Capitalism vs. Socialism: Which Works Better? [Deep Dive into Public Data Analysis]

[@leehayes4019]

Remember its a 10 minute video. Set expectations accordingly.

[@rustattack1312]

In the first 36 seconds they lie and mislead you every step of the way, it's 10mins of wasted time with no intellectual value for anyone period.

[@geoffreyperrin4347]

Keep in mind 3 things: 1. No perfect system exists to create a utopia that is made by man 2. Human greed will be a factor in all systems, capitalism and socialism 3. Each system motivated humans differently and helps produce different amounts of meaning to one's life. If a human is in a system that does not motivate them and makes them feel like they have little meaning, they will either work only the bare minimum or stop working. I will not say which system I think does the latter

[@sprouts]

Well said!

[@Bellarina-e4e]

That is true, my dude. Perfection does exist but it’s impossible because our greed overweights it no matter what system we’re are in.

[@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer]

​@@Bellarina-e4e Not really Your arguments have debunked

[@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer]

Propagating capitalism in a subtle way 😂😂Nice job We can make better system than the 💩we have right now.

[@Bellarina-e4e]

@@AveragepoliticsEnjoyer Try then to be perfect yourself.

[@gevorg_arsenyan]

Honestly, I think the world needs a mix of both. Capitalism does drive innovation and rewards hard work, but it can also leave too many people behind. Socialism, on the other hand, can help ensure everyone gets a fair shot, but it needs to be managed carefully so it doesn’t stifle creativity or progress. A balanced approach, where we encourage entrepreneurship while also ensuring basic needs are met for all, seems like the best way forward. We need a system that encourages both growth and fairness, not one that swings too far in either direction.

[@schwarzerritter5724]

"Managed carefully" is the tricky part. Would you trust, for example, Donald Trump or Joe Biden to manage it? Chances are you m i g h t trust one of them, but not both.

[@tonyisnotdead]

@@schwarzerritter5724 no, i'd trust our entire governmental system to carefully manage public policy. the president doesn't create policy or laws, he is just the enforcer of those things. i'd trust the millions of people working in the hundreds of regulatory agencies making sure our country can actually function while maintaining our constitutional freedoms and general safety. there's a reason why trump wants to get rid of the independent bureaucrats in our government, and that's because without them we'd have no independent, apolitical body within the government to trust for things that affect us directly

[@wendigotea6020]

China does it. They call it Socialism with chinese characteristics.

[@juricakonsec2337]

Most people in the "West" confuse socialism and social democracy. *Socialism:* no private business (except perhaps small family business). It eventually becomes state capitalism. Originally meant to be a temporary system for transition to a classless society / communism. *Social democracy:* capitalism (!) with rules and regulations that provide for basic needs for the poor: welfare program, public health, public schools. There is private property and private business, private health providers and private schools. Example: most of EU countries.

[@jostkderechte5320]

No you confuse them. Socialism is not this one rigid idea that you have in your head. The reason people think social democracy is socialism is simply because it kind of is. Minimum wage and paid maternity leave is stuff that doesn’t come about out of nowhere, especially not in capitalism. It is the product of a movement we call socialism. A movement that has worker‘s empowerment as its goal. Everything that gives workers more safety and rights is by definition socialist. Socialism doesn’t mean planned economy and it doesn’t mean state capitalism, that is just you and your bias

[@juricakonsec2337]

@@jostkderechte5320, I understand what you call "socialism", but you're just using a wrong term. Contemporary degree of socialism is the degree of state (government) control over the economy, over investing, pricing and distribution of surplus. You need to differentiate between state control of the economy (socialism) and care for the poor (welfare, social program, social democracy).

[@jostkderechte5320]

@@juricakonsec2337 No I don’t think it’s „the wrong term“. Socialism is an incredibly loose term but what combines every interpretation of the term is the empowerment of workers. State control over the economy is simply not part of its definition. If we compare what all socialists in history shared, rights for workers was more important than state control, even though they mostly occurred together

[@juricakonsec2337]

@@jostkderechte5320, only if you (try to) make it loose term. Socialism clearly means collective ownership. Blurring of the terms is only needed for manipulation.

[@jostkderechte5320]

@ ​​⁠I just looked through some definitions online and surprisingly yours doesn’t come up but I actually read the term social democracy as a type of socialism (Wikipedia). Every single definition puts heavy emphasis on the loose-ness of the term. Maybe you got it wrong

[@johndoh1000]

