Capitalism and Socialism: Crash Course World History #33

Capitalism and Socialism: Crash Course World History #33


Hi, I’m John Green, this is Crash Course World
History, and today we’re going to talk about capitalism. Yeah, Mr. Green, capitalism just turns men
into wolves. Your purportedly free markets only makes slave of us all.. Oh god Stan, it’s me from college. Me from
the past has become me from college. This is a disaster! The reason he’s so unbearable,
Stan, is that he refuses to recognize the legitimacy of other people’s narratives. And
that means that he will never ever be able to have a productive conversation with another
human in his entire life. So listen, me from the past. I’m gonna disappoint
you by being too capitalist. And I’m gonna disappoint a lot of other people by not being
capitalist enough. And I’m gonna disappoint the historians by not using enough jargon.
But what can I do? We only have twelve minutes! Fortunately, capitalism is all about efficiency. So let’s do this, me from college: Randy [Ransom]
Riggs becomes a best-selling author, Josh Radnor stars in a great sitcom, it is NOT
going to work out with Emily, and do NOT go to Alaska with a girl you’ve known for ten
days. Okay, let’s talk capitalism. So capitalism is an economic system, but it’s
also a cultural system. It’s characterized by innovation and investment to increase wealth.
But today, we’re going to focus on production and how industrial capitalism changed it.
Stan, I can’t wear these emblems of the bourgeoisie while Karl Marx himself is looking at me,
it’s ridiculous. I’m changing! Very hard to take off a shirt
dramatically. So let’s say it’s 1200 CE and you’re a rug
merchant. Just like merchants today, you sometimes need to borrow money in order to buy the rugs
you want to resell at a profit, and then you pay that money back, often with interest,
once you’ve resold the rugs. This is called mercantile capitalism, and it was a global
phenomenon, from the Chinese, to the Indian Ocean trade network, to Muslim merchants who
would sponsor trade caravans across the Sahara. But by the 17th century, merchants in the
Netherlands and in Britain had expanded upon this idea to create joint stock companies.
Those companies could finance bigger trade missions and also spread the risk of international
trade. But the thing about international trade is that sometimes boats sink or they get taken
by pirates, and while that’s bad if you’re a sailor because, you know, you lose your
life, it’s really bad if you’re a mercantile capitalist because you lost all your money.
But if you own one-tenth of ten boats, your risk is much better managed. That kind of
investment definitely increased wealth, but it only affected a sliver of the population
and it didn’t create a culture of capitalism. Industrial capitalism was something altogether
different, both in scale and in practice. Let’s use Joyce Appleby’s definition of industrial
capitalism: “An economic system that relies on investment of capital in machines and technology that
are used to increase production of marketable goods.” So imagine that someone made a Stan machine
(by the way Stan, this is a remarkable likeness) and that Stan machine could produce and direct
10 times more episodes of Crash Course than a human Stan. Well, of course, even if there
are upfront costs I’m going to invest in a Stan machine so I can start cranking out 10
times the knowledge – Stan, are you focusing on the robot instead of me? I AM THE STAR
OF THE SHOW. Stanbot, you’re going behind the globe. So when most of us think about capitalism,
especially when we think about its downsides – long hours, low wages, miserable working
conditions, child labor, unemployed Stans – that’s what we’re thinking about. Now admittedly,
this is just one definition of industrial capitalism among many, but it’s the definition
we’re going with. All right, let’s go to the Thought Bubble.
Industrial capitalism developed first in Britain in the 19th century. Britain had a bunch of
advantages – it was the dominant power on the seas, and it was making good money off
its trade with its colonies, including the slave trade; also, the growth of capitalism
was helped by the half-century of civil unrest that resulted from the 17th century English
Civil War. Now, I’m not advocating for civil wars or
anything but in this particular case it was useful because before the war, the British
crown had put a lot of regulations on the economy: complicated licenses, royal monopolies,
etc. But during the turmoil it couldn’t enforce them, which made for freer markets. Another factor was a remarkable increase in
agricultural productivity in the 16th century. As food prices started to rise, it became
profitable for farmers, both large and small, to invest in agricultural technologies that
would improve crop yields. Those higher prices for grain probably resulted from population
growth, which in turn was encouraged by increased production of food crops. A number of these agricultural improvements
came from the Dutch, who had chronic problems feeding themselves, and discovered that planting
different kinds of crops, like clover, that added nitrogen to the soil and could be used
to feed livestock at the same time, meant that more fields could be used at once. This
increased productivity, eventually brought down prices, and this encouraged further innovation in
order to increase yield to make up for the drop in prices. Lower food prices had an added benefit: since
