Great suggestion! Thank you!

I would like to see the ideas of sustainability integrated into a socialist framework and what that looks like. It would inclide degrowth in some areas.

@@IllustratetoEducate@IllustratetoEducate a sidebar, I have a lot of chords & friends who are feeling the pain of Joe Biden. My friends had confidence in America and switched his or her pay to USA dollars ... sadly, that was a very bad decision. With sleepy & corrupt Joe in office, how much ground has the dollar lost? I think this information, in your format, should be an eye-opener. Sadly, too many left-minded people are clueless when it comes to value, work, money, and ethics. When it comes to these left-minded people ... well, I don't have the patience to try & communicate with them...other than discovering these people's buttons and pressing them. Left-minded people, well, it doesn't take much for them to have an epic & hysterical meltdown. P.S. these meltdowns are awesome fodder material, but sadly, I have yet to make one of their heads implode (like in the movie Scanners)

@@eaglestryker1338socialism calls for a governmental reform, first and foremost, and it’s a bridge between capitalism and communism

Capitalism lifted millions of people out of poverty since the 1400s

Well… for the host country, yeah, but it’s only affordable by the ludicrously rich ones, and kinda just outsourced the suffering of capitalism to others, though it is better, it’s not a long-term solution.

@eaglestryker1338 governmental reform is one of the fjrst priorities, and the sample group of politicians will drastically expand, allowing for higher representation of the people and workers in the government. Past socialist countries have actually had constitutions and amendments made via the idea contributions of literally millions of their citizens.

That's why the most successful nations on earth are capitalist nations, and all the socialists are shitholes right?

Canada and US are being destroyed by socialists now.

What makes you "feel" it would work, when every time this stupid system was out into practice, it ended in horrific misery? That is a serious question. After 100+ years of something not working(and at an abysmal cost), how are you not embarrassed to say you "feel" it "might work"? Try thinking instead of feeling for once.

@@user-iu1ru1qz7uI gave it some more thought and realized that socialism can actually be pretty useful in the future once automation has taken up most jobs. Work would entirely be optional at that point.

@@_icey have you ever seen anybody get paid for becoming obsolete? Do you think people are spending their own money in r&d of automation, so that you can sit at home and live for free? I don't think you thought at all.

@@user-iu1ru1qz7u Well, how are we gonna live once automation, ai, etc takes all the jobs? What's your idea?

Thank you! I'm glad you find the video and the channel overall to be easy to understand!

​​​​​​@@IllustratetoEducateYou are spreading misinformation and ignorance. Socialism is nonprofit for the purpose of saving the less profitable routes from going out of business. The more successful products don't capitalize in socialism. And the better hamburger capitalizes in capitalism. Your video is talking about the people are equal. Vs the products are equal. Do you see the switch-a-roo in ignorance? The USPS has different pay rates to the government jobs. People getting better paychecks will live a better life. The two economics systems are taking about the more profitable routes capitalize or not capitalize. Please tell you narcissist boss they are stupid. #FBI #KZfaq #misinformation

Socialists are destroying my Canada now. It's a socialist third world sh*thole now.

This video focuses on the fantastical positives that no Socialist system has ever achieved. And then it gave very brief and very Negatives at the end of the video which no one ever makes it to.

but we need to have these pro socialist people spend quality time with Dr. Phil. Anyone that wants socialism is broken, weak, lazy, mentally defective but worse is how morally bankrupted he or she is

My thought exactly. It was distorting to only cite pariah states like N.Korea, China and USSR as Socialist, (instead of Communist) without mentioning successful European examples.

Nordic Countries are not socialist, they are capitalist with social programs. Additionally the nordic countries are a homogenous society.

Nordic here, and the answer is yes and no. Yes - I do think we currently have the most sustainable economic model, but since 1980 the "socialism" part has fallen out of favor and we're mostly a capitalist nation too, albeit with free education, free healthcare and a somewhat working security net. But the rich are getting richer fast, and poverty is increasing. While the 80s were the catalyst - Norwegian politicians being influenced by Reagan and Thatcher - the 90s was when thing really started getting less equal with the part-privatization of most stated owned companies like Statoil (Now equinor), Norwegian Hydro and others

@@anofsti We have had a hybrid system in the USA also, though not as comprehensive as yours. When progressives try to add healthcare and education to that system, right wingers start crying Communism as if we will turn into the pariah states that I mentioned previously. Weirdly the poorest states who would benefit the most, tend to send Republican Fascist types to Washington. I have no sympathy for them as they love poverty and stupidity. Reagan was the start of our current race to the bottom.