I have a lot to say. First off, I had to restrain myself from being a reactionary and immediately typing out why this is just capitalist propaganda. Next, I think this vid gets a lot right, but frames it in such a way that makes socialism seem as dangerous as the McCarthy era may make it seem. Also, I like how most of the top comments are 1) liked by the creator, and 2) politely saying pro socialist things. That being said... [edit: if you want a nuanced critique of this video and have a lot of time please continue reading my literal three page response] "Socialism relies on state officials to get things done [while illustrating police]" This pairing makes it seem as though socialists rely on arbitrary rules from people who know nothing about whatever relevant industry there is. It's like putting Elon Musk in charge of education. While it may be true that the state can rely upon executive use of police force, most policies are created by people who are specialized in these various industries [or at least that's what the optimist in me believes. People like Margery Tailor Green make me doubt that]. On top of that, the policy that is passed that typically restricts businesses from operating with carte blanche in order to protect people. To prevent dumping, to increase safety, to set standards to live up to with construction. And lets say if a company is caught dumping massive amounts of sewage into the watershed then I hope we'd all agree that they should go to jail by threat of police [even though we don't typically see that because if a company is that large it's probably lobbying the government to look the other way anyway]. "Socialists believe that political leaders can establish rules to SHARE a nation's wealth fairly which then makes all people better off." Again, poor framing. It's not a matter of sharing wealth like we expect the rich to give their money away for magnanimous reasons. It's about enabling laborers to be compensated properly for the VALUE they created. Fun stat: labor force wages have stagnated, adjusted for inflation, since the 1980s while the owners of these companies have exploded in terms of their profits. back in the 1980s bosses made something like 25x what their laborer would make. Today they make something like 300x what their laborer makes. This is because the owner class has done everything in their power to make it so that they can skim more and more profit off of the labor of you and me. In other words to exploit us, to extract excess labor value from us. Anarcho Capitalism doesn't work. Grafton, New Hampshire literally got over run by bears because people couldn't organize a way to address the massive amount of trash they produced. This led to bears roaming in to seek for food and people naturally fleeing from the town because it simply wasn't safe. Also Neoliberal policies that were essentially anarcho capitalist in nature cut taxes and spending on government responsibilities. This is called the Kansas experiment which led to hospitals and nursing homes closing down, schools and education suffering, and the near destruction of the region affected. They immediately had to reverse the neoliberal policies in order to save the state. "The capitalist fears the socialist, because they have reason to believe that once we transfer money, property and power to the collective, it will be those who control us who will first help themselves, then limit individual." I actually really like this articulation of why pro-capitalist people are so averse to socialism. Most of the time when you ask them they'll say something that amounts to "communisms bad." "They [socialists] prefer a world in which Simple Joe only sells apples of a certain type, does so only in designated areas..." This is very disingenuous framing. That's like saying a socialist would arrest or at the very least ticket Little Sally's lemonade stand because she didn't get a permit [which I know has happened, and I believe is absurd]. A better way of framing this is by demonstrating that we need regulations like this in order to not look like Mary Poppins where smoke filled the city because factories weren't zoned away from population centers. "and shares most of his profits with those who have less." Again, the owner class is shouldn't "share" their profits with their workers. They should just pay their laborers what they deserve derived from the value they produce. Notice how in the US, you don't get paid more for the amount of effort you put in? You still get paid your hourly wage regardless if you work at Starbucks where there's a line out the store and people are constantly yelling at you, or if it's dead. Your effort doesn't necessarily impact your pay and it should. "In a socialist utopia all of us would get to [...] enjoy the same standard of living." This is poor framing because it can be misconstrued very easily by the trope "Socialists want everyone to be equally poor." Which is not true. In the US we are the richest nation in the world and yet we have a large homeless population with an even larger amount of vacant luxury housing. This is because the free market dictates that if you want to make money in construction you gotta go big. There's no money in selling modest housing to typical Americans. So there's no incentive to build affordable housing units. The more accurate way of framing this is to say that everyone should have access to education, healthcare, housing, food and water. "The socialist fears the capitalist, because they have reason to believe that if people are allowed to keep all their money, property and liberties, they would act immoral, pollute the environment, or abuse their power and eventually make living conditions worse for everyone-except the very rich." This is not what socialists fear will happen. It's what HAS happened time and time again. "Socialists are not pro-business, they are pro-state." Socialists are not necessarily pro state, they're pro laborer. They're pro protecting people from Machiavellian despots. "Now to understand which of the two is better, we can study people who live along a spectrum of the two extremes by looking at wealth, the key promise of capitalists, equality, the main promises of socialists, and - levels of happiness." I reject this framing because "happiness," hell, even quality of life, are not good metrics to demonstrate which system is better overall because these metrics are MUCH too reductionistic. Much in the same way that a single human life is complex and multifaceted so are economies and societies. If I reduced a person to being good or bad depending on if they have a criminal record then I would be condemning MILLIONS of people who have either are wrongly convicted, or convicted of crimes that are ultimately innocuous like possession of marijuana. "Highly socialist states are rare." That's true, but why are they rare? Is it because socialism is an inherently unstable form of government that will inevitably collapse within itself like the typical capitalist might argue? Or is it because whenever there's even a hint of a socialist movement in a country then the US will meddle in their political affairs? [hint it's the second one. Just look at ANY South American country and you'll find some form of CIA coup, or US sanction levied against them]. If you call North Korea socialist then you might as well make a video talking about how democracy will lead to the end of civilization because they also call themselves the Democratic Republic of North Korea. I appreciate what you do in terms of sharing information about child development, but your economic / political comprehension is distinctly biased and lacking in nuance. I also would like to mention that I didn't comment on everything in the video because I also though you brought up some interesting ways of describing this ideological tension.

[@elrond7887]

Conceptually: I will never agree with a system that doesn't reward successful entrepreneurs, they push society forward. Price theory has consistently shown over time that more controls over supply chains lead to higher prices to consumers, which hits the working class the hardest. Small "hints" of socialism into a mixed economy that is founded in Capitalism is fine when implemented correctly, Social Security for example (which needs addressing due to the government borrowing against it) but fails as an overarching system. The thing about a "socialist utopia" is... it must be a utopia to work. People there would have to have the ambition beat out of them, that's how North Korea "works", you either work with the system, or the system works you out. All for one and one for all. It doesn't comply with the ingenuity of human beings who are a problem solving specie that pulls resources from the environment to better themselves. It is in our nature to create, which is why capitalism is the best system for the most people. And if you want to retort, I'll just go down the laundry list of failures and bring up price theory that shows how supply chains need free markets to survive. Socialism failed, and only propaganda keeps it alive. People are terrified to live in a system that you all proport, we don't want that here. I genuinely want socialists to have their own country to go try their "version" of it in. Prove me wrong there lol.

[@johndoh1000]

@ I’ll have a real response for you when I get to my computer. But if socialism is so self destructive then why has the US done so many things to seek to destroy it? Like I mentioned in the first comment: South American coups, middle eastern destabilization, the Cold War? If socialism always defeats itself why not let it burn itself out instead of building thousands of nukes that would lead to the end of HUMANITY? Country that socialism works: Sweden.

[@oli2467]

I agree with @elrond7887, we are a very ambitious species which wants to win. Knowing we must create a system in wich we can use this ambition to create wealth. In past socialist countrys like east germany workers knew that productivity wouldn't get them any wealthier then those who less productive. So they started to do as little as possible at there workplace and causully left early if they weren't forced to work longer by the gouverment. Theres always ambition in every human beeing in socialist societies productivity is replaced by connection with state officals. Which is why people were so poor in those countrys. And if you dont belivere me you should research for yourself. On the other hand capatilism isn't perfect of course. Buisnessmen can use unethnical or selfcentered methods to get rich. But this were we have to get real: We dont live in a pure capatilist world (in the west) but in a neo-liberal. Created in the early 20th century in america to regulate the free market via the state and give workers more rights. We already try to regulate the market so it can be fair and productive a the same time. If socialsm would actually work indeffenitly we would already live in one. But we dont so lets stay realistic. And by the way, ignoring the data about decreased happiness in more state controling countrys because it dosen't soppurt your view is ridiculous.

