 Hello, my dear subscribers and some new people. I hope you're thirsty because this is a juicy video, a video full of controversy. Socialism as a type of economic system has many interpretations. There are many perspectives on what a socialist economy is or should be. So in order to deal with this big ball of confusion, this video will do the following. Explain a basic definition of a socialist system, explain a basic definition of a capitalist system, and examine several economic systems based on several different interpretations of socialism. Social democracy, democratic socialism, libertarian socialism, market socialism, libertarian market socialism, state-planned socialism, the Marxist-Leninist concept of socialism, and maybe if we have time I'll even discuss the Trotskyist concept of socialism. Don't fight you two! Oh! Oh no! Oh no! Ah! Shit. I guess we'll just have to talk about Trotskyism some other time. So my dear viewer, there before your very eyes you can see the list of what you and I will explore in this video. As economic systems, most items on this list are either a type of socialism or are at least believed to be a type of socialism by many people. But with this belief comes controversy, big controversy. Although there are people who say this or that economic system is socialist, there are other people who say, are you kidding? No way! If that's socialism, then Karl Marx is the Easter Bunny. Cute idea, but not reality. Everyone knows the Easter Bunny is legendary rap icon Snoop Doggy Dog. That's just facts. So, here's the game plan for this video. We'll define and explain each economic system, and for each system we'll also consider the big, juicy, controversial question. Is it really socialism? And when considering this question, we'll look at both sides of the debate. The side that says it is socialist, and the side that says it's not. Alright, let's get into it. If you watched my previous video, first of all, hello, welcome back. You'll remember that we discussed a basic, generic definition of socialism, which can be summarized as follows. Socialism is when the government does stuff. No, no, no. Not that. The real definition of socialism. And it's more socialism, the more stuff it does. Nope, that's not it. Socialism is actually defined as- And if it does a real lot of stuff, it's communism. Let's try again. Socialism is a society where the means of production and the economy in general are socially owned and socially controlled for the common good of all. I know there are other definitions of socialism, which some of you may be yelling at your screen right now. No! God! God, please no! No! But I assure you, this definition is not one I just pulled from my ass. You can see on the screen the sources I used to get this definition, and please note that my ass is not listed among them. Oh shit, how did that get there? If you want to hear quotations from these sources to see how I arrived at this definition, that's in my previous video, which you can find the link in the video description or the top right corner, I don't know which- where the right corner is right now. And speaking of sources, if you want to see the list of sources that I used in my research for this video, check down below in the video description. You'll find a link to the bibliography. Some people define socialism as a transition between capitalism and communism. And don't worry, I'll get to this definition later in the video. But for now, I'm focusing on the generic definition of socialism that you see before you. So, why do socialists think it's so important for there to be social control of the economy? Well, let's see. What is the economy? It's the system for producing and distributing goods and services. How this is organized, what institutions are involved, what the rules and regulations are, who has the power to make those rules and regulations, and so on. It's anything to do with making or distributing goods and services, and since all of us depend on these goods and services for our survival and for our quality of life, then it's pretty damn important that the system that controls these things, i.e. the economy, it's important that it works for the common good of all. Socialists believe that if we want the economy to work for the common good of all, if that's our goal, then we, as a society, that's the social part, need to be able to control the economy so that we can steer it towards that goal. This is meant to be a fix for the problems of capitalism. In capitalism, the economy is mainly controlled by the capitalist class, and they steer the economy not towards the common good of all, but towards whatever makes them profit, which depending on your opinion is either a good thing or it's a goddamn disaster. Supporters of capitalism argue that when capitalists pursue profit, this has good effects for society. So it kind of is for the common good of all. But socialists argue that it also has many bad effects and that the bad outweighs the good. But the main point is this, any economic system that gives so much power to some people and so little power to everyone else, the powerful group will inevitably use their control of the economy to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. And the solution socialists propose is replace capitalist control of the economy with social control of the economy. Instead of the capitalist class or business owners controlling the economy, that it should be a socially controlled thing. And how you define that, well, kind of getting ahead of ourselves because that's where the controversies come in. And what about social ownership and social control of the means of production? Why do socialists think this is important? Well, first of all, what are the means of production? As the name suggests, they're the means that we use to produce. In other words, they're everything that people use to make goods and services. Factories, offices, machines, equipment, land, natural resources, raw materials, farms, mines, power plants, and so on. It's all the stuff we use to make stuff. And since it's all the stuff that we use to make stuff, this reveals the purpose of putting the means of production under social ownership and control. If we don't have social control of the means of production, then we can't have social control of the economy. That's one reason, and there's another. If we don't have social ownership of the means of production, then