Capitalism and Socialism Defined

Capitalism and Socialism Defined

I have heard many conflicting things about
socialism. Some people tell me it means a form of government where there is only one
political party. Others tell me it is where the state owns companies – and yet still,
I am told it means social welfare programs and redistribution of wealth. I am confused… There is lots of confusion about socialism
and capitalism. Socialism does not refer to any of those things. Let me explain. Socialism is a socioeconomic system, a specific
mode of production that is distinct from capitalism. It consists of both a specific underlying
economic mechanism and a set of social relations that emerge from this base. Wait…So you are saying socialism will be
an entirely different type of society from capitalism? That is correct. Because it is an entirely
different type of society from capitalism, it will be very difficult to understand from
within the framework and logic of a capitalist society without a point of reference. Therefore,
it would be appropriate for me to define capitalism first. I know what capitalism is. Capitalism is where
goods and services are exchanged in a free market. That might be an element of a specific form
of capitalism, but markets by themselves predate the existence of capitalism and are not exclusive
to capitalism – in fact, they will probably continue to play an integral role in socialism. But markets are not the defining characteristic
of capitalism. Capitalism is a system structured around the accumulation of capital. Capital
refers to money, usually profits, that are reinvested into production in order to realize
even greater profits, which themselves will be reinvested into the economy. This perpetual
process of accumulation must continue, otherwise the system either stagnates or goes into crisis. I see. But where do free markets and private
property fit into all this? Free-market capitalism is only one possible
institutional configuration for a capitalist economy. It basically means that price formation
takes place without any external interference by the government. There are two other major forms of capitalism.
Economic interventionism, or regulated capitalism, where the government plays an active role
trying to correct market failures through the use of regulation, or tries to improve
the outcomes by increasing the efficiency of the accumulation process through monetary
and fiscal policies. Sometimes these policies are poorly designed and end up meddling with
the free formation of prices. But the underlying mechanism of accumulation remains the same
– production is carried out to generate a profit, and this profit is reinvested into
the economy to realize even greater profits. The third major type of capitalism is state
capitalism. State capitalism differs from the other two configurations in one fundamental
way: the state engages in the accumulation process itself, usually through owning business
enterprises. The organizational structure of the enterprises remain essentially the
same as under private capitalism because they are both structured around the accumulation
of capital and operate for profits. I see. That makes sense. But what is so bad
about this process of capital accumulation? It is not a question of good or bad, it is
a question of obsolescence. Capitalism is becoming increasingly insufficient. In other
words, it is an increasingly obsolete mode of organizing social and economic affairs
given our current level of technology. The real question is: at what point do the costs
of maintaining the system outweigh the benefits? Please explain, how does capitalism become
obsolete? First I should mention that different forms
of capitalism come into existence when older forms become insufficient. Capitalism might
have started out with small businesses competing with each other, but eventually with increasing
returns to scale and the necessity of large scale production came more concentrated forms
of ownership in the form of corporations and even state enterprises. Production and other
affairs within the production process became increasingly specialized, and a division between
owners, managers and workers emerged and intensified. But this in and of itself does not alter the
system of capital accumulation, only the institutional configuration of capitalist society. As for capitalism as a whole becoming obsolete,
the key is technological progress. As technology improves, especially in terms of automating
the workplace, productivity increases, making business more profitable. This productivity
produces an abundance of profits. But remember that capital must accumulate. To compound
the issue, with increasing automation and productivity, the total demand for labor decreases,
reducing the purchasing power of the working class and contributing to structural unemployment.
But back to capital … this capital must go somewhere, so we have to find new areas