[@hammadali7594]

Don't you think these two distinct terms have gone irrelevant with history evolving so much around them? I mean socialism vs capitalism, these sound so crude now that you can't even find more than 1 perfect example of states following either one of these models. I guess what we can see in the better part of world that is thriving is a mix up of two, maybe some kind of a "social democratic republic with healthy capitalism "

[@johndoh1000]

@@hammadali7594 I don't think they're becoming irrelevant or meaningless. As a matter of fact I believe the statement "social decomcratic repbulic with healthy capitalism" is MORESO meaningless primarily because YOU, hammadali, are just throwing words around willy nilly hoping it will create something. That is simply not the case. Words have meaning and they become meaningless when nefarious powers seek that end. For example: Communism: a stateless, classless society where the means of production and distribution are publicly [not privately] held. Goods ought go to each according to their need, from each according to their ability. [Side note, you can also call this anarchism, or populism. They're not necessarily the same thing, but they certainly overlap conceptually] Now in the time that it took you to read that definition I'm willing to bet you glossed over it and tuned it out because it doesn't fit the McCarthy era definition of "all communists are Russian spies trying to kill the US!!" OR You took the time to read through it and still struggled to understand what even was being said because it is a VERY dense definition that is not done justice with a glib dictionary sentence. You need to understand the eco-philosophical arguments behind communism. Reading a definition will not help you understand the LABOR VALUE THEORY, it will not help you think about your MATERIAL CONDITIONS, it will not illustrate the INHERENT CONTRADICTIONS within capitalism that could lead to its very downfall. On top of that if you're seeking to be intellectually honest, then you shouldn't even look at the big tent word like capitalism or socialism to begin with. You should look at what policies a socialist, or a capitalist may seek to implement. A capitalist would seek to eliminate taxes, regulations, and social security. This is because they want to keep as much of "their" profits as possible. Taxes and social security take that profit away, and regulations prevent them from cutting as many corners as possible to minimize their expenses. Socialists seek to implement pro human things for everyone: Everyone should have access to education, housing, food, water, healthcare. [Callback; this is part of what "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability"]. If our society implemented these five things and treated them like human rights, then 90% of humanity's problems would disappear. I know my response is all over the place, but you also have to watch out for disingenuous framing of what a socialist or a communist is because most of the time when you hear someone describe a communist or a socialist it's either preceded by or followed by a rant about how they're going to destroy America because they're so woke, or because they hate freedom. Which is simply not the case. However, this is how the largest news company frames communists/socialists.

[@PianoTechMaggie]

I think it is slightly disingenuous to not only try to say what capitalists & socialists think, which wasn't completely accurate, but to not include countries such as Norway & Finland. Your "socialist" countries weren't socialist, such as N. Korea & Russia. Communism is NOT the same as socialism. If you were comparing capitalism to communism, it would have been somewhat more accurate. I'm disappointed in this video. It's not your typical high quality of information.

[@matonolo]

"If it does not work, it is not socialism"

[@grapeshott]

communist countries follow a form of socialism. Infact, even Marx's doctrine had a stage called "socialism" (whether they actually followed socialism in true manner is a different matter)

[@workinprogress3609]

Socialism IS communism. It is only in degree.

[@Munchausenification]

It still seems to make the point succesfully, which is that both systems has flaws and it is extremely difficult to be a "pure" socialist or capitalist nation and a pretty good description of the systems. But i do agree the examples should have been chosen more carefully

[@Shima-fxu]

Biased and overly simplified, to the point of being inaccurate. Disappointed.

[@cyrilli1546]

How is this not getting more views, this is very well made.

[@sprouts]

Right?

[@aviel4218]

​@@sproutsCan you make a video about the light triad?

[@CommadoreGothnogDragonheart]

I think a good government is like a stew, and requires a blend based on peoples' tastes than should adjust based on changing conditions. I also think there are other factors not shown in the video such as the effects of religion, available resources, and population density. That being said, I think this was a fairly balanced take on the subject, and you did a good job of steel-manning both sides.

[@sprouts]

Right! And thanks, it was really a tough one to make.

[@braincuriosities]

The Data analysis part, transparency and access to Raw Data really shows how much work went into this video. Huge congrats, informative, entertaining, and super relevant today!

[@GreenDeemonll]

I love how the very first sentence was already wrong.

[@Jamal-Ahmed786]

A mixed economy works well. We need an economy that's 33.3% capitalist, 33.4% socialist, and 33.3% communist. To achieve that, we need the state to own essential services like water, rail, utilities and insurance companies. Also gover providing welfare, education, and universal healthcare. Everything else (except tge above), the private capitalist can own.

[@scoremore8648]

Which scale to use??

[@IMDogGod]

It's not a switch in the strategy game.

[@ajinkya3.14]

But thumbnail B had won, didn't it

[@sprouts]

The test is still running ;)

[@nhaxydz]

This is a biased video. I clicked on it expecting it to show the good and bad of each. For instance, for capatilism you used a more joyful tone of voice, the music was happier, and the animation people were blue (which is usually associated with calm. Whereas, with socialism you started with "Simple joe ONLY" emphasis on only, "sells apples of a CERTAIN type". The voice also sounded more dissappointed, the people were red (anger) and had more frowns. There's more but I'm done with the rant. Basically, this video is highly biased. I'm not totally for socialism nor am I totally for capatalism. I'd just rather get an unbiased look at them both.

[@CoolDude-m2c]

Cry about commie

[@youngidealist]

The first inequity in your analysis is that you mentioned how capitalists fear big business but left out the flip side that socialist fear big government. You then left in examples of socialism led by dictators. They are in no way representative of the actual philosophy of socialism. Bonus points for admitting that no country is exclusively capitalist.

[@Doc-Holliday1851]

socialism requires big government to work. Marx outright said that one of the crucial stepping stones to achieve communism is having a dictator.

[@ariace3602]

Marxists are the greatest opponents of authoritarianism. The main goal of the Marxist is expose the fact that in a democratic capitalist society / bourgeois society, it is not only the case that state is authoritarian, but their is another major source of authoritarian decision making ie the capitalist firm. Which lacks democratic accountability.

[@1wun1]

How can capitalists fear big business? Isn't that the goal of capital owners?

[@youngidealist]

@Doc-Holliday1851 Big government in the reciprocal sense that Capitalists don't want big business. You could just as soon say that Capitalism requires the freedom to form big business in order to work.