food cost less and wages in England remained high, workers would have more disposable income,
which meant that if there were consumer goods available, they would be consumed, which incentivized
people to make consumer goods more efficiently, and therefore more cheaply. You can see how
this positive feedback loop leads to more food, and more stuff, culminating in a world
where people have so much stuff that we must rent space to store it, and so much food that
obesity has become a bigger killer than starvation. Thanks, Thought Bubble. So this increased productivity also meant
that fewer people needed to work in agriculture in order to feed the population. To put this
in perspective, in 1520, 80% of the English population worked the land. By 1800, only
36% of adult male laborers were working in agriculture, and by 1850, that percentage
had dropped to 25. This meant that when the factories started
humming, there were plenty of workers to hum along with them. Especially child laborers.
So far all this sounds pretty good, right? I mean, except for the child labor – who wouldn’t
want more, cheaper food? Yeah, well, not so fast. One of the ways the British achieved all this
agricultural productivity was through the process of enclosure, whereby landlords would
reclaim and privatize fields that for centuries had been held in common by multiple tenants.
This increased agricultural productivity, but it also impoverished many tenant farmers,
many of whom lost their livelihoods. Okay, for our purposes capitalism is also
a cultural system, rooted in the need of private investors to turn a profit. So the real change
needed here was a change of mind. People had to develop the capitalist values of taking
risks and appreciating innovation. And they had to come to believe that making an upfront
investment in something like a Stan Machine could pay for itself and then some. One of the reasons that these values developed
in Britain was that the people who initially held them were really good at publicizing
them. Writers like Thomas Mun, who worked for the English East India Company, exposed
people to the idea that the economy was controlled by markets. And other writers popularized
the idea that it was human nature for individuals to participate in markets as rational actors. Even our language changed: the word “individuals”
did not apply to persons until the 17th century. And in the 18th century, a “career” still
referred only to horses’ racing lives. Perhaps the most important idea that was popularized
in England was that men and women were consumers as well as producers and that this was actually
a good thing because the desire to consume manufactured goods could spur economic growth.
“The main spur to trade, or rather to industry and ingenuity, is the exorbitant appetite
of men, which they will take pain to gratify,” so wrote John Cary, one of capitalism’s cheerleaders,
in 1695, and in talking about our appetite, he wasn’t just talking about food. That doesn’t
seem radical now, but it sure did back then. So here in the 21st century it’s clear that
industrial capitalism – at least for now – has won. [Aside to Marx] Sorry buddy, but you know,
you gave it a good run. You didn’t know about Stalin. But capitalism isn’t without its problems,
or its critics, and there were certainly lots of shortcomings to industrial capitalism in
the 19th century. Working conditions were awful. Days were long, arduous, and monotonous.
Workers lived in conditions that people living in the developed world today would associate
with abject poverty. One way that workers responded to these conditions was by organizing
into labor unions. Another response was in many cases purely theoretical: socialism,
most famously Marxian socialism. I should probably point out here that socialism
is an imperfect opposite to capitalism, even though the two are often juxtaposed. Capitalism’s
defenders like to point out that it’s “natural,” meaning that if left to our own devices, humans
would construct economic relationships that resemble capitalism. Socialism, at least in
its modern incarnations, makes fewer pretenses towards being an expression of human nature;
it’s the result of human choice and human planning. So, socialism, as an intellectual construct,
began in France. How’d I do, Stan? Mm, in the border between Egypt and Libya. There were two branches of socialism in France,
Utopian and revolutionary. Utopian socialism is often associated with Comte de Saint Simon
and Charles Fourier, both of whom rejected revolutionary action after having seen the
disaster of the French Revolution. Both were critical of capitalism and while
Fourier is usually a punchline in history classes because he believed that, in his ideal
socialist world, the seas would turn to lemonade, he was right that human beings have desires
that go beyond basic self interest, and that we aren’t always economically rational actors. The other French socialists were the revolutionaries,
and they saw the French Revolution, even its violence, in a much more positive light. The
most important of these revolutionaries was Auguste Blanqui, and we associate a lot of
his ideas with communism, which is a term that he used. Like the Utopians, he criticized
capitalism, but he believed that it could only be overthrown through violent revolution
by the working classes. However, while Blanqui thought that the workers
would come to dominate a communist world, he was an elitist. And he believed that workers
on their own could never, on their own, overcome their superstitions and their prejudices in