for profitable investment. There are a few ways of doing this, I will briefly cover some
of the most important ways. The first is the creation of economic demands
through advertising and practices such as planned and perceived obsolescence, so that
instead of satisfying economic demands and human needs, the need to accumulate capital
drives the process of consumption in order to keep the system afloat. This is commonly
called consumerism. The second way is the creation of new profitable
industries through the privatization and commodification of public services, such as prisons and public
infrastructure. The third and most important way is the creation of entirely new industries
that in themselves don’t actually produce any real wealth. This would include the expansion
of financial services. The excess capital flocks to these industries but because these
new services do not produce any real wealth, they are prone to producing economic bubbles
and crisis. This is ridiculous. It sounds like all of
us – society as a whole – are enslaved to our own economic system and the artificial
need for constant capital accumulation. This is true. And while that is not the entire
story behind economic crisis, and in no way explains the entirety of capitalism, it is
sufficient for the purposes of this video. Competition also plays an integral role in
capitalism. It compels businesses to adopt cost-cutting measures, thereby accelerating
the process in which the system of accumulation becomes insufficient and costly to maintain. Capitalism becomes unsustainable when there
is an overaccumulation of capital relative to opportunities for profitable investment.
The arguments about which of the three forms of capitalism are most efficient are irrelevant
because it does not address this process of accumulation, which is the very essence of
capitalism. In fact, the most efficient form of capitalism will ultimately be most efficient
at exhausting the viability of capitalism as a whole! I think I understand. So, in essence, capitalism
is a system where society and individuals serve the perpetual need for the constant
accumulation of capital – and if it does not, the system goes into crisis? Bingo! Capitalism is a system where society
serves the need for the continuous accumulation of capital – that is why it is called capitalism
and not something like free-marketism or privatism. This underlying economic process influences
our individual lives – the way we relate to other people, how we view the world around
us, and even our priorities in life. And this brings us to socialism. Socialism
is simply a system where the economy serves the needs of society – the exact opposite
of capitalism, hence the name socialism. Production would be organized to directly satisfy the
needs and demands of society and individuals – this is often summarized by the phrase “production
for use”. The accumulation of capital would cease to be the driving force behind economic
activity and the means of production would be owned co-operatively, either by those who
operate them, or by society as a whole. And just like under capitalism, in socialism
there are many possible institutional configurations for organizing economic activity. Realistically,
an actual socialist economy would consist of a mixture of various cooperative, individual
and public enterprises coexisting with each other, in the same way existing capitalism
contains many different models of private ownership. But this is an entirely different
discussion altogether. Now that you understand the difference between
socialism and capitalism, you tell me why social welfare programs are not socialist. Right. Social welfare programs do not change
the fundamental dynamic of the system, production is still carried out to generate a profit,
and usually the means of production are still privately owned. If anything, social welfare
programs sound like something that enhances and legitimizes capitalism. At the most, it
deals with the symptoms but not the root cause of the problems it tries to solve. That is correct! Welfare programs and unemployment
benefits are only some of the costs of trying to maintain capitalism. They are corrective
measures designed to keep the excesses of capitalism in check. As the system becomes
more obsolete, especially with the increasing displacement of labor by automated industry,
the more social welfare programs the system requires to stay afloat. I see. That makes sense. What is it? Maybe we should start considering broader
approaches to social and economic issues from outside the narrow framework of capitalism.
The debate is always oscillating between regulated interventionist capitalism and free market
capitalism. But this narrow array of possibilities fails to take the fundamental issues of the
system into account and limits our prospects for the future. And now, my friend, you are beginning to understand
the socialist perspective.