@@fredfox3851 true, in many ways FDR and the New Deal was the template for many of the post war social and economic policies in Western Europe

Alot of states that claim to be socialist, either have their own "form" of socialism, or, they're falsely claiming to be socialist.

I live in Germany and as you know Germany is very much capitalist country. But there are aspects there are organised in socialist ways. For instance our healthcare system is privatised, you chose your own provider but your employer will fully pay for it, and apart from this monthly healthcare plan you pay zero for anything else, than can be visit at your doctor, specialist, therapist, hospitals, operations. Other example is education, college is for free, as a 37 year old person i can still go to college. Nobody has to live in poverty in Germany, people that live on the streets are mostly addicts or people with mental health issues that refuse to get help. Anyone that loses a job will get monthly minimum wage from government and money for accommodation. This help is not limited, you will receive this help as long as its needed. If there will be no jobs in your sector, you will be offered education for other sectors. I was born in Slovenia in a time where we transitioned from being a socialist country to capitalist country. I wrote an extensive comment about it few posts up, in case you are curious

@@Nina.Mandarina great

One reason might be that the country is poor and the poverty is based on that not on the socialist system, plus lots of times other non-socialist countries will intervene in other countries affairs to make money even rigging elections plus capitalism and socialism is on a spectrum and some countries will go certain ways on different issues.

@@92calebnewmancapitalism what’s you to be dependant

Yes and the other law is that workers get first rights to buy a private company when sold and in some cases Govt even loans the cash. Workers owning the means of production underpins the whole of socialism but often gets lost in the noise. By contrast Sweden taxes high and reallocates funding for free health, free education and social security. Kind of socialist governments but not forin the Marxist sense.

@@marksmit8112 And Sweden is having problems now because they let in migrants who don't work and want free handouts from the government.

You mean people rejected stealing from business owners? How horrible!!!

More efficient because people are exploidet. I dont know If this is a good thing

@@Flo-cg2jl exploited how?

@Flo do you seriously mean workers under socialism are more exploited compared to workers under capitalism? Because if that's really the case, I invite you to Google the USSR's 3h workdays...

@@sethroseblood9456 the difference between socialism and capitalism is that under capitalism you voluntarily choose were to work while in socialism the state choose it for you.

@@sethroseblood9456 yes the bastion of success, the USSR.

Same

Thank you! 🙏🏼

Thank you so much! I really appreciate that compliment 😊

Nationalization is a very common thing under socialist countries, but often it’s for key industries that provide the most pivot to change the economic system. It tends to be a semi-necessary stage, though the government can merely nationalize as a way to hand the means of production to the workers while holding it up via regulations and incentives, sorta like a cooperative system with government regulation. The main priority for the state would generally be to make it as democratic, transparent, and regulated as possible, sorta like the people and the government are two things chained together and leaning forward in opposite directions. Intellectual property is less of a priority, sometimes being eliminated and used for the public, though the creator of those ideas does get compensation and credit for it.

Great suggestion! I’ll do that one after the one I’m working on. So plan on it in two weeks from today.

@@IllustratetoEducate awesome

As was said in the video socialism is a regime where means of production are collectively owned, while communism is the classless, moneyless, stateless society. The USSR is called "communist" despite it being a state, because communists were in power and their goal was to create such society, but until they reached that goal their countries are socialist.

Of course not! What is it you have to pay?

That’s more of a capitalist thing, especially in more authoritarian capitalist forms, but if a company fails, the money from it tends to just be sent elsewhere to strengthen others, or surplus from the country goes to propping it up without using real “taxation” in most ways.