order to throw off bourgeois oppression. And that brings us to Karl Marx, whose ideas
and beard cast a shadow over most of the 20th century. Oh, it’s time for the Open Letter?
An Open Letter to Karl Marx’s Beard. But, first, let’s see what’s in the secret
compartment today. Oh, robots. Stan Bots! Two Stan Bots, one of them female! Now I own
all the means of production. You’re officially useless to me, Stan. Now, turn the camera
off. Turn the ca– I’m going to have to get up and turn the camera off? Stan Bot,
go turn the camera off. Hey there, Karl Marx’s beard. Wow, you are intense. Karl Marx, these days
there are a lot of young men who think beards are cool. Beard lovers, if you will. Those
aren’t beards, those are glorified milk mustaches. I mean, I haven’t shaved for
a couple weeks, Karl Marx, but I’m not claiming a beard. You don’t get a beard by being lazy, you
get a beard by being a committed revolutionary. That’s why hardcore Marxists are literally
known as “Bearded Marxists.” These days, that’s an insult. But you know what, Karl
Marx, when I look back at history, I prefer the bearded communists. Let’s talk about
some communists who didn’t have beards: Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, Joseph freakin’
Stalin with his face caterpillar. So, yeah, Karl Marx’s beard, it’s my great
regret to inform you that there are some paltry beards trying to take up the class struggle
these days. Best Wishes, John Green Although he’s often considered the father
of communism, because he co-wrote The Communist Manifesto, Marx was above all a philosopher
and a historian. It’s just that, unlike many philosophers and historians, he advocated
for revolution. His greatest work, Das Kapital, sets out to
explain the world of the 19th century in historical and philosophical terms. Marx’s thinking
is deep and dense and we’re low on time, but I want to introduce one of his ideas,
that of class struggle. So, for Marx, the focus isn’t on the class,
it’s on the struggle. Basically Marx believed that classes don’t only struggle to make
history, but that the struggle is what makes classes into themselves. The idea is that
through conflict, classes develop a sense of themselves, and without conflict, there
is no such thing as class consciousness. So, Marx was writing in 19th century England
and there were two classes that mattered: the workers and the capitalists. The capitalists
owned most of the factors of production (in this case, land and the capital to invest
in factories). The workers just had their labor. So, the class struggle here is between
capitalists, who want labor at the lowest possible price, and the workers who want to
be paid as much as possible for their work. There are two key ideas that underlie this
theory of class struggle. First, Marx believed that “production,” or work, was the thing
that gave life material meaning. Second, is that we are by nature social animals. We work
together, we collaborate, we are more efficient when we share resources. Marx’s criticism of capitalism is that capitalism
replaces this egalitarian collaboration with conflict. And that means that it isn’t a
natural system after all. And by arguing that capitalism actually isn’t consistent with
human nature, Marx sought to empower the workers. That’s a lot more attractive than Blanqui’s
elitist socialism, and while purportedly Marxist states like the USSR usually abandon worker
empowerment pretty quickly, the idea of protecting our collective interest remains powerful.
That’s where we’ll have to leave it for now, lest I start reading from The Communist
Manifesto. But, ultimately socialism has not succeeded
in supplanting capitalism, as its proponents had hoped. In the United States, at least,
“socialism” has become something of a dirty word. So, industrial capitalism certainly seems
to have won out, and in terms of material well-being and access to goods and services for
people around the world, that’s probably a good thing. Ugh, you keep falling over. You’re a great
bit, but a very flimsy one. Actually, come to think of it, you’re more of an 8-bit. But how and to what extent we use socialist
principles to regulate free markets remains an open question, and one that is answered
very differently in, say, Sweden than in the United States. And this, I would argue, is
where Marx still matters. Is capitalist competition natural and good,
or should there be systems in place to check it for the sake of our collective well-being?
Should we band together to provide health care for the sick, or pensions for the old?
Should government run businesses, and if so, which ones? The mail delivery business? The
airport security business? The education business? Those are the places where industrial capitalism
and socialism are still competing. And in that sense, at least, the struggle continues.
Thanks for watching, I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan
Muller. Our script supervisor is Danica Johnson. The show is written by my high school history
teacher, Raoul Meyer and myself. We’re ably interned by Meredith Danko. And our graphics
team is Thought Bubble. Last week’s phrase of the week was “the
TARDIS,” so you can stop suggesting that now! If you want to suggest future phrases
of the week or guess at this week’s, you can do so in comments, where you can also
ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course, and as we
say in my hometown, Don’t Forget To Be Awesome. All right, Stan, bring the movie magic…
Yes!