100 thoughts on “Capitalism and Socialism Defined

  1. Nothing has been shattered. You can choose between millions of jobs that are all in demand! You can also choose not to have any jobs or to have a job that is not in demand. Its called a hobby. Just dont expect to get paid for your work if nobody wants to buy what you are making/selling! That's how the VOLUNTARY MARKET works! You only get paid if you (or your employer) find voluntary buyers for the products you create. If you think this is not freedom, you dont understand the meaning of the word.

  2. "Communism = rule of man"
    What is the "rule of man"? You obviously have never even been within a million miles to a communist country. You have a very long way to go to understand how laws are created in different societies. One thing however should give pause even to you: ALL communist countries are CLOSED by an iron curtain. NOBODY is allowed to leave the country FREELY! Citizens are prisoners in their countries. On the other hand, anyone can leave a capitalist country at any time!

  3. Any freedom which can be screamed by you, is nothing more than the emotional appeal to the very word! Anyways I have no further time to argue with a being of lower intelligence. Our conversations would not solve anything.

  4. So why are people uneployed? Wouldn't your free market utopia solve every problem known to man magically and instantly? I could care less what you think is right, for your thinking has been proved wrong from the very existance of uneployment.

  5. PERMANENT or long term unemployment is caused by the government, not the market. Market forces will always cause TEMPORARY unemployment as people's preferences change, as societies PROGRESS! After the invention of the automobile almost all jobs related to horses became obsolete. In the same time however many new jobs came into demand related to building and maintaining cars and roads, selling insurance teaching drivers and so on, non of which existed before.

  6. The free market is not a magic pill as freedom isn't either! Again: learn the definitions of the words you are using! Freedom is not happiness, wealth, guaranteed employment, well being, and so on! Freedom means that if you want those things YOU MUST WORK FOR THEM, because nobody is FORCED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH ANY OF IT! Prison inmates are guaranteed jobs, shelter, food, clothing, reading and other entertainment but it comes at a high price. Their freedom!

  7. So what it comes down to is the opinions you subscribe to, and the mentality you agree with. You, nor I can argue with opinions. We should determine what is good for all situations, by looking at the situation. Allowing people to only think of themselves, will not alow everyone to live a decent life. Seperate those who can defend for themselves, and provide for them the tools in which to earn wealth. The ones who cannot defend for themselves, will be taught how.

  8. The thing I question is your ability to tell me how things work, and how they don't work. To tell me what works and what does not. I do not limit my thinking, to ideological belief, nor economic religions. I do what's best with for the people. If I see reason in your ideas, I will do them. If I see reason in another idea, then I will do it.

  9. Common people do not know how to produce electricity from magnetic fields, they only know that there exist an electric company to provide it for them. Of all your ramblings about people working for themselves, you seem to advocate people being given things which make their lives easier.

  10. There is no such thing as " what's best for the people". Every individual has different goals and they may be in competition with each other. There are no two people who have exactly the same interests. For some people it is a good thing to be left alone and provide for themselves, being free, but others prefer to be slaves and have the state provide for them by steeling money from other people who produce. Its a question of the mentality of the individual.

  11. Electricity only exists because some individuals wanted to figure out a way how to make life easier for other people by creating a product that they figured the masses will buy, so the inventors will make a profit. Look up "the pencil Milton Friedman" on youtube. There is no one person on Earth who knows how to make such a simple thing as a pencil. What makes the pencil possible is the "magical" market forces:) Watch the video and you will learn how the market works!

  12. This contradicts this notion that people only wish to provide for themselves. There are no "magical" market forces, a pencil consist of wood, and graphite which is a form of carbon. Carbon is found in Coal, and other organic resources. Wood can be created from cutting down trees. If you knew anything about chemistry you would understand this,

  13. Crony capitalism is a form of capitalism nonetheless. Cronyism is inherent to capitalism, as anyone in business will tell you it is more about "who you know" as opposed to what you know, where your connections matter more than anything else. Naturally, this sort of behavior spills over into the political sphere because in a capitalist society, politics and culture all revolve around business activity.

  14. How quaint, another ignorant individual, who obviously has not listened and comprehended the video, is posting some nonsensical comment that has both nothing to do with the content of the video and with socialism.

    What you are trying to warn against is not socialism, but social welfare programs in the form of transfer payments and publicly-subsidized or free services.

  15. The housing bubble crashed the economy, not "gambling." The federal government actively inflated the housing bubble through direct intervention in the market to expand home ownership. This took place under both Republicans and Democrats.

  16. Another classic ignorant American.

    Your silly Govt manipulated the system so that even low-quality, low-income, financially struggling American numbnuts can buy new houses. These silly useless Americans were never good enough to be entertained by banks cos their income were so low.

    Then, your silly Govt EXPLOITED these risky home loans (mortgages) by selling it off to investment bankers who SECURITIZE it into investment bundles to be SOLD to investors.

    Simple. They gambled your mortgages.

  17. That is irrelevant to the definition and the logic of capitalism. You are arguing over different institutional forms. Regardless, cronyism is an outgrowth of the culture of business that pervades all institutions in the private and public sector.

  18. Darling, what gave you the idea that I'm European?
    That's most intriguing.

    There was another numbnut douchebag here who assume I was…..CHINESE!!! Hahahaa….