[@youngidealist]

@1wun1 Strike that and reverse it. The claim is that Capitalists fear big business. That's what the video said. Not that big business fear capitalism.

[@William1866]

I would think standard of living as the best indicator.

[@gwritesss]

South African here. Very educational video. Writing about this in a few hours

[@sprouts]

Thanks!

[@sprouts]

Greetings from Thailand 🇹🇭

[@ChadZLumenarcus]

A government is just a publicly run company. A company is a privately run government. Laws and regulations are often written in blood and nothing if absolute.

[@shway1]

chatgpt, make a prager u video in the style of sprouts

[@MarshBrik]

loved all the research and sources. more vids like this

[@sprouts]

Glad you noticed :) Will do!

[@jowi6491]

You do understand the average person in a capitalist society has no freedom to choose anything right?

[@CoolDude-m2c]

Average person in the room can achieve that and the average person in the room in United States has a phone an internet connection an apartment food to eat. With the internet nowadays you can’t get many high paying jobs and succeed without a college degree.

[@arbulusu]

Excellent! Very interesting! Consider the Harappan / Indus valley civilisation. Even though we don't have a complete understanding of their life and economy a striking feature mentioned by archaeologists is the absence of either government (as we know government) or a standing army. They were spread over an area of more than 12 lakh square kilometres! If only we can get a complete understanding of that civilisation we may find a third system that is neither Socialist nor Capitalist.

[@Jan12700]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="90">1:30</a> Private Schools that can teach what they want? Isn't this not simply a sect, like scientology. <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="110">1:50</a> So exactly what the extrem rich people do now? <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="155">2:35</a> So exactly what the extrem rich people do now? <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="300">5:00</a> Theoretically yes, practically no. Schools are so underfunded that companies donate teaching materials that have a huge bias. For example, oil companies donate a lot of books on alternative facts that deny climate change. <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="315">5:15</a> Because Putin uses most of them as cannon fodder.

[@CoolDude-m2c]

Private schools have more freedom in creating their own rules than a public school. And created specialization and every school will be different so everyone can find one they like. The government will only provide a minimal amount of classes and requirements in order to qualify as a school.

[@Jan12700]

@@CoolDude-m2c But how are they then not turned into sects like scientology, or teach alternative facts like the earth is flat, or turn into pedo rings? All this already happend with private schools

[@spookemsmagoo4u]

Boss your "Deep Dive" is a 10 minutes. 10 minutes isnt enough for supply and demand or labor theory of value, let alone to discuss two complex political/economic systems. This should be called "Socialism vs.Capitalism: a first graders best attempt to understand"

[@danushairan]

Just go read the work of 2024 Noble prize winner in economics. It is a scientific fact that there is a direct relationship between quality of the institutions ( and its size) Vs Quality of life of citizens and wealth. Science is not the matter of opinion.

[@spookemsmagoo4u]

Economics is not science, and what work, there were 3 winners in economics this year

[@CoolDude-m2c]

@@spookemsmagoo4ueconomics is very much science is completely statistical a very objective science. It is complicated and has many factors which can shift but definitely an objective measurable force.

[@ScepticalPenguin]

Where on earth did they learn about Socialism?

[@mr.e2962]

The debate between capitalism and socialism is not about economics.

[@CoolDude-m2c]

It is because is society that thrives and gets richer as a whole is what economics is about. So no a system should not be based off if it sounds good in theory it should be based off the point that it’s going to create the most value in society.

[@PtichkaPiromant]

Then about what?

[@mr.e2962]

@@CoolDude-m2c The debate between Capitalism and Socialism is about ethics and morality.

[@mr.e2962]

@@PtichkaPiromant To determine whether Capitalism or Socialism is better, one should consider ethics and morality. While data can be helpful, it often serves to justify unethical actions. It's all about which code of ethics to adopt.

[@alexeysaphonov232]

The video is a bit missleading. I.e. as you noticed there are no such a thing as a 'pure' capitalism or socialism. It means that you compare thing when you cannot separate one from another. I would say that the market economy answers perfectly (No questions there all examples of economies ignoring free agents are exclusevly odd, North Korea, Venezuela, Mao's China, USSR, GDR, Cuba they are so misirable because people there couldn't or still cannot economy). The questions of economy: Who? What? How? For whom? (To produce) On the other hand our life isn't limited to and we have a state (btw not all socialists are at the same times etatists, in fact except libertarisns all other anatchists are as left as it could be, the same about 'capitalists' there are tons of them who wants the state to act). So in terms of state it historically delivers: protection from external enemy and justice/law inside. After (during, somehow before, e.g. Bismarck's rent and some sort of state funded schooling) ww1 the state had to take social protection and it prooved reasonable good sometimes. And what you call socialists in here in video are the political movements which (even if they were around since xix century) came on political scene. Now I want to dettach from word "socialism" and give an opinion on programs which we associate with them (public healthcare, education, green politics, identity politics, etc). They are not all bad, hence they have many problems in common: 1. State officials aren't good with money, always and in long term they are terrible. Which means all the state ruled stuff is (or quickly going to be) overprised and at the same time the people inside are underpayed. 2. Burocrats are thinking global so there are usually not much left of the market when state enters and they system will be protected by "lack of alternatives" 3. Bystander effect, rich and active people will give up acting where state is working and had collected money for it. The biggest issue is that social protection shouldn't kill or harm its provider - working economy. If it doesn't harm then you can have as many social benifits as you can pay for (important condotion btw)

[@RighteousPaladin]

Something no one ever takes into account with statistics is scale. Some things that work at a small scale don't work at a large scale, like bumblebees and government for example.

[@sprouts]

Right

[@Apsolution1]

There are more than 2 ways we can organize ourselves as society 1 example is feudalism and there are probably more options but you cannot really call capitalism pure capitalism because it has government which regulates even United States the "Bastion of Capitalism" has farming subsidies , bans addictive supstances and has had government programs for building of infrastructure (New Deal) without last 2 society would crumble as I never saw any private enterprise willing to build a road

[@Soular-Man]

Ah, this does not sound correct

[@Cartman87725]

Well. This isn't the marx sozialism

[@juricakonsec2337]

Correct. Marx(ist) socialism is a temporary system to be used during the dictatorship of the proletariat run by the communist party in order to transition to a classless society - to communism. The core of the real socialism is the degree of state control over the economy.