100 Replies to “Capitalism and Socialism: Crash Course World History #33”

  1. Capitalism is the BOSS. Communists overthrow Capitalism to "protect" the Workers.
    Communism is the BOSS. There is then NOTHING that can overthrow the Communists who treat the workers WORSE in every possible way than the Capitalists ever did.
    Why?
    Capitalism has an abundance of the only 2 motivating tools Man has over Man… The Carrot and The Stick.
    Communism only has an abundance of The Stick because the KILLED all of the people smart enough to recognize, create, and reproduce The Carrots… the Capitalists.
    Communism remains BOSS and collapses into conditions WORSE than Slavery for most everyone.

  2. When you free people to interact with minimal interference from leaders capitalism emerges. It is not socially constructed like Marxist Communism which requires an empowered leadership to own everything collectively and re-distribute wealth from the most productive to the least productive members. This constant re-distribution means that it is NOT a natural or "emergent structure" but a socially constructed one. In Capitalism there are numerous hierarchies of competence (bakers, doctors, plumbers etc) where the best naturally rises to the top according the Pareto Distribution and receive the most for their productivity. What results is something akin to the top 10% of the producers account for 50% of the production. (Which is a natural process seen in nature). The top 10% of the producers also own 50% of the money and can use this to create monopolies, but the nature of the hierarchy is that different people are always cycling through the top 10%. Another example: 50% of the classical music people listen to comes from just 10% of the composers; and 50% of the computing marketplace is owned by 10% of the companies. But if they are fair players within the Capitalistic society, they will grow too big and top-heaving and agile new innovators will eventually replace them.
    Capitalism provides the most financial mobility and is responsible for raising the standard of living by ludicrous proportions in the past 125 years from less than $1 today adjusted for inflation to what we enjoy today; and for reducing the world-wide abject poverty rate by 50% (FIFTY!) between 200 and 2013. The problem with it is that those who for whatever reason cannot manifest the competency to rise through the hierarchy tend to fall out the bottom. There is also great downward mobility in capitalism and the lower 10% of producers tend to get permanently stuck at zero.
    Marxist Communism sought to rectify this. It popularized the idea of not just "class struggle" but outright "class warfare" where the bottom (or failed) producers were told "power" had been exerted over them in an unfair fashion and that those living high-productivity lives had "stolen" that productivity from them. And furthermore, that it was totally justified for them to exercise whatever power was necessary to take it back (Hello antifa). It was the "saintly oppressed" exerting power over "the evil oppressors". But somehow when they arrived in positions with enough power to oppress their former oppressors, they were miraculously not oppressers. Typical BLM rhetoric says for example that Blacks being disingenuous players against Whites are not racist and cannot be racist — because they are were victims of racism and are on a hunt to prove there is still systemic racism against them (even when they enjoy support and advantages others lack).
    So the problems with Marxism is that firstly it's disincentive for the top 10% of the insanely productive producers to produce so the masses can take advantage of it. Their hard work and sacrifice is simply seized and re-distributed.
    The second problem is that when you award and appoint top positions to those who didn't get there by merit of competence, they cannot maintain the infrastructure like those who got there by merit could. The third problem is that the power necessary to assess, seize and re-distribute requires insane power vested in what manifests as the same group of people over time; and power corrupts. The only way to replace them is to betray/kill them. Whereas in Capitalism the nature of human nature means there is always someone innovating a new way to do things and taking the top spots from those currently holding them. Monopolies rarely last beyond 3 generations. And the fourth and most notable problem with Marxist Communism is the horrendous body-count (at least triple that of the Nazis). The only way to deal with those opposed to the social constructionist system, is to "make them disappear". When your clueless appointees to positions of power cause the infrastructure to crumble they are "enemies of the people" and have to disappear. If you keep competent skilled workers around to keep this from happening, they naturally excel over others which blows apart the structure they are "enemies of the people" and they need to disappear. And if they are honest tell leaders their expectations are unrealistic you brand them as "wreckers" and "enemies of the people" and make them disappear. And as those trying to preserve the power to artificially control the social structure become more and more corrupt and paranoid "everyone is a Kulak or Wrecker or Enemy of the People" they tend to be eaten alive by the structure. They are replaced not by the most competent, but the most treacherous and violent, who can muster sufficient group-followings (hello antifa again!). The individual (and their rights) are subsumed by the group. (Andy Ngo is attacked and hospitalized by a uniformly de-individualized group where no individual can be held accountable, just because he was trying to competently do his job).