Have a taste liber-tea

The means of production tend to change hands via revolution, where the government takes a sort of reset of control and is expanded, decorrupted (sometimes), and sort of recreated itself via mass participation from the people, including scholars, party members, the average worker, ex-managers, etc. The redistribution process often comes from nationalizing certain key industries (not always required at a great extent) and then the government (which becomes a lot more directly democratized) creates a workforce out of it, sets up the rules, decides how people get paid, how people are hired and included, and what needs to be done. Often businesses do vote for their leaders/managers, and can rid themselves of that leader whenever they do chose. Referendums in the nation do often become more common, while the government also does get a bit hands-on with the companies, acting similar to a proxy if that’s how you prefer to describe it. It may seem like a disaster, but the changes in pay tend to make the management of the workplace work a lot better, since the previous theft of capitalists on your total contribution to the business disappears. Under the assumption that a company was made, it would likely have to be approved by the community area, have a set of rules and standards to keep it fair, and the managers would be elected. For new workers, the system works about the same, and specialized workers are very highly valued in general as managers. Getting a job hasn’t really been a problem, it’s growing in that job that was sorta sacrificed when the Soviets went more authoritarian, though since that’s a defensive mechanism against invading nations, let’s assume that’s not a problem here. Generally, pay is given by the contribution you make to the company, with a smaller percentage of that money being “taxed” (its more moved to keep the public funded and working, though it has differences from taxes) than before. The more you work, the higher you can get paid. Though people cannot use the money of other workers to get paid much higher, it does have sizeable differences, especially when certain jobs have a higher level of contribution per person, meaning that the more advanced and specialized a job is, the better it pays. Sometimes the community creates the worker benefits instead of the company itself, though since the company democratically managed itself, it can negotiate with the community to be self-sustaining or to simply provide its own benefits alongside the public. It’s complicated, but largely different in many ways with a very different approach than the usual capitalist country.

@@KenH60109 I like the thought put in to your response and there is alot to it so apologies if I have missed certain parts. Though I like the idea of the vision. I see very sizable flaws in it. To begin with the government will not be more democratized there are too many people in most countries for individuals to have a hands on role in government and come to a consensus on topics efficiently without the aid of representation. Another flaw I see is that who measures what your contribution to the output of a product or service your labor is? Companies make money on your labor in capitalism because they are providing you infrastructure, knowledge and or goods to make your labor into a product or service that is marketable. If I gave you a contract and said I would train you to do something and give you the goods/facility to do that thing should I not make money off of your output? If I am not making money from your output then why did I spend the time and money on training you or giving you the raw materials/facility to produce the good?

It doesn't. It just means the government takes everything, and everyone ends up with nothing. Every. Single. Time.

That’s a bit disingenuous. People would own the means of production. There are many proposed ways of doing this, aside from what was listed in the video, workers would have ownership in the companies they work in, like through stock ownership for example. Plus the “government” you speak of is still made up of the people democratically, so if anything, they’d have more representation and control over what happens. It’s weird how people forget true socialism when practiced by its definition, must run in a democratic society in order to function.

@@Rastaferrari829 I'm disingenuous? You are projecting a fantasy about "true socialism". There are myriad examples of where socialism has been instituted as a government economy system in the last 100 years. Not only did the people have nothing to say about how things were done, millions of them died as a direct result of the socialism system. The reason there has never been "democratic socialism" is because the system requires autocratic one party rule to function. A wise man once said "Socialism would be a great system if it didn't involve people"..

@@TheBruces56 Before the USSR was established syndicalism (and ideologies based on similar principles) were dominant and in such regimes the workers would pretty much own the means of production. About "no socialism worked" the problem is that the USSR didn´t want to export its ideology and when it did it exported it was Stalinism, which doesn´t work, yet all its allies were pretty much based on same ideology (with local changes and than natural changes as time went, but still from same ideology), which then failed, but it just proves that stalinism doesn´t work. About other socialist ideologies (which have many variations and for example communists and anarchists were basically opposites in almost every way) there were just two superpowers and their respective blocks... and neither of them wanted another socialist countries. The West, because "socialism=bad" and Soviets, because it might show that there are bettera lternatives to their system, so create regime build on completely new ideology, without allies, and survive was pretty hard. Soviets originaly believed in more benevolent regime, but than saw that their revolution wouldn´t survive and so they became more strict. Allende in Chile didn´t plan to abandon democracy and so the USA couped him. Czechoslovakia wanted to create more free communist country, so the USSR invaded it. Socialist in Spain had many different ideas, so both the West and the East sabotaged them...

Yes just like a capitalist economy, But instead of it being a direct system of buying a portion of a company or an asset, it’s a system of high taxation which pays for the collective ownership of the means of production, housing, etc.