what we have instead is that some people own the means of production and the rest of us don't. The result is humanity is divided into a class of owners and a class of non-owners. The class of owners has all sorts of power that the class of non-owners don't have, including the power to employ the non-owners and as their employer to control them and exploit them. This is exactly what happens in capitalism with the capitalist class, who are the owners. And the working class, who are the non-owners. Socialists, to put it mildly, don't think this is a good arrangement. That's why they want social ownership and social control of the means of production, so that this power imbalance is equalized, class divisions are erased, and workers are liberated from domination. Alright, so, once again, socialism is... Is when the government does stuff. God damn it, no. Socialism is a society with social ownership and control of the means of production and social control of the economy, or the common good of all. This is the basic generic definition of socialism. It's the archetype that all the subtypes are supposed to fit within. But because this definition is so broad and generic, it's also vague and unspecific. It's a definition that raises new questions. Like, who or what does social actually refer to? The word social refers to people in the plural and collective sense, rather than individual persons. But exactly who or what this refers to is an open question. Is it the state, the workers, the community, humanity as a whole, or what? This is a crucial question because the answer to this question tells us who really has ownership and control of the economy. And it turns out that socialists have a wide variety of opinions on how to answer this and how to answer other questions. This is why so many types and interpretations of socialism exist, many of which we'll soon be discussing. But first, we need to talk about... Capitalism needs no introduction. We're living in it. So you're already very familiar with capitalism, even if you very much wish you weren't. The main question I want to ask and answer about capitalism and about every economic system on our list is who or what controls the economy? And a big part of answering this question is finding out who owns and controls the means of production, the factories, farms, natural resources, and everything else we use to produce goods and services. In capitalism, most of the means of production are privately owned by individuals. These individuals who own the means of production are called capitalists. Capitalists are people who make a living by owning capital, for example, owning businesses with employees or owning major investments in corporations. Overall, capitalists are only a very small percent of the population. Pop quiz for you. What do you call someone who gets rich making masturbation videos for only fans? A capitalist. Yes! Thank you, thank you. Actually, that joke's not accurate because only fans, creators are not capitalists, but hey, never let the truth get in the way of a good pun. What about state or government ownership of the means of production? State ownership is not a defining feature of capitalism. Capitalism could exist without this. But in the real world, in every capitalist country, at least some of the means of production are owned by the state. Examples include government-owned postal service, government-owned sewage treatment plants, and so on. In some places, even weed stores are government-owned, which makes these governments the world's most boring drug dealers. So in practice, capitalism has a public sector. However, the private sector is far bigger. I am big and you are purey, blah, blah, blah. So that's who owns the means of production in capitalism. And what about who controls them? This question can be split into two parts. First, who controls or manages the enterprises, the factories, farms, offices, warehouses, and other institutions that make goods or provide services. And second, who or what controls the economy more generally? Let's start with the first part of the question. Who controls each enterprise? The answer is whoever owns it. Since capitalists own most of the means of production, this means that capitalists control most of the means of production. Ownership equals control. This control can be direct, like someone who both owns and manages a business, or the control can be indirect, like when a business owner hires someone to manage their business. And also, since the state owns the public sector of the economy, then the state controls the means of production in that sector. So in capitalism, the means of production are mainly owned and controlled by capitalists and somewhat by the state. But there are other forces that play a powerful role in controlling the economy overall, the market and the profit motive. Capitalism is primarily a market economy, which means it's an economy based on exchange or trade. Whenever anyone buys or sells anything, this is market exchange, because products are exchanged or traded for money. Related to this is the profit motive. In capitalism, businesses produce things to sell them and they sell them to make profit. That's the whole point. Business owners don't do this because they're greedy. It's because that's how capitalism is designed. Businesses that don't make profit don't survive. Another part of a market economy is that businesses must compete with each other. And therefore the quest for profit can be quite vicious and ruthless. Ma, ma, come outside, there's a fucking move. When capitalists decide what type of business to invest in, what goods and services to produce, they make this decision based on what they think will be profitable. When they decide how their business will produce things, what materials to use, what sources of energy, how many people to hire, what the working conditions will be, they're not thinking about what will be good for the environment or what will be good for workers. They're thinking about what will be most profitable. When they set the prices for their products, they're not thinking about how can I make sure everyone who needs this product can afford it. They're thinking, how can I maximize my profit? They're also thinking about the market, looking at what prices other businesses are charging. Same thing for deciding what to pay their workers. It's not about making sure that their workers make a decent living. Their