Socialism, Briefly Explained.

Suppport this Channel at:

A brief overview of the history and theory of socialism.

#socialism #marxism #communism #capitalism #history #philosophy #liberalism #liberty #freedom #marx #communism #history #theory #philosophy #revolution #utopia

[mr.alphard]

The only reason socialism is not in American's public debate as strongly nowadays is because USA outlawed and persecuted socialists throughout the decades, the Mccarthyism being an example of such persecution, moved against sindicates and workers unions, and had media pumping liberalism/conservativism propaganda 24/7. America has been split between two political parties alternating in power for decades, without any practical difference between them in the large scheme of things.

In the rest of the world, specially the colonized continents such as Latin America, Africa and Asia the socialist debate is alive and very strong, despite all capitalist opposition.

The only thing I would correct in your definition of socialism is I would put less emphasis on the concept of an egalitarian society, as Marx himself wrote that no one can predict how a true socialist regime would develop, since socialism is based on materialism and it develops based on each region or country's circumstances. The core of the socialist political theory is the control of production means by the workers.

When you are talking about private property in Marx's work it is very important to explain private property is a CONCEPT in Marx's theory. When Marx talks about private property he is talking about means of production - not common items like clothes, furniture, electronic devices, and so on. It is important to talk about that, because that is a super common misconception people make.

When talking about Stalin's overbureaucratic government and the fallback on socialist ideals, it is important to take into account that Stalin's period was a war period, in which the USSR was under constant attack and threat by Nazi Germany, USA and the European capitalist potencies. From the moment the USSR was formed and Nazi Germany was stabilished it was foretold Hitler would attack the USSR - that was a known public fact. It is why USA did not join the war at all, as they hoped Nazi Germany would destroy USSR. The reason why USA stepped in at the end of the war was because they were afraid that after defeating Nazi Germany the Soviets would expand socialism towards all Europe. Even England was facing worker organization within their borders. This is not to say Stalin's era was perfect. There were indeed mistakes. But they must be analysed within that historic period. But I understand how that would not be practical in a short video.

And socialism is not a stateless, classless and moneyless society. That would be communism. A society that transition towards socialism does not immediately rid itself of capitalism's woes, because socialism is not magic. It is a process. Therefore state and class still exist in socialism. The difference is the state is controlled by the workers, and not the bourgeoisie.

And lastly, wether it is in socialism or communism the moneyless concept is just false. Money will always exist, as a representation of value which people can use to negotiate goods. What does not exist in communism and is controlled in socialism is capital. There is a difference between money and capital. Communism abolishes capital.

[LiteKipe]

Boostin' ya, comrade. Keep 'em coming.

[aquari_]

i subbed, only for the internationale remix in the soundtrack tho

[samuelrosander]

"Socialism as it existed in <insert country here>" is the a common mistake made by socialists in order to claim some sort of victory for socialism instead of following in the footsteps of Marx, Engels and Lenin by critically looking at the systems and judging what they really are based on their characteristics; Lenin outright denied that socialism was achieved, but the claim was made by Stalin out of political expediency, just as Mao later made the claim out of political expediency. Socialists should always be VERY cautious about calling a country "socialist" or saying they had "socialism" or a "socialist economy" because it gives all kinds of ammunition for anti-socialists, even accounting for the fact that those systems were far less brutal (even with the Holodomor and gulags) than what existed in the traditional capitalist countries.

If we're going to look at what ties socialist branches together it is not a move towards a more egalitarian future based on those things. If you take Maoists and Stalinized Marxist-Leninists at their word then that might seem to be the case, but the future they actually work for is one of statism, not socialism, despite using socialist phrasing. If a movement does not actively democratize the economy and political structure so that all start getting involved in making decisions, then you're looking at a movement that sees consolidating the power in the hands of "the right people" as "real existing socialism, " which can't be further from the truth. I really wish people would stop accepting movements like those as anything but statist movements that just want a better state with better outcomes for the people.

1:00 Thanks for clarifying that, and sweet that you used the Plato Stanford article. That's where I got my first real intro to socialist ideas, and from everything I've read of Marx/Engels, Lenin and others, the statement of the minimum requirement that ties all socialist branches together is the most accurate that I've ever found: "The bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control." To give that statement some context, because I know this is a problem concept for a lot of lefties and even socialists and communists...THE STATE IS NOT THE PUBLIC OR THE SOCIETY. The state is the state, and when the state controls the economy that is the very definition of "statism." Marx/Engels and Lenin regularly made sure to add qualifiers to what "the state" must be in a socialist transition, and it is always the fullest, most revolutionary democracy, where the masses of the proletariat are the ruling class. Not the state, not the party, not any other organization above the proletariat. Only the proletariat through "the fullest democracy."

1:25 That's thanks largely to intense propaganda campaigns to redefine socialism in anti-socialist terms. When you hear someone say "real existing socialism" they're talking about statism, and when challenged they'll respond with disgust and insults because "you just don't get it" or whatever. Over 100 years of propaganda and coopted terminology and theory has taken us from "this isn't socialism, this is state capitalism" per Lenin to "this is real existing socialism" per a lot of "socialists" who really don't believe in the plausibility of actual socialist arguments for full democracy (not "full rights to vote, " but "full participation in the democratic process, which is the process that revolves around discussion and only includes a vote after issues have been thoroughly discussed")...and in fact when challenged they will often show their true anti-democratic colors.

8:40 Just because the movements were socialist and the parties that gained control held socialist ideals does not mean that the countries or their economic systems were socialist. Again, it's the state vs social issue. Statism done for the benefit of the masses is still statism, which is a top-down system that the ruling party and/or the state can change as it pleases regardless of what the masses of the proletariat want; even a monarchy can employ "socialist" principles to create similar economic systems (and in fact that's what's peddled as the ideal, with regular monologues insisting that "the job of the ruler is to take care of their subjects"), but that doesn't make it a socialist country or economy. It just makes it "better."

Really, it's disappointing to hear statism conflated with socialism here. You've done some good work and have talked about socialism more appropriately in other videos, but this undermines them and can be readily used as ammunition for anti-socialists to say "see?! You socialists really DO want a literal dictatorship, or at least a highly authoritarian government! You really DO want the state to decide everything" and other stuff that Marx/Engels and Lenin would strongly reject. Don't give in to the temptation to accept any system as socialist, any country as socialist, unless a strong critique of that country/system shows that it's more than just "better than traditional capitalism" and actually falls into the realm of "the fullest democracy, " "the state, i.e. the proletariat organized as the ruling class, " etc. Really disappointing.

9:25 Yes. Because they directly contradicted the arguments of the people they claimed to be part of. Marxist-Leninists became Stalinized and started making anti-Marxist and anti-Leninist arguments in favor of more Blanquist approaches (they had hard conditions to deal with, so I'm not ignoring that part of the "why"), and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists followed much the same path. They followed the "socialism from above" approach, which is not a socialist or communist thing, but rather an authoritarian/statist thing that merely seeks to create a "better" society.

Okay, still disappointing how the USSR, China etc are referred to as socialist countries, but overall it's a good breakdown on the evolution of ideas.

[ulyanov]

what about the role of SPD in german revolution? social-democracy, as we understand it today, detached from the revolutionay movement way earlier than Stalin's rule and Keynes' reforms 10:17

[andrebarroca]

any suggestion on good books to read for current socialist views?