[@juricakonsec2337]

Try in to res pond, but there are for ces. That's correct. Mar x ist S. is temporary system to be used during dict a tor ship of the pro let'a'riat under the rule of the CP to allow tra'n'sition to class less so ciety. The core of the contemporary degree of real S. is the degree of s'tate control of the e'con'omy.

[@ariace3602]

It's not even socialism just rugged egalitarianism

[@juricakonsec2337]

True. Marx S. was meant to be a temporary system used during the dicta tor ship of the pro letariat run by the see pee in order to enable the transition to the class less society.

[@whousa642]

All the same evil

[@Gabibbominchiarossa]

The gdp per capita is made by the CIA they just once again rated the countries from favorite to least favorite 😂

[@sprouts]

Good point. Unfortunately most data on these things are produced by the West...

[@shway1]

@@sprouts you didn't have to pick a right wing think tank funded by climate denialists as your source though

[@SoorajMR-p8y]

Pls do a clip related to Mass psychosis

[@JamesMiller-ce1df]

You lost me at, "There are two ways..." There are so many more.

[@khansherani]

I see the below can be close to a System best suited in our current times...... A. A capitalist system 2 things, 1. A control of govt for primarily stopping corruption and 2. All Natural resources owned by Govt and wealth from these resources used for welfare of all the citizens. B. Continuous govt policies against wealth getting centered in few hands only without stopping the natural flow of free economy and market. C. An addressing of conscience of rich ppl to redistribute their riches to poor voluntarily.... D. The basic needs of ppl food, shelter and health must be made very very affordable to all citizens, it should not be fully free but not left to free market for blind profiteering and exponential price rise.

[@CoolDude-m2c]

I understand that you think these are necessary but sadly when governments set prices it gets worse than letting the market set the price.

[@khansherani]

@@CoolDude-m2c I would suggest that for basic food items, the model of Saudi is good wherein govt give subsidy to bakery supply of floor and rice and fixes prices on basic bread, and after that they do not have control further. The bakery ppl also makes money and the end user gets the food items at the cheapest price.. infect all the food remain very affordable the basic food items may be around 20-30%% of the prices in the west.

[@tomlabaffstudio1693]

Excellent deep dive y'all!

[@sprouts]

Glad you enjoyed it!

[@jayeshshewale8063]

Hey, would it be possible to make your videos in dark mode? Pretty please! 🙏😊

[@javieradornogarcia]

I think an open and transparent capitalist market with government oversight PRIMARILY to maintain that transparency and to ensure a healthy minimum of living for its citizens. Bring in a UBI that will cover the bare minimum of housing, and let people work to get the nicer houses and extra materialism stuff we dont actually need.

[@sprouts]

I like that

[@stamno90]

This all seems verry american to me, not that there isn't any god points here(but they'r mostly unrelated to the point in question, due too following reasons), but the way socialism is defined seems very american. I live in northern europe and was tought differently. The way I was tought, soicalism was a response to marx's critics of captialism , and where intended to solve thise problems, within the capitalistic framework.(As opposed to communism(I do ofcourse refer to marxistic communism, not that other fascist shait), wich IS a different economic framework(but does not actually say anything about governance(but does in fact hint at a more direct/extreme form of democracy))) As such, soscialism is not in opposition to capitalism. It is a way, or philosophy, of maxemizing the welfare and opertuneties for the populus en mas, within the capitalistic framework. And ass such retain, a largley as free market(and lets not kid our selvs, even tough USA is way more capitalist then europe, it doe not seem to have that much less government, nor that much more free market)(also, there has always been same form of government, even if it is just the village elders or the biggest bully and his allys) while leveling the division between the classes and create better class mobility(by for instance making sure everyone is properly educated, fed and have all their helth needs met, so as to have capable and healthy workers),While also trying to mitigate the impact of inflation, greed and money-hoarding on the system as a whole(wich also is a well founded fear among capitalists). One might actually say, that the way in wich europeans are tought socialism, is the awnser you are looking for :p When I think of socialist counteries, i think of germany, netherlands and the nordic countries. I do not think off north-korea, china and russia, we have other words to describe the way in wich thouse counteries are governed. BTW, with this in mind, your map gets a bit wierd. And not mentioning any of the nordic counteries, in spite of the fact that they all score high in bouth economic freedom and perscived happiness while still being so far left of USA, that they largely perscive them selvs as socialsts(this largly also apply to Germany and Netherlands), starts making its lack of pressence, kind of the elefant in the room also, you can have a strong state and have the services delivered by private sector, while being paid for by the state(Norway curently does this with healthcare, public transportation, infrastucture and renovation, among others(several of thise have actually been state owned previosly). As, i belive, do Germany and the Netherlands) Sorry for the bad grammer and structure, but it is what it is (and i had alot to share in a late hour) :p

[@sprouts]

Thanks for your insightful feedback.

[@stamno90]

@@sprouts You are verry welcome, happy to share :) And Thank You, as I usually do enjoy your videos :) And might I sugjest making a video about the differences between the European and American school of socialism. As I would love to learn more about where the American view on socialism come from, and I am sure many Americans would love to learn about the European view. The history off it all is generally interesting. And offcourse how it differs from the different types of communism(lets just say, I think Karl Marx would have turned in his grave over what his work has been used to supposedly justify), wich might be worthy a video of its own. Innteresting stuff... Anyhooch... Thanks again, for all your hard work, helping us all learn and grow together. And for actually reading my ramble :D

[@sprouts]

@@stamno90 I like reading constructive rambling. Not sure we will touch this topic anytime soon again, but if we do, then we should take your points into consideration. They are very valid!

[@MONARCH_FLIES]

this is AMAZINGLY detailed, thorough, and objective for just a ten-minute video. thank you sprouts, coming through for us once again :)))

[@sprouts]

Glad you see it. It took a lot of work. :)

[@ljoc7455]

Norway has found a great socialist-leaning combination system. You omitted it completely

[@sprouts]

Norway has lots of oil and is unnaturally rich, which makes social benefits an easy call - doesn’t quite make a good example in my opinion.

[@ljoc7455]

@ I’m curious, as Switzerland also has extraordinary wealth, which makes social benefits an easy call. Why is it a good example but not Norway?