​@@J90I true.✊️

You are correct there has been a mix and public-private ownership, govt ownership is likely a better hybrid model bar revolution. Worker coops, which is quintessential socialism the stratification is much less but they dont all get paid the same, however they have more opportunity to contribute and they share the rewards and decide what, how, where and when things get produced and what they will do with the profits

You are pretending socialism isn't socialism because they just didn't do it right. Social democracy is socialism in every way.

I can agree with you on that. It's hard to find a the place where something is informative but simple.

China, USSR and Cuba are crap examples of socialism

I think their efficiency wasn’t as much of a concern as over bureaucratization and outside pressure was. Personally, I think it was actually surprisingly efficient for a bit, but the problem was that socialist countries aren’t supposed to be purely self-sustaining without other nations that’ll assist one another (they have to be socialist themselves because unequal exchange would drain their economy otherwise). If they try that too long, it kinda tends to rebound. Not to mention, Cuba was poor to begin with, and focused too much on monopolizing sugar and using that as an economic base. Overall they made a lot of mistakes, but Cuba had a much worse ending despite still being alive.

Yeah he would definitely say that. haha

Consider how many people Elon Musk employs in his various companies, and by extension the companies his companies have to do business with. Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system in history, by far.

Why?

​@@ExpatriatePaulhow

@@crazypato3752 Via free market trade, apparently objective history is not your forte.

Hurrr durrr that's not real socialism

@@bazinga-tt9pj that's the point Both are state capitalist not socialist

@@TheLuxGuy2018 ussr never has been, china only after 1989 reforms (and only to some degree while progressing through the years)

State capitalism is a contradiction in terms. Capitalism is private ownership in the means of production. Socialism is the social ownership of the means of production. The state is a social institution. They were socialist.

@@Nanofuture87the few in the gov that control everything is state capitalism

I believe most of us are fine with the system we have now, but we could do a better job of not letting monopolies grow so large

Why bother watching a video if you are both uneducated and have a closed mind. Waste of time

Communism is a stateless and classless society so it is basically impossible. Socialism is meant to achieve communism. Also refer to above

USSR was a socialist state that tried to transition to a Communist Society but it never happened

China tried to do the same thing but It's now State Capitalist with a Mixed Market economy

Socialist, they called themselves communist because that was the end goal.

The few over the many, its unfair and killing the earth

You need to educate yourself 😂

@@marksmit8112 I have. Still against it, it would mean more taxes to pay for programs I don't support.

@@badconnection4383 Some people like free health care, free education, free lunches is schools, universal income, infrastructure, environmental protection.

@@marksmit8112 And others like leeching off those systems so they can be a Lambo. Not everyone on government assistance needs it, education's already free in the US and I've never paid for anything at my schools. You can see the "free" in the food quality.

Why not use taxes for that instead of sending all of our tax money to war and genocide? Israel is the most US funded military. Look at what are taxes are used for NOW ​@@badconnection4383

Who?

Socialist model as proposed by Marx, who never talked about is coops. The working model is here kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bsCffJN0ltO0lZ8.html

Move to Cuba or China

Socialism is good if done correctly

@@haiiwje name one place in history ? Ok than

​@phantomsylla4617 its never been done correctly that's why

@@originalname1008 OH ISNT THAT IRONIC THAT THE VERY THING U PPL ATE PUSHING FOR HAS NEVER WORKED OUT IN HUMAN HISTORY 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭UR JUST PROVING OUR POINT MORE.

That was lenin. Both socialists and Marx Himself would disagree.

@@MiserableMuon Well, those "socialists" you refer to are frogs in the pot of water setting on the stove. And as far as Marx is concerned, it is HIS principles that Communism is based on. They're "kissing" cousins and the "distant cousin" in the mix is liberalism.

@@sess122 agreed.

Yet USSR never attained socialism outside agricultural reform. Lenin and co failed so not sure why you point to that example😄

Amen to that

So why are so many illegals coming from Venezuela?

Because nowadays we are lead to believe socialism is just so bad, there is no room for socialism to come anymore because we all think it is bad (but truly it is not)

@@bacon7149 I don’t think that’s a reason though, ofc there’s distain and prejudice against it. If it was truly a good system I would think there would be at least one country where socialism is actually prevalent and successful. I would probably think that the reason is because socialism makes the country as a whole weaker. Not as in happiness of the people but just in relationships with other countries in general. Politicians and rich people take away from the poor to represent the country as a greater power such as in trade. I would love free health care and education, and it kinda exists in some places. I’m not trying to be argumentative btw just trying to learn.