    Which BTW, is what is happening in the "culture wars" right now, and is rising up through the Left as Marxism usually does. The healthy democratic system that deems the individual as the core element of society comes out of the democratic Left and Right — and also out of Judeo-Christian tradition (the individual "made in God's image"). The toxins come out of the authoritative Left and Right: Marxist Socialism out of the Left and Fascism out of the Right. Both shift the focus/responsibilityblame to groups, are very destructive on the individual and produce horrendous body counts. But the Right (according to the base conservatism personality-type) is well-defined, likes order, exists within well-defined borders. The Left (according to the base liberal personalty-type) is NOT that well-defined, leans towards chaos, and balks at the kinds of borders that would make it easily identifiable. It's easy to spot a fascist and put them in the penalty box as soon as they start talking about ethno-superiority. But neo-Marxism is hard to spot and has already infiltrated schools, the media and politics. The warning-sign is something like when they start talking about "equity of outcome", and blaming groups instead of individuals.

  3. You fail to mention the over 100 million deaths that were directly attributed to socialist/communist policies implemented during the 20th century…I guess it must have slipped your mind๐Ÿ˜‘

  4. @all commentators: Free markets do not depend on capitalism or socialism. Free market is a measure of government intervention. Capitalism/Socialism is a question of who owns the labor (or fruits of labor if that helps). When a product is produced through labor with an identified owner – that ends the question of capitalism/socialism. Afterward it is brought to market. Whether or not there's market regulation, it does not depend on the prior production. This confusion of the two is brought up many atimes. Be inquisitive, and analytical, only you are responsible for your own success.

  5. Poverty and oppression are default human conditions. Historically, more socialism results in more poverty and oppression while more capitalism results in less. It would be good to mention that in a video about history…

  6. This video (maybe inadvertently) indicates that Industrial Capitalism is where child labor comes from…in fact this couldn't be further from the truth. Child labor always existed as part of the human condition…and it existed in the beginning of the industrial capitalist revolution, BUT, the prosperity the industrial capitalism gave us eventually resulted in the conditions where we were wealthy enough to eliminate child labor…and this had never been done before in the world.

    Capitalists countries today have the least amount of child labor, for this very reason.

  7. Bad if you're a sailor and you lose your life ..but REALLY bad if you're a merchant because you lose all your money. Priorities amirite..true capitalism.

  8. very poorly done no wonder younger people know nothing about anything all that was use were buzz words

  9. I'm perfectly happy being a capitalist slave. I chose to spend more time with my family so I am not rich, but I could have been if I wanted to be. Owning our own house and car is enough for some of us thanks. Keep your socialism, I don't hate rich people.

  10. I am sorry, but did I miss when he talked about the millions of people murdered by socialist/communist governments? Because that is really the problem…socialism/communism are the most extreme examples of centralized government. It is an excess of government power that will ALWAYS lead to corruption and the murder of dissidents.

  11. Child labour is required since the beginning. It was and is necessary for the survival of the family. Ever here of chores? Or is that not pc. Children need to learn good work ethic or they will not function well in the real world. The West is in freefall.

  12. Capitalism often great, but Socialist organizations are best in "life or death" situations vulnerable to extortion such as the police, fire department, and healthcare.

  13. Yah socialism is awesome if you donโ€™t depend on things like people working or peak performance.

  14. Socialism country's like Cuba,Venezuela,Nicaragua and Honduras hate capitalism's country's or how there call them imperialism because socialism country's See's United State and other capitalism's country's has empire's

  15. Socialism never was about the love of the poor or working class. It's always been about hatred of the rich.

  16. I just listened to the theme song (0:50) at 0.25 speed and I officially died ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚

  17. This is the meeting forum of a typical uber left wing government.

    Leader, 'We need to borrow more money to fund the social sector, more education, more benefits, more houses.'

    Finance Minister 'We are encountering issues borrowing money, the money markets consider us to be a higher risk, so we will have to cut back on expenditure, this will result in some tough decisions that will effect our voters'.