[@anisa2273]

@@ljoc7455 they're obviosly in the capitalism's side, better not watch their videos anymore smh

[@joshuasbecreative8444]

Awesome video good explanation

[@anisa2273]

only socialism is gonna save us all. and i mean TRUE socialism

[@darkhunteryt4268]

No 😅😅😅 deliousanal

[@riteshthahryani]

nice explanation

[@sprouts]

Thanks. Took plenty of work to get this right.

[@martinva117]

I Am from Slovakia... the most equal country

[@etrigueros]

That's not necessarily a good thing. If you equalize a society, let's say in terms of money, you have to charge a good amounts of taxes and many won't want to invest there. I don't like the GINI measure. It's like having Messi in your local soccer league and to equalize the league you have tell him to play with one leg, limiting his potential.

[@CURIOSITYCREED]

People will laugh at me but the best system to follow is Humanism not capitalism or Socialism. If you think deeply if everyone in the world acts on each other best intrest and show humility and fairness to employess and also employees show the same for the company, together when they work for the greater good, that society will be the utopia. But we need something to maintain these moral values like rules and regulations to reduce corporate greed, crime, corruption etc and also all other parameters that destroy these values. one day I will organise the same rules and regulations together in a single book and all people rich or poor cannot argue and they will find thats the best way to go as an human civilization. Better call that one as "The New World Order", and humans after that will move forward on a growth spiral and can reach type 1 civilization and then go on to reaches levels higher we cannot ever imagine.

[@bingeable3]

Nice video, it is very clear businesses are destroying this world, this world will get completely horror if this continues in the next 10 years this way or higher.

[@feralwarden4873]

How do you feel about Distributism or Corporatism?

[@ritik2494]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="248">4:08</a> india on 131st 😮

[@dulceriaencantada415]

Hello, I am hispanic and I would like to listen to your videos in Spanish. Pelase, upload in your Spanish channel.

[@showman139]

Capitalism is my choice. Socialism historically has failed with rare exceptions. Also, having gone to compulsory education, having it privatized seems like the better deal. Especially since private schools do better with less restrictions.

[@kayamann321]

Right from the start, this video is completely WRONG! For ex, Socialism is simply about the means of production being owned by the workers. This can happen many different ways…

[@Abc17373]

How to remove fear in public and lack of outward confidence ?

[@juricakonsec2337]

To build trust / trustworthiness takes a long time, but to destroy it just a moment.

[@rickdworsky6457]

Easy, just be nice.

[@rustattack1312]

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="0">0:00</a> -<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="6">0:06</a> wrong theres slave society, feudalism, capitalism, comand economies, and experimental economies. After that you miss lead, capital owners be you an individual or stock holders, they make decisions take the profit, workers create value otherwise they would not be hired, workers take raw materials and create products, they transport the products and raw materials, they sell the products, by necessity of a capital owner making a profit they must take the surplus value created by every worker collectively. Under one method of socailism you would have worker cooperatives were the ones who do the work make the decisions this doesnt mean there wont be leadership but that it will be collectively decided by all who labor, when you described "socailism" you actually explained a planned economy, which Walmart is to a large extent. Also socailism is not "when the government does stuff" socailism is when the workers have the power to build a world they want to see using their mind and their hands along side the hands and minds of all

[@AnoopAnakuthil]

I like socialism. I live in India

[@sudhirbhandary8484]

Neither. I prefer a place where Earth remains safe and as good as they are to our grand children that we got from our grand elders

[@MyMushroom]

I prefer both depending on situation But I wanna know difference between socialist and communist

[@AfroCharlieable]

The outside factors being ignored

[@Puchiaca69]

Mix socialist and capitalist

[@BeatrizBeRomero]

Who wrote this? The capitalism is not this and nor the socialism...imagine a child listening to this...

[@smith-el3uk]

I'm from Czechia and I prefer capitalism much more, as it gives freedom to entrepreneurs and secures progress in the nation. Also after our history with socialism, it's a no go...

[@joseph.cotter]

This video is *totally* wrong. Free market and capitalism are not the same. Capitalism promotes large corporate interests over the smaller businesses in a rigged system. Free markets say that one has to play on a fair playing field, not rigged and only under those conditions can we have a fair system where small businesses and large businesses can find their own niches. We have a capitalist system in the United States, not a Free Market.

[@cassiosiquara]

This video is underestimating capitalism problems and telling us what capitalism want we to believe what socialism and socialist countries are, it’s not about equality, it’s about power decentralisation, because if a few persons are so powerful that they can create culture, laws and fake news, it’s very hard to fight it back. I know I can’t reach the deep of this discussion’s need, but I will suggest a video that can change the way you see our culture, laws and news: We Went To North Korea To Get A Haircut kzbin.info/www/bejne/aHOyaWZ_nJJ4bqc

[@sprouts]

Thanks for sharing this!

[@Laskuna]

In reality we have pluralism of media, or social media in capitlaism, and propaganda state media in socialist country. So your fears are funny. Dont like big media corporations? Dont wach them. You have lots of independent radios / TV / YT Channels all areound the world. Where is problem? We have more problems with monopolies becaus regulations, that blocking competition, that naturally growth free market monopolies.

[@etrigueros]

That description sounds like the Soviet Union.

[@RonFlux]

"if a few persons are so powerful that they can create culture, laws and fake news, it’s very hard to fight it back." - Isn't that for either system?

[@Bellarina-e4e]

⁠@@etrigueros Because North Korea is like Soviet Union but wayyyy to Iron rules.

[@WhiteMouse77]

- in general the ideologism is barrier to wisdom and insisting on solely one ideology is never solution to a problem but only piling another conflict over the core one escalating situation into social war - taking any ideology to fanatic dogma is inevitably self-destructive in any aspect of human society - radical capitalists are as bad as radical socialists and vice versa - the only possible way is wise sensible combining of both not as limited ideologies of framed ideas but an open approach deciding when for what is which way the best for benefit and prosperity of a particular thing...common sense and sanity is always better over any ideologic rally.... if we remain pursuing ultimative ideologies we just boost impact of results causing capitalists appearing as slaveholder and socialist as a parasites which are both very stupid points of view as well as dangerous perspectives we valuate people from...