    I'm American, but moved out 11yrs ago from the US to work in more than 9 countries. Since I'm no longer American, I don't need to pretend to be politically correct, I don't need to sugar coat things anymore, and I certainly don't think US is No1 in everything, and I certainly have no more interest in "kickin' asses".

  19. And this video hasn't even touched on the environment/ecological issues associated with firms unbending desire to accumulate more capital. There are some many things against the capitalist system, it's ridiculous. The upper class did a really good job with advertising the "red scare" to make people thing all socialist systems are bad.

  20. Incorrect. Socialism implies social ownership of the means of production, so that the surplus product (economic profits) accrue to society at large (or to the working class as opposed to a group of private owners). You are correct in stating that socialism is a bridge to communism, however communism is a state of society where there is abundance and thus distribution based on need and the idea of property is no longer relevant. Usufruct rights or "usership" replaces "ownership" in communism.

  21. All are institutions of capitalism designed around and to regulate capitalist activities. The incentive to expand credit and home ownership is the result of an effort to create profitable investment opportunities due to underlying stagnant growth in the real economy.

  22. In short, communism is an advanced stage of society achieved from advances in technology (the "productive forces" in Marx-speak) that allows for an abundance of goods and services, allowing for free-distribution of products, common ownership of the means of production (ie, non-ownership), and is thus devoid of classes and the need for a state to keep the class and property system intact. It is a hypothetical stage of human development that would supersede socialism.

  23. I also seem to me that communism is what was there before anything else. When we were hunter-gatherers, and there were few of us, we had unlimited resources, and there was no ownership and no social conflict. Then our population expanded, and resources became more limited. If we imagine the hypothetical situation, where the resources (ie goods and services) become unlimited, our population will expand to the point where we will eventually start competing for physical space and air.

  24. Writing my previous message got me thinking of bioreactor in which bacteria grow, and us, as a human species are nothing but a batch of bugs in a flask. And as it is with bacteria, when they run out of resources there are only three options: death of the entire colony, rise of a better adapted species which outcompetes the rest, or the bacteria get seeded into a new flask, in any case 99.999…% of the species dies.

  25. depends on the purpose. socialism is better for society, and capitalism is better for capitalists.

  26. Social welfare legislation was implemented by those trying to blunt the appeal of socialism by legitimizing the system of capital accumulation and private ownership by making it appear more equitable in the hope that it would be enough to turn enough people away from socialism.

    I suggest doing some research on this matter for yourself.

  27. The very basis of socialism is state owned means of production and no private property, that is socialism and everything built up upon these ideals are the many off springs of socialism. Anything else is not socialism

  28. And the definition of capitalism is completely biased. Infinite accumulation of wealth maybe a choice some people take in a free society, but some also choose to donate their money. It isn't written into capitalism that you need to horde the wealth and defining it as such shows complete ignorance and bias by a typical leftists trying to sugar coat socialism.

  29. Incorrect. Capitalism is based on the accumulation of capital. Capital accumulation is not the same thing as hording wealth; it simply refers to the process of making money (the "profits system") that exists alongside the process of producing economic value (actual goods and services). As a general rule, enterprises have to maximize profit in order to continue operating irrespective of the wishes of the owners – this is why capitalism is structurally based on the of capital accumulation.

  30. You are correct to a degree, though it would be more adequate to say co-operative or social ownership because state ownership is only one legal form and subset of social/public property.

    But there are other key dimensions to socialism: production for use instead of production for profit, and cooperative management instead of hierarchical management.

  31. As defined by who? Marx? At the core the difference between socialism and capitalism will always be private property and means of production and state owned means of production. Capital is only a means of exchange as one would not survive if all they did was accumulate capital and never spend it on food, housing or other services.

  32. lol. There is no such thing as production for profit and not for use, the two are synonymous. If you are making profit off production then someone else is using it. Contrary to that, there was insane production within socialism without anybody wanting the product. Useless products were shoved down people's throats to keep the factories running and appease unions. Give me one example where production that made a profit did not use the product unless it was government spending tax dollars πŸ™‚

  33. As for the rest, again you are sugarcoating the facts. State ownership, it is clearly stated. Co-operative and social ownership and quite possible within a capitalist framework, me and you can co-own a house, a business a factory, nothing stopping us from doing so.