    Leader 'Comrade, do you not believe in the cause?'

    Finance Minister 'Of course I do comrade, its just proving to be harder than we first thought, and I need your support in understanding the issues I have in my department'

    Leader 'I understand comrade'.

    Next day

    Leader, 'Welcome to the position of Finance Minister comrade, as you are aware your predecessor was not as committed to the cause as we would have hoped, so he has been removed, do you have a finance update for us?'

    Finance Minister 2 'The finances are just fine comrade, there are no issues.'

    Leader, 'The committee are pleased to hear that you have full control over the finances, you are truly committed to the cause.

    Meanwhile, in exile, the old finance minister sits alone with his thoughts, and reflects that his old leaders committee is getting less and less intelligent with each 'resignation' and each new appointment, shakes his or her head, and rues the day that socialism got a grip like vice on his beloved country…….

  18. A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A REPUBLICAN
    A DAY IN THE LIFE OF A REPUBLICAN
    By John Gray

    Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot
    full of good clean drinking water because some liberal fought for
    minimum water quality standards.

    He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His
    medications are safe to take because some liberal fought to insure
    their safety and work as advertised.

    All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers
    medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their
    employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares
    his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe's bacon is safe to
    eat because some liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing
    industry.

    Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; His bottle is
    properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents
    because some liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting
    on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and
    takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some tree-
    hugging liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our
    air.

    He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to
    work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation
    fees. You see, some liberal fought for affordable public
    transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a
    contributor.

    Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay,
    medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some
    liberal union members fought and died for these working standards.
    Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't
    want his employees to call the union.

    If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he'll get a worker
    compensation or unemployment check because some liberal didn't think
    he should loose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

    It's noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some
    bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some
    liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who
    ruined the banking system before the depression.

    Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below
    market federal student loan because some stupid liberal decided that
    Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and
    earned more money over his lifetime.

    Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at
    his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to
    dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because some liberal
    fought for car safety standards.

    He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live
    in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers
    didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electric until
    some big government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and
    demanded rural electrification. (Those rural Republicans would still
    be sitting in the dark)

    He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social
    Security and his union pension because some liberal made sure he could
    take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. After his visit with dad
    he gets back in his car for the ride home.

    He turns on a radio talk show, the host keeps saying that liberals
    are bad and conservatives are good (He doesn't tell Joe that his
    beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit
    Joe enjoys throughout his day). Joe agrees, "We don't need those big
    government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I'm a self-made man
    who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I
    have."

  19. Also at 3:19 Britain was good at stealing and enslaving many nations, taking their wealth for themselves, and thatโ€™s why those nations are still poor today! Itโ€™s in history books.

  20. A golf shirt is almost MORE bourgeoisie. Basically everyone except the socialist ruling class is the bourgeoisie. See how that works? Communists get to power through victim culture… Seem relevant?

  21. Not a word about the tens of millions (close to 100 million) of people murdered by Communists? He did focus on the facial hair, or lack of it, on the mass murderers. You'll get more substantial content in a 5 minute Prager video. If this presenter was a prosecutor tasked with securing a conviction of a murderer, he would focus on the perpetrator's positive points while forgetting to mention the criminal act or the victim.

  22. What's with this whole "child labor" argument. As if children from the beginning of humanity weren't helping there families survive by working the second they could use there hands.

  23. president dictator ฮ ฯฯŒฮตฮดฯฮฟฯ‚ ฮดฮนฮบฯ„ฮฌฯ„ฮฟฯฮฑ says:

    I am capitalist

  24. ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ถ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด

    ๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด๐Ÿ”ด

  25. Wow. What a strange and twisted account of capitalism and socialism. How about telling people how capitalism has brought more people out of poverty than anything else in the history of the world. Or that socialism has decimated the lives of untold millions, throwing them into abject poverty. And, literally killing over 100 million innocent people (not including wars). How socialism always, ALWAYS ends in the enslavement of all. A totalitarian system that enriches the few elite while destroying LIBERTY, FREEDOM, OPPORTUNITY AND CHOICE for all under it. Socialist/communist countries today: China, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea, Russia, Venezuela and Cuba. If it's so great why aren't people flocking to it??? SOCIALISM/COMMUNISIM = SLAVERY.

  26. Would Marxism ever really work? Has it ever been implemented properly or is it that Marxism is doomed to fail because it does not properly account for human nature?