[@Laskuna]

No one said about dogmas, just facts. What radical capitalism is? Swisderland have radical form of capitlaism? There is no symmetry here, no options to choose from. You can see that in all these maps and graphs. Just compare socialist Poland before 1989 and capitalist after 89. Venezuela before and after the socialist experiment. Zimbabwe, Botswana. On all the charts you can see when the change from one system to another took place. The only possible way is capitalistic economy, with no prices that are shaped thanks to the game demand and supply, its impossible to economic calculate. With no calculation all decisions are mor or less random, and result in huge waste and losses, famines in many cases. Your miss arguemnts causing capitalists appearing as slaveholder ( in reality, it was thanks to capitalism that slavery was abandoned, because it eventually became inefficient and unprofitable in relation to a hired worker with a machine.) If you ignore reality, ( did you even watch this film, in the part with the charts and maps? ) you don't want to accept it, treating it as some ideological academic dispute, and all it takes is a little good will, then the ideology of the state doesn't matter. Is the entire Eastern Bloc in Europe still much poorer than the Western countries because they lacked a bit of good will? Or is it perhaps a matter of the ideology of socialism that prevailed behind the Iron Curtain?

[@businesspins5825]

Equality is impossible. There will always be some who succeed and some who don’t. For a multitude of factors. Besides- who cares if the person next door has more than me, if I’m doing well. Capitalism is the best system for personal prosperity. Period.

[@nomadvillin9667]

I agree, if the anti-capitalist blokes spent their time working instead of complaining they too could fully enjoy the benefits of capitalism. The worst part is not only do they enjoy and use the fruits of it but also the products, and services they use to complain against it is the byproduct of what they ought to destroy.

[@businesspins5825]

@ 👌🏼💯

[@TheGrinningViking]

I agree but it's a horrible system for government. It's like if the referees in a game of football were also players. You see that with the stock purchases and unwillingness to regulate companies that push their costs onto other people - heck, the current government gives tax subsidies to massively profitable companies that don't need them in order to profit! Even if we were purely capitalist and had healthcare all put down to the individual that would mean every company dumping carcinogens in the water or the air was pushing the cost of proper disposal onto others by making them pay for cancer treatments. But the fine for dumping that kind of stuff is less than what it saves the company, and our government isn't paying for health services, so isn't that company just forcing other people to pay instead of them? I'd rather it was someone who got voted in fairly and didn't have their own horse in the race making that decision, but that's not the system we have and I'm not sure how we could even get there.

[@timothysatyr6674]

Nobody is talking about equal outcome, they are talking about equal rights and opportunity

[@businesspins5825]

@ Unfortunately we don’t have capitalism. We have cronyism, and corporatism. For me real capitalism is represented in mom and pop businesses- not large corporations who lobby governments for special favours

[@jooons]

Timely release!

[@bigplayer2507]

I’m very disappointed I expected better

[@scienceteacher2027]

OMG very misunderstood socialism

[@LeeCarlson]

There are more than two ways.

[@sprouts]

Sure!

[@슈카야_밥먹자]

I'm from south korea I really appreciate to my parents that I was born in south, not north

[@JC_Zondi]

Unfree? South Africa? Financial inequality, maybe-but calling it 'unfree' seems a stretch. This video leaves some questionable gaps in many things it says

[@Laskuna]

Check source, Heritage Foundation Index: "South Africa’s economic freedom score is 55.3, making its economy the 111th freest in the 2024 Index of Economic Freedom. Its rating has decreased by 0.4 point from last year, and South Africa is ranked 18th out of 47 countries in the Sub-Saharan Africa region. The country’s economic freedom score is lower than the world average and higher than the regional average. South Africa’s economy is considered “mostly unfree” according to the 2024 Index. A relatively competitive trade regime has encouraged development of a growing entrepreneurial sector. To ensure long-term economic development, however, the foundations of economic freedom will need to be strengthened. Corruption and the weak rule of law add to the cost of doing business and erode economic competitiveness. The regulatory framework remains costly, and the labor market lacks flexibility. Undermining macroeconomic stability, a combination of rising public debt and spending pressures contributes to increasing fiscal vulnerability."

[@sprouts]

Unfree in an economic sense. Is it not?

[@unpopuIaropinion]

No, there are not two ways. There are many ways, some of which have not yet discovered. What have ''worked'' 200 years ago with a fraction of the current population, cannot work today, as we CLEARLY see...

[@-_-_-_-318]

People are not equal. Not equally motivated, not equally hard working.

[@timothysatyr6674]

You silly asshole, people are talking about equal rights and opportunity. Not outcome.

[@rickdworsky6457]

We all live on the same planet, breathe the same air, and die in the same dirt. Some people have superiority complexes, and wonder why they feel so alone.

[@goddosyourself7970]

@@rickdworsky6457 skill issue

[@botmsj]

Nothing about the miserable places left to other living beings. Anthropocentric studies without the induced disasters.

[@DebasisLenka-bp2rq]

Capitalism and socialism are opposite side of a same coin you can't sustain socialism without the help of capitalism and capitalism can't happen without the socialist mind set people who wait for the some sum money to receive and spend it for capitalist goods . It is interesting comedy show that people are saying capitalism and socialism are different.

[@user-rx3xl7zn1u]

Let politicians run everything without accountability? Even if you ignore history, who, in their right mind, would think that would turn out OK?

[@Зангиф]

This tutorial is full of inaccuracies. Very low quality in terms of content with high quality of execution. This is a rare example when you should not trust just because the previous materials were reliable.

[@adweitaspams]

so most countries in the world are "social democracies" right?

[@Tsukiyomi_]

Thanks for the video! ❤️ As a Brazilian-Canadian, I really appreciate you sharing data on Brazil. Now I’ll take a look at the data for Canada 😊

[@sprouts]

Welcome!

[@Tsukiyomi_]

@@sprouts Thanks for your reply! Your work is truly valuable, so please don’t feel discouraged by a bit of negative feedback. It’s tough to please everyone, but keep up the great work!

[@lujiang2390]

Sounds like America is not capitalist by this video. It's more like a monopoly.

[@warrenbradford2597]

I am not sure which is better myself. Probably capitalism?

[@phenomenal17playz]

Mixed economic system is best

[@Laskuna]

There has never been pure capitalism anywhere, it is always some kind of mix. It is important that in such a system property rights are protected and economic freedoms are ensured. Comparing the map of economic freedoms and wealth, a clear relationship can be seen. Even the Scandinavian countries, wrongly called socialist by many because of their high welfare and social programs, are at the same time among the most free-market countries on the planet.