  34. no actually he is completely wrong. socialism is the common ownership of the means of production. nothing more, nothing less.

  35. Look, explain common ownership of the means of production. Say there are a few million people in a country, and there is a shoe factory. Who owns the factory?

  36. first of all, since you're talking about socialism in one country this could vary depending on laws but that factory would be owned by everyone in that country, or possibly (again depending on the laws) even owned by everyone in that country and its allies but socialism is typically anti-nationalist and typically seeks to unite all countries. as for you saying it's state ownership of the means of production, explain directly democratic socialism then? (also look socialism up in the dictionary).

  37. Great, so if everybody works in that factory who decides who will work there, how much someone will get paid, how much of the product will be produced, where the product will be exported to, and how will all those decisions be made practically by the whole country while at the same time making those decisions for every other single factory in the country?

  38. to go into this, specify a type of socialism and i will explain how it will work. all sorts of socialism are different. note that socialism isn't usually as bureaucratic as you imply it is. the point of socialism is for the workers to be free, so the amount they make is up to them. also in most forms of socialism no one is paid. usually necessities are distributed and the people are free to pursue whatever they wish for. also this is only in theory,i don't know if real life socialism has existed

  39. I'm trying to point out to you that it is impossible to separate socialism from state owned means of production unless it is within a free market, capitalist society where a group of workers voluntry gets together and opens up their own factory. Socialism has nothing to do with common ownership, it is ownership by the state and anything else is not socialism. If you continue to follow the logic through you will see that all roads lead to stateism.

  40. And that is simply following the logic. It is clearly and blatantly defined over and over again as STATE owned means of production and private property, this is how socialism has always been defined as, it is the core, without it, it is not socialism. Now I'm happy to argue if it works or not but at least admit what it is first…

  41. You pick a socialism that doesn't end up in state ownership of the factory, pick whatever "socialism" you want too but it can't end up with a group of elected people making the choice about how the factory is run and operated. go ahead.

  42. ok then. i present to you, libertarian marxism. communism is a type of socialism, and libertarian marxism includes a socialist transition phase so it seemed appropriate (i also agree a lot more with libertarian marxists than with some other socialists). after a peaceful revolution (as karl marx had called for) that is done globally, country borders are abolished and everyone commonly owns the means of production. anyone can operate these, but (cont)

  43. people are not allowed to operate something already being operated by the maximum possible amount of people. all arguments are sorted out by the people involved and work is completely voluntary. all produced necessities (that are given voluntarily) will be shared equally or amongst those who desire it (some may prefer to make or grow their own food and eat it instead of relying on the handouts, so handouts will be optional). developed councils of people (cont)

  44. voluntarily joining under common ideals (equality, freedom, etc) can organise the handout of food and teaching services will be provided by the people who want to provide it and received by those who want to receive it. as i said before, all work is voluntary and councils (with minimal entrance requirements) will probably be formed to gather research on certain topics. as this socialist period goes on technology will advance making it easier and easier (cont)

  45. to create things and when this happens, all private property will be abolished (except of course, no one can sleep in a bed you are sleeping in, use something you are currently using, etc but since marxist establishment of communism relies on these things being produced in abundance, this should not be a problem.)

  46. Ok, so here are the problems, this whole concept is way out there and assumes that every human being on the planet has been magically transformed into an angel, it isn't a system at all because if you can convince everyone in the world to be nice to each other tomorrow then it doesn't matter what system people are under. You didn't present anything practical here, all you said was "poof, everyone has no vices anymore and technology solves everything now"

  47. Let's look at it from a realistic world, where technology alone does not solve everything, where disasters happen, where everyone would rather work in a fairy floss factory rather than did for coal in the mines (or climb roofs to install solar panels and risk electric shock) Who decides where someone works if everything is shared and voluntry? Because you better believe I will be taking up sowing…

  48. But hey, I agree with you, in a world where no one has to do any work to be prosperous socialism will do great, because you better believe people are not going to be doing any hard work! πŸ™‚

  49. this isn't just going to come from nowhere. the work is in the revolution. in the revolution love, compassion and freedom have to become the biggest thing people believe in. this is possible. it's been scientifically proven that humans are naturally compassionate, kind people. it's only logical to conclude something about the current system is twisting that. socialism is just the inevitable result of compassion, it's completely possible, it's just hard to get there from where we are now.