Because There isn't much socialist nations

​@@reer3192 Socialism has been tried throughout history, but they didn't win the battle in the ideological war. There's for many years been a conflict, like the Soviet Union VS The United States. Also the "cold war" was an ideological war in some sense. What was unfortunate though is the socialist side, eastern side had always been rural and the socialist revolutions always ended up in tolitarian nations crushing its people through the state. Where now people don't really like that, and when you look at it overall you see the pattern. All these eastern "socialist" or "communist" countries were rural and the people suffered, for example the holodomor, where as in the western capitalist countries people were living a decent life, especially the rich. Without looking into the different variants socialism can come in, like democratic socialism or generally just the more libertarian variants (contradicting to the authoritarian variants, meaning anything from an ordinary democratic state to decentralized and stateless society) without looking at that, and just looking at history with socialism and capitalism. People will ultimately choose the western countries to live in, and understandably so because the eastern "socialist" countries were very crappy and most still are, also looking at current China where the state still holds large authority and well it's practically a tolitarian regime. In that sense you can see history has proven "socialism" wrong, but only some variants, and now this is the aftermath. You can see people are realizing it, you see Bernie Sanders talking about democratic socialism and social democracy, and the nordic countries. But another thing is just capitalist propaganda, media is mostly owned by corporations, and they sorta require capitalism to even work and for the owners to profit millions and billions while workers live on minimal wage, deluded by a fake illusion that says "work hard and you'll get rich" when reality is far off. My idea is just that socialism is often mixed with tolitarian socialism, which is the most popular socialist variant to date. But it is not the socialism that's evil, it's the authoritarianism and dictatorship which people THINK is socialism and the way it theoritically could work, when in reality socialism is a large branch of ideologies and politics. Although it's not that people don't know what something like democratic socialism or libertarian socialism is (and everything alike) people also simply don't have faith in it. And are also lead to believe these ideologies are fantasy ideas that will never succeed because they are contrary to human nature for example, like humans being greedy, but then you can question "Why did cave men do any work then? When they could only serve their tribe and not only their own self interests?". Also a critique of more democratic state socialism is that the people will just with the usage of democracy tilt to capitalism more again, and the entire socialist plan is ruined because the people would rather serve themselves in a capitalist society. Without taking in regard the possibility (the VERY likely possibility) that future generations will have greater access to education and a more critical mindset, will break free from the influence of corporatist propaganda. Currently, we are bombarded with messages that equate free enterprise and free markets with "freedom," while dismissing alternative plans as "unfree." Our society fosters a sense of greed from an early age, as many of us feel compelled to prioritize our own survival above all else. But it is essential to recognize that human nature extends beyond greed and self-interest.

@@bacon7149I am a socialist, but my aunt thinks that if people cannot make millions then some people will not have anything to keep them going. Personally I disagree because people would still be able to work their way up and learn different skills.

Really? Damn. Most people don't because of how much lies some of his citations uses so this is new.

@@Avaitor_YT well I don't look at just him. Second thought has amazing content. Even if people say he lies, I had to look at other sources to confirm most of it so far. I can confirm it is true, but I suggest you still do your research sense. I'm not an expert or great at explaining stuff.

@@andrewreynolds912 Of course. However if you don't include A little bit of information from your opposing sides you will always be politically ignorant too! And yeah, not everything he says is a lie but with some videos in particular he uses citations that just... Aren't trustworthy enough. And my main problem is you can sometimes tell he picks on citation and doesn't go beyond that. And also sometimes tries to use historical events and twist them in his favor. So yeah, it is good that you don't just color him as he can sometimes not get his citations right or use bullet points to prove A point.

@@Avaitor_YT I still try to look at the strong arguments against socialism to get the better picture, even if those could still be addressed but really I love his content but then again I wish he didn't have to be this way even tho yes capitalism is obsolete and it needs to go I still wish he was more honest even tho he tries to keep it brief and sometimes only doing things that are half truths or telling them but not telling how complex it is.

@@Avaitor_YT which is why I still look at other sources to make sure it's not just one ya know.

Not necessarily, the more authoritarian of socialist countries became like that as a defensive mechanism. The USSR and CCP weren’t meant to be so militaristic and restraining, but when you’re a socialist country in a sea of capitalism, militarism becomes a necessity, and maximizing efficiency suddenly trumps the actual goals they hold, leading the promises only be half-way fulfilled once they’ve gained stability, though at the high cost of life and liberty.