[@sprouts]

Right

[@whousa642]

That is evil

[@rickdworsky6457]

Oligarchs legalized exploitation and called it capitalism.

[@Laskuna]

So in pre-capitalist times there was no exploitation?

[@juricakonsec2337]

This presentation is missing one important part: *radical progressivism.* It is a belief that the current culture and civilization need to be deconstructed / abandoned in oder to allow for something "better" to "emerge" - a "new", "better", "man" and a "new", "better" society. One example of radical progressivism is Marxism. Contemporary radical progressivism is "left wokeism", but there is also a "woke right". *Please note that currently it is less and less about the degree of government regulating the economy (degree of socialism), but more and more about improving the culture and civilization vs. (radical) progressivism.* A week ago, a youth / student section of the Green party in Austria proclaimed that "cool kids don't have a homeland" and that they are fighting "against God, state and patriarchy". That's radical progressivism.

[@Laskuna]

Culture agenda have nothing to economic system, different topic. Both Koreas for example, grow in same culture root, after war one became capitalist one socialist. Capitlaism was easy accepted in South Korea or Japan, even if was inwented in Western Europe culture circle.

[@juricakonsec2337]

@@Laskuna, the culture is deeply interwoven with the economy and there is strong long term interaction. The system, especially socialism, deeply changes the culture with the time. And the culture /mentality/ changes the economy. NK people are now so different from the SK that they need years to adapt and many fail.

[@Laskuna]

@@juricakonsec2337 Yes and no. Both system can be adopted in divided Korea, or in East and West germany after WWII, and both "gave the fruits" of adaptation in real life ( in mixed, no pure way ) both ideas.

[@dannyboi2756]

Impressively balanced take.

[@misterhat5823]

As balanced as Fox.

[@Nyamiou]

Very well written.

[@pablod5475]

And China?

[@Laskuna]

Is mafia like a -one party controlled state, with capitalism on low level and central planing on high level. Read about HUKOU system, communist party arbitrally decided who can enjoy capitalist prosperity, and who is to live like a serf tied to the land and the profession of his father and grandfather. Place of birth determines a person's fate, this is not capitalism where a person's talent or effort is the source of his success.

[@thetruedemocraticnorth]

@@Laskuna china is a socialist market economy, South Korea is a capitalist planned economy.

[@luk4aaaa]

Somewhat reductionist explanations, but one of the more ideal systems in practise is what Norway does.

[@sprouts]

Right. But Norway got lots of oil money. It’s easy to do what it does with plenty of surplus ;)

[@luk4aaaa]

@ we were well off before we found oil, our responsible and future-minded use of it was somewhat of a counter-culture to the «looting» petroleum companies had done to Britain and the like. If you want the details then our lumber trade, trade fleet and fish industry are good places to start. Googling the oil fund and it’s founder should also paint a clearer picture of why we succeeded. Had it only been oil, why are no other oil nations as prosperous and gret as Norway?

[@luk4aaaa]

@@sprouts hey where did my reply go?

[@sprouts]

@@luk4aaaa I have no idea.

[@AhmetSelimSemsisy]

Socialism

[@marcosjosesouzaoliveira8363]

There’s is always a third option. Tripatism

[@Guille07m]

People in Venezuela seem content? What the fuck?

[@iilm2004]

Great video

[@sprouts]

Thank you !

[@proclaimliberty]

This was a great video!

[@sprouts]

Glad you liked it!

[@Gabibbominchiarossa]

The economic freedom map is made and funded by american billionaires and they just marked in red the country they dont like😂

[@djetm]

And where is the northern countries like Norway? We consider ourselves socialists. And North Korea is a dictatorship

[@sprouts]

Norway is extremely rich thanks to its oil.

[@Laskuna]

Norway's economic freedom score is 77.5, making its economy the 10th freest in the 2024 Index of Economic Freedom.

[@djetm]

@@sprouts I know - I live here.

[@Tsukiyomi_]

I’ve seen many Norwegians say otherwise

[@Laskuna]

Bad explanation. bad definition of both systems. For example: <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="130">2:10</a> in socialism selling apples are not regulated, but are prohibitet, people cant sell anything because there is no private property, and all means are owned by community and democratically decides how to share them. Regulation is a characteristic of a mixed system.

[@ariace3602]

Your definition is for higher stages of socialism, since this a brief and introductory video, let's stick to the lower stages

[@Laskuna]

@@ariace3602 First time i come across the term "lower stages socialism". So lower stages socialism is just a regulated capitalism ?

[@ariace3602]

@@Laskuna Kinda like how socialism is a lower (transitory) stage of communism. No, private property will be abolished but the market will persist

[@Laskuna]

@@ariace3602 Still a very vague definition. According to it, it is difficult to distinguish "real socialism" (small trade and small business were allowed, in addition to central planning) like a in the Eastern Bloc until the fall of the USSR, from contemporary social democracy. I have come across an unofficial definition that the boundary between capitalism and socialism is marked by the existence of a stock exchange where property titles can be exchanged

[@Secret_Moon]

@@Laskuna What you described is communism. It's different from socialism.

[@vincenzhog8347]

this is wrong in so many ways..

[@juricakonsec2337]

@sprouts: Half of my comments here disappeared. Perhaps also post to a better platform? Have a good day.

[@rickdworsky6457]

Were you trying to post disturbing content?

[@juricakonsec2337]

@@rickdworsky6457, it had capitalism, socialism, Marxism, communism, wokeism and radical progressivism in it. How disturbing can that be?

[@sprouts]

Just that? 🙄

[@juricakonsec2337]

@@sprouts, literally: "Marx(ist) socialism is a temporary system to be used during the dictatorship of the proletariat run by the communist party in order to transition to a classless society - to communism. The core of the real socialism is the degree of state control over the economy."

[@juricakonsec2337]

@@sprouts, some of the missing comments were posted under @Cartman87725: "Well. This isn't the marx sozialism"

[@bAa-xj3ut]

👏👏👏👏👏👏

[@jasmyneleo9527]

This video missed unfortunately. socialism isnt when the government does stuff. this is very biased and completely lacks nuance. many socialist countries are poor because of sanctions from capitalist nations.