  50. Thank you for the compliments. As for your question, the issue is not that the need for employment will vanish, it is that the rate of job creation in these new industries will not be sufficient enough to absorb the available labor force as work becomes less labor-intensive and more capital-intensive. The economist Harry Shutt has has written extensively about this trend in his book "The Decline of Capitalism".

  51. Your conception of socialism seems to rest more on ethical principles and arguments rather than technical arguments and material necessity. Socialism does not require people to be any more compassionate than capitalism; if anything, the drive for socialism is one of material self-interest on the part of the working class and intellectuals. Furthermore, what you describe as socialism (common ownership and the negation of property) is actually communism.

  52. 1. communism is one of the more radical forms of socialism, 2. i said the MEANS OF PRODUCTION were owned collectively, not everything and 3. i consider socialism to be inherently compassionate and capitalism to be inherently greedy since capitalism tends to pit people against each other while under socialism nothing you do can be directly harmful to someone or their business.

  53. So I'm wondering, in your concept of socialism, who does "own" things? Capitalism is where individuals can own property, you say communism is where it is common ownership. What, in your view, is socialism's take on the matter?

  54. Another suggestion would be to read a book by Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (if you're open to alternative view points that is).
    Also, watch some videos of Jeffrey Tucker talking about capitalism. He has an interesting take on it. Keep trying to learn, friend!

  55. Cameron, I'm glad you're trying to learn about capitalism/socialism etc. However, this may not be the best place to learn about all these things. It may be good to learn about socialism here, as it comes from a socialist point of view. To learn about capitalism, learn about it from a capitalist supporter. LearnLiberty or LibertyPen are youtube channels that can teach you a little more accurately about capitalism. Keep learning, friend!

  56. Very good video but you are flawed in a few main points: 1) Human nature. People move in the direction on incentive. That is why as social programs as goodhearted as they are have had a net negative effect on the actual number of working age Americans as compared to the 1950's when the economy was more capitalist. The theory of socialism is wonderful, but the reality is, that it is completely unsustainable, no matter the amount of technology available. But you made a great presentation.

  57. While your commendations are appreciated, it is clear you either did not listen or properly comprehend the content of the video, which specifically condemned social welfare programs and exploded the modern American pop-culture myth that they are somehow connected to socialism. Your point about incentives is moot as incentives continue to exist in any economic system.

  58. People have been proven to pursue their own self interest. If there is a lazy person that the economic system works to support (ie "Production for use" as you put it) the economic system tends to favor the lazy person. Your entire video is based in the mindset of a consumer and not a producer. By your definitions ending at 8:50 Capitalism is Socialism (leaving out point of ownership) if you approach your statements from a producers mindset. People are individuals, not a collective.

  59. And that is why capitalism works better and will never become obsolete, until people have overcome their own selfish natures and continually work for the benefit of others. This is also by the way the definition of Christianity in a Christlike society Socialism would work wonderfully.

  60. Capitalism will grow the collective wealth of a population if people are taught how to think like entrepreneurs. Wealth can always continue to grow because there will always be something a given consumer wants.

  61. The issue of self-interest is a moot point. Arguably socialism will have superior incentives to that of capitalism because, in addition to receiving a wage/salary, individuals would receive a share of the surplus value (as a social dividend), which would directly relate to how productive they are. Furthermore, socialism frees a large segment of the population from excessively long work hours and encourages people to be more intellectually-inclinded (critical thinking and argumentation skills

  62. will be much more relevant in a society based on self-management and cooperative management). After being socialized in such an environment, where the exercise of greater mental faculty is required than under the previous system of capitalism, the culture will be on average more intellectually-inclined and innovative. And finally, it is scientifically proven that monetary reward is NOT a strong motivator when it comes to complex tasks and scientific discovery; such endeavors are undertaken for

  63. …their own sake. One final comment: you have misunderstood what "production for use" means in the context of this presentation. It simply means that the productive apparatus of society produces goods and services directly for their utility. It does not imply "giving money to lazy people" as you seem to think. On the contrary, socialism is based on the principle of rewarding one based on their individual contribution as captured by the Marxist slogan "To each according to his contribution".