  27. Capitalism produced communism because it was so oppressive, and still is because itโ€™s slavery. Plus US should have built only Tower cities connected to maglev Trains, no cars and houses.

  28. Socialism like Sharia law is antithetical to the United States Constitution, which very strictly limits federal activity. Violation of the Constitution is a felony. Federal drift from
    constitutional boundaries has invited corruption, sunk the nation in debt, and attenuated the liberty of the American people.

  29. The educational system is completely taken over by COMMUNISM and has been for a long time now. That's why these college kids are so damn brainwashed and lack any common sense and are incapable of thinking on their own.

  30. Green praise socialism
    also Green this machine kills fascists
    dude… coherence..
    you praise socialism but you despise nationalsocialism (that's what german nazism and italian fascism were…) fascism in italy was pretty socialist.
    The only fascist dictatorship i know that was not socialist is Pinochet. He was an hardcore neoliberal.. I wonder why they call it fascist..
    But at least people did not starved in Fascist italy ๐Ÿ˜€ (before the war at least)
    Can't say the same in every socialist state ever!
    … xD

  31. i watch the rush hour movie of jackie chan and i hated his black partner, you know why? because he talk too much nonsense like you thumps down

  32. Failed? As in Josip Broz Tito, who united Serbs, Bosnians, Macedonians, Albanians, Slovenians, Croatians didnt work untill he died?

  33. I would like to suggest that a mix of capitalism, socialism and dictatorship (under the right ruler and his advisors) would be the best. Thanks

  34. I could not understand most of what you said because you spoke too fast for me to understand. Will you please slow down your speech. Thank you.

  35. As someone who spent 2008 to 2011 as a modern day hippie stoner and somehow turned into a preppy capitalism-loving finance grad by 2018, I can relate to both "John from college" and "John with blazer".

  36. โ€œ…shortcomings of industrial capitalism: child labor, working conditions were awful, days were long, arduous and monotonous, workers lived in abject poverty…โ€ lol no big deal

  37. Everyone of them have good parts. We need to create a system that takes the good parts of each ism. And ensure we put regulator that allows the people to investigate and press against the people in power who abuse their authority.

  38. The definition of the word Conundrum is: something that is puzzling or
    confusing. Here are six Conundrums of socialism in the United States of
    America: 1. America is capitalist and greedy – yet half of the
    population is subsidized. 2. Half of the population is subsidized – yet
    they think they are victims. 3. They think they are victims – yet their
    representatives run the government. 4. Their representatives run the
    government – yet the poor keep getting poorer. 5. The poor keep getting
    poorer – yet they have things that people in other countries only dream
    about. 6. They have things that people in other countries only dream
    about – yet they want America to be more like those other countries.
    Think about it! And that, my friends, pretty much sums up the USA in the
    21st Century. Makes you wonder who is doing the math. These three,
    short sentences tell you a lot about the direction of our current
    government and cultural environment: 1. We are advised to NOT judge ALL
    Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge
    ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics. Funny how that works.
    And here's another one worth considering? 2. Seems we constantly hear
    about how Social Security is going to run out of money. But we never
    hear about welfare or food stamps running out of money ! What's
    interesting is the first group "worked for" their money, but the second
    didn't. Think about it…..and Last but not least : 3. Why are we
    cutting benefits for our veterans, no pay raises for our military and
    cutting our army to a level lower than before WWII, but we are not
    stopping the payments or benefits to illegal aliens.

  39. โ€œAlthough itโ€™s bad if youโ€™re a sailor because you lose your life, itโ€™s really bad if your a merchant because you lost all your money.โ€
    1:54

    Am I the only one who thinks that there is something wrong with that statement

  40. Socialists are known for their lack of honesty in seeking the truth; these individuals like BDS believe that the propagated lie based on a lie is the Truth! They believe this because the masses they are supplying such 'Truths' too neither educate themselves and base their opinions on emotional response to pretty videos and pictures that are fictional in content.ย  Remember with Socialism the 'Propagated lie, based on a lie, is the Truth!

  41. Under socialism LeBron James, Tom Cruise, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, would all make the same as the garbage collector… Get it now?? ๐Ÿคฏ๐Ÿคฏ

  42. What is this need to converse? If things are working for you, why seek out other ways? If things arent working for you, why get upset when others suggest an alternative? Also Im wondering if our definitions of fascists match.

Leave a Reply

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