@@KenH60109 The reason the USSR went full authoritarian almost immediately was because they wanted to stamp out any possible remaining opposition from the Russian civil war. The first Gulags opened in 1918. Potential opposition leaders like Trotsky were hunted down and killed or imprisoned. It had nothing to do with capitalism, the West or anything else.

@@KenH60109 I don't know why my original post isn't showing up, but the gist of it was that it had nothing to do with capitalism or the West. It had everything to do with the paranoia of Lenin and the Politburo and later Stalin. They fought a bitter civil war and sought to stamp out any semblance of opposition to secure their then tenuous hold on power. That's why Lenin started the gulags in 1918. That's why they hunted down and killed Trotsky. They turned Russia into a police state to protect the Party from other Russians, not the West.

its cuba right

@@JanninaMartinez429 kinda sounds like it🤔Maybe those brave souls who travel thousands of miles to escape that “utopia” the left refers to as socialism could explain to America’s liberals just how undesirable the socialist lifestyle is. I wouldn’t mind trading every socialist loving lefty in this country for migrants of Cuba or Venezuela who truly understand the greatness of our economic system.

yeah@@JanninaMartinez429

You… are aware the Cuban revolution wasn’t originally socialist, right? Fidel Castro switched it to socialism when the US got mad and decided to pressure its economy dramatically, forcing the country into the arms of the USSR, who just exploited them all the same way. Everything that could’ve gone wrong with Cuba went wrong, but that was never once caused by socialist policy, that was almost entirely because of the outside world.

@@KenH60109 those who advocate for a system which bails themselves out from their own laziness do so because the refuse to take responsibility for their own failures in life. This comment of yours is similarly in the same vein…. Refusing to blame the failed economic system for the horrible lifestyle it produces. If you’re one of those guys who claim to care so much for the migrants, you should stand at the border and encourage the illegals to turn around and go back home. If I saw someone who I cared about moving towards something which I believe is so awful (in this case, capitalism) I’d do everything possible to deter them from moving towards it. However, it’s a bit ironic how the left sees it as being non compassionate if we don’t allow illegals (from socialist nations) to come here and enjoy the evil fruits of capitalism. 🤔

You really need to do some more research. Several countries that have tried it in the past (Chile for One) had the US government come in and destroy it for them because they started doing better. I was a conservative capitalist (even voted for Trump in 2020) but have been doing more research and learning that it’s a horrible way to live. I really hope we can transition to proper socialism.

​@@Truth_Spoken I've done enough research. There are no socialist success stories, but every time that's pointed out, the defense from the apologists is always either "that wasn't True Socialism™", or "The US came in and ruined our utopian experiment". I used to be a brainless pinko, voted for Obama (twice), and Hillary in 2016, before I woke up to the stupidity and malevolence of Marxism and its derivative ideologies, and the horrors perpetrated in their names, the millions of people murdered and enslaved in the pursuit of the "Worker's Paradise".

Bullshit. Educate yourself man its embarassing😂😂😂

Then ask yourself this: what were the conditions of that nation when it was revolting, switching, and maintaining its system? What happened on the outside to affect it? These questions alone have answers that debunk your whole argument in moments. These nations were poor to begin with, they needed security, so tyrants took hold and centralized like crazy to create a force strong enough to withstand their greatest problem: capitalist countries. Countries like the USA, Britain, the EU as a whole to be honest, they isolated and pressured socialist countries, forcing them to create a level of autarky that wasn’t supposed to occur under socialism, since internationalism is a requirement of its existence. Countries intentionally sabotaged the socialist economies, or poor planning was made ahead of time via rushed revolutions or failed democratic shifts that only led to dictatorship via fascists overthrowing the leader (Salvador Allende of Chile, overthrown with help from the CIA in the 70s comes to mind).

It's ironic you try to excuse the failure of socialism by blaming it on "sabotage from capitalist countries", as if socialist countries haven't continually been trying to sabotage capitalist countries 😅 Capitalism isn't the source of the sabotage; socialism doesn't accord with basic economic reality, so it sabotages itself. Nothing exists in a vacuum. And you can hardly expect any country to turn aside from a system which has reliably made its adherents relatively richer and freer, and convince them to embrace one that either has "never been tried" or has failed every time it has been tried.

Basque a province in Spain usthe Marxist model kzfaq.info/get/bejne/bsCffJN0ltO0lZ8.html

America is the single farthest thing from Communism, as it should be, but it's also terrible because there is absolutely no hint of any kind of sympathy or care for the working class

It’s not a long term solution, the problems of socialism came mostly from the outside attacks of capitalist countries, not inherent economic flaws (mismanagement was the main issue, not the system). Social policy sounds nice on paper too, but it can’t be coupled with capitalism in the long term since we’d have to force companies to take a non-profitable route, and if we let it do as it pleases, then capitalism would simply outsource the costs to maintain a social democracy to exploitation of poorer countries and cheaper labor. It actually kinda tightens the system of capitalism, but also gets closer to socialism than usual.

cuba supports socialism as well

Move to Russia, China or Cuba then.

@@mobetterbreaks Nah. I can stay in the states.

@@jazzyj6640 everyone love socialism but don't want to move to a socialist country

@@naturaldisaster2 the beauty of the U.S. is that we have the freedom to believe what we want, practice the religion we want, we are free to think for ourselves here. I don't need to move.

Well I think most economies are mixed systems...

@@leehayes4019 we can say this in a capitalist system......would you call cuba or north korea a mix system?.....if that's your argument then we can say that America is 90% capitalist and 10% socialist???

@@leehayes4019 through an involuntarily tax system

Norway. And please be reasonable, there are generally no objectively right decisions in politics (if we don't go to the extremes, because both unregulated capitalism or authoritarian communism will suck), so the best way to think about social progress is to use the tools ideologies provide to achieve greater well-being of people. So please stop hating the opposing ideology, or at least try to peacefully convert people into yours if you actually want to achieve something and don't talk just for the sake of being smart and cool.

@@user-ds9ng6zh7v lol you lied Norway is no were near socialism....kzfaq.infoRJJJZaeFKuo?feature=share4....here go your reference. So stop trying to find countries to make your point

So how is Cuba and Venezuela doing?

They’re the only ones that have been allowed to function yet, and the ISSR itself was pretty decent after a while, but Stalin made it VERY bloody after a bit.

@@KenH60109 no they werent decent, they were Marxist. The only true socialist nation was the "Inca Empire", unlike Marxism, it was almost perfect aside from the occassional human sacrifice. Authoritarian, theocratic, & socialist. 🏳️‍🌈

From capitalism? Yeah it’s a fuck tonne of people

@@cinder7258 nice dodge!

@HeatGeek1 the numbers of the dead people from the Soviet and CCP era were largely from war, and economic mismanagement of famine, not the system itself. That was the government’s failure over 90% of the time, the system itself tended to be relatively good overall. Capitalism itself kills 20 million per year if we use the same metrics we did oh so liberally from the Soviet and CCP era, so let’s see which one is the real bad guy.

Yes, it is.

Of course it is but it needs to set certain objectives around sustainability

And capitalism can’t be fixed by more capitalism, and regulation has proven not to fix it in a wide enough way to do anything. We can’t stick with it, it’s not gonna last.

The problem with cliches from Thatcher is that people who use then are uneducated, entrenched in their thinking and lack intellect

Wrong where did you get that idea from?

It actually acts in a more efficient manner since needs are supposed to be less of a worry. Wants are the main focus, both in material wants the average person can access, and in gaining skills. Much of the lack of rising through ranks type of issue came from near complete government control and an extremely extensive welfare state that, even when trying to maximize efficiency, simply didn’t have the money to make that work due to lacking trade with the rest of the world.

But that proves that they aren't socialist 😏

You just unintentionally proved that they aren’t socialist, so congratulations, though between the two, Cuba is a lot closer. Cuba however IS open to private companies, but it’s been so impoverished by the American embargo that no one would touch it.

@@KenH60109 Actually no,,,Cuba Venezuela and Argentina all have a habit of expropriating business and making private businesses state owned. I love when you lefties blame an american embargo for stupid squandering of money. Castro wasted all of cubas reserves in 2 years and they have just been going downhill ever since. Venezuela sits on the biggest oil reserves on planet earth but oh yeah,,,american embargo ruined everything,,,,Have either of you been to Cuba? I have,,,it could be MUCH better let me tell you.