  64. That is in essence capitalism, not socialism. You say self-interest is a moot point, then you say socialism is superior because individuals will be rewarded for performance in some form of compensation and lessened work hours. Are those not incentives for the individual? Try watching a few of the Learn Liberty videos they might help you rise above your circular reasoning.

  65. I said the issue of self-interest as a criticism of socialism is a moot point because socialism does not contradict self-interest. I suggest reading some actual material by academic socialists on socialist economics and Marxist analysis of alienation.

  66. Of course Socialism does not contradict self-interest, Socialism is an ideological economic system. Self-interest is an incentive force for personal action. Apples to Oranges so to speak. The point here is if you are more a student of history and less of a theologist you will see that The Social system cannot be applied where Self-interest exists. In theory it works fine, in practice it is show only to be a dream state because greed still exists. Capitalism works with these flaws not against

  67. If your thinking of works from the likes of Charles Fourier, Marx, Henri Simon, and Fridrich Angles. They argued well for those who are incapable of free thought, and ignorant of history. Shepherds for the masses, if you don't believe me look into why Marx wrote the manifesto. Did you know he was commissioned to do so? and Why he was commissioned over others? Also Socialism is also a VERY broad idea, you discussed your take on it, and you did it well. but even your take won't work (history)

  68. Languages are constantly changing. The word "capitalism" started out as a pejorative term and was first used by an associate of Karl Marx. But since many people believe in free markets the term "capitalism" quickly lost a great deal of its stigma. Attempts to redefine "capitalism" have caused it to lose precise meaning. Does America have a "capitalist system"? No. Not since 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed. We have a "mixed economy".

  69. If socialism is an economic system that responds to the majority, then its a rule of mob economy which sounds like living hell. Am I missing something?

  70. Responding to the interests of the majority and direct democracy are not the same thing. Socialism is more about self-management and cooperative management within economic enterprises. On technical matters, socialism is even more process-oriented and specialized than capitalism.

    Ultimately socialism is about responding to actual human needs and economic demand as opposed to creating artificial demand, redundant "needs" and wasteful processes simply in order to stay solvent.

  71. You are correct in that businesses in the Western world have been trying to become more "socialistic" over the past 20 years by introducing greater self-management for employees, collaborative management practices and worker autonomy and ESOPs. But there is an inherent contradiction forming: there is only so much these reforms can go before they conflict with the underlying nature of private ownership and capital accumulation. Businesses are realizing the utility of cooperative management

  72. Weren't the advocates of liberal capitalism initially the "left-wing" and the conservative monarchists the "right wing"?

    The point it, socialism might have been "left wing" in the late-19th century and early-20th century, but by today's standards "left wing" is things like social liberalism, social democracy and interventionism; while "right wing" is liberal capitalism/lassiez-faire dogma. Socialism today lies outside this dichotomy.

  73. If you are talking about the socialism that is explained in this video i guess that some incentives are: Know that you are improving the condition of all mankind and not just trying to survive or trying to rip your fellow humans.

  74. Battle4cry Hi, i think that my traduction is almost complete, but i have some doubts and i wonder if you can clarify them for me in case i traduced it wrongly because i just translated it in a textual way (i didnt know what you mean).
    First i have no idea what you mean with scale here:
    "with each other, but eventually with increasing returns to scale and the necessity of large"
    And the at the minute 9:28 with "in check" you mean something like "under control"?, because thats what i understood

  75. So instead of the world being run by a group of people elected by popular vote; under socialism, the world will be run by a group of people elected by popular vote?

    I understand that the government doesn't run everything now, there are private businesses which government doesn't have complete control of, but you did mention in this video that socialism is different than a fully controlled capitalist government without explaining why a "socialist government" (or whatever you call it) would produce for use instead of doing whatever you think a fully controlled "capitalist government" would do. Are socialist governments angels just because of the name socialist? lol.

  76. Are you a libertarian socialist?Β 
    What is the difference between anarcho-communism and libertarian socialism? They sound similar.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *