me or this woman has really sharp teeth?

    • @JarJarWookie
      @JarJarWookie 7 років тому

      She needs braces.

    • @leo33125
      @leo33125 7 років тому

      mm, no, is just sharp, not misaligned

    • @leo33125
      @leo33125 7 років тому +1

      dont get me wrong she's cute

  • @JaySee5
    @JaySee5 7 років тому

    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.

  • @zhaoqingsong7310
    @zhaoqingsong7310 7 років тому +4

    First!!!

  • @3SS4H
    @3SS4H 7 років тому

    Why she talks so fast

  • @sepehrjamali
    @sepehrjamali 7 років тому

    & And

  • @JT-sf5ol
    @JT-sf5ol 7 років тому

    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)

  • @lisasimpson896
    @lisasimpson896 7 років тому

    socialism sucks...communism, however, is great!

  • @fakesenpai69
    @fakesenpai69 7 років тому +2

    yo

    • @jeiku5314
      @jeiku5314 7 років тому

      Rakesh Kundu
      wassup

    • @fakesenpai69
      @fakesenpai69 7 років тому

      Gathering Knowledge What about You?

  • @pingukutepro
    @pingukutepro 4 роки тому +1

    This episode is biased

  • @nitsnbolts1
    @nitsnbolts1 6 років тому

    I love you! Will you go out with me (shy face)?

  • @xapemanx
    @xapemanx 7 років тому +1

    ew minimum wage

  • @RAVISINGH1129
    @RAVISINGH1129 7 років тому

    Shark teeth

  • @seamusogdonn-gaidhligarain2745
    @seamusogdonn-gaidhligarain2745 7 років тому +7

    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.

  • @Brutikus32
    @Brutikus32 7 років тому

    Listening to sociologists discussing economics is like listening to blind men discussing rainbows.

  • @DominickvdHoff
    @DominickvdHoff 7 років тому +8

    please criticize socialism more

    • @Argacyan
      @Argacyan 7 років тому +13

      I'd hope she criticizes capitalism more, but I don't think either of us will get their way yet.

    • @DominickvdHoff
      @DominickvdHoff 7 років тому +3

      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.

    • @strictlyunreal
      @strictlyunreal 7 років тому +1

      @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.

    • @DominickvdHoff
      @DominickvdHoff 7 років тому

      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.

    • @Pridetoons
      @Pridetoons 7 років тому

      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.

  • @gabriellleonster8719
    @gabriellleonster8719 7 років тому

    You forgot Venezuela D:

  • @JRenardLeatherCo
    @JRenardLeatherCo 7 років тому

    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