decision is based on the profit motive and by the market price of labor. Markets are the biggest deciding factor in how income is distributed, which means that markets also get to decide who can have what's produced and who can't. There's no doubt that markets and profit are what guide and direct, or one might even say dictate, a capitalist economy. Another thing that plays a major role in a capitalist economy is the state. And by the way, what is the state? Well, many people use the word state as a synonym for government, but the state is not just that. It's government plus a dominance hierarchy of coercive power. It's government that's controlled by a tiny fraction of the population and appalled by organizations for armed force, like police and prisons and the military. But every state is also a government. And that's why people use these words, state and government as synonyms. And to keep things simple, I'm gonna do the same in this video. Anyways, in capitalism, the state plays an important role in the economy. The state is a major spender. The state also regulates industries, tries to control the money supply, and so on. In the la-la-land of theory, capitalism could exist without any state involvement in the economy. But in the real world, this has never been the case. However, even the all-powerful state takes a backseat to the dominating power of markets and profit. An economy controlled by markets and profit is an economy controlled by impersonal forces rather than people. Capitalists, as in individual business owners, they control businesses and the state controls economic regulations, but ultimately, they both must bow to the dictates of the market because if they don't, their businesses or their country's economy will suffer. If the market isn't kept happy, this is punished by less profit and lower GDP. And so the market is a dictator who must be obeyed. So, now that we have an idea what capitalism is, we can compare it to socialism. Socialism is social ownership and social control of the means of production for the common good of all, and capitalism is private ownership and control of the means of production for the profit of the owners. Supporters of capitalism believe that if owners pursue profit, this will work for the common good of all, but socialists, of course, disagree. So, that's capitalism. There's a lot more to say about it, a lot, lot, lot, lot, lot more, but we have several economic systems to talk about in this video, so I have to keep it short, sweet and simple. Let's move on. Socialism is Menda. Government, socialism is Menda. Government, socialism is Menda. Government, Menda. Government, doesn't stop. Socialism is Menda. Government, socialism is Menda. Government, socialism is Menda. Government, Menda. Government, doesn't stop. Government, does, government, does. Government, government, government, does, government, does. Government, does, government, does. Socialism. Okay, so, social democracy isn't really an economic system. Social democracy is a political philosophy that has existed for over 150 years, and what social democracy means today is different than what it meant in the past. In the very early days, social democracy was a term embraced by several types of socialists, including both libertarian and state socialists. Then in the late 1800s and early 1900s, social democracy was basically a synonym for Marxism, though this was divided between those who wanted to achieve socialism by revolution and those who preferred democratic elections as a method for achieving socialism. Then in 1918, social democracy dropped the revolution stuff and became focused on elections. And then from about the mid 1900s onwards, social democracy dropped socialism and became focused on creating a nice big old juicy welfare state. Though by the 1980s, many social democratic parties were only interested in creating a slightly less bad version of neoliberalism. Holy shit, social democracy, you just can't decide who you are, can you? What the fuck's next, a goth face, a face tattoo, an obsession with cryptocurrency and astrology, sudden realization you're a sigma male with grind set characteristics, goddamn. I mean, good for you, honey, but goddamn. So social democracy is not really an economic system, but there are a set of economic policies that social democrats tend to advocate. So for the sake of convenience and simplicity, two things that I love, we're gonna talk about social democracy as if it is an economic system to show up and deal with it. What does modern day social democracy look like in practice? This is no mystery. There are several countries that can be called social democratic, including Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Venezuela and Bolivia. Quite a large number of people believe that social democracy is socialist. They believe that the economic policies of social democracy result in a socialist economic system. However, most scholars who've looked into it conclude that the economic program of social democracy is not socialist, but capitalist. It's a form of capitalism where the government tries to make capitalism less brutal, less cruel, less inhumane, less ugly, basically to give capitalism a makeover. Looking good capitalism, looking real good. So let's address this controversy. Is social democracy socialist or not? Let's start this investigation by reminding ourselves of the basic generic definition of socialism. It's a society where the means of production and the economy in general are socially owned and socially controlled for the common good of all. The word social or socially refers to people in the plural rather than individual persons. It also refers to people in the inclusive sense rather than an exclusive or special privilege of only some people. So in order for the economy to be socially owned and controlled, it must be the people in some broad and inclusive sense of that word who own and control the economy. But what exactly does that mean? By what forms of organization is it achieved? These questions are a subject of debate and leftist infighting. Holy fucking shit. Let's turn our attention back to social democracy. In social democracy, who or what controls the economy? It's the same as in the generic form of capitalism. It's a combination of the capitalist class, the state, and also the forces of the market and the profit motive. Social democracy is primarily a profit-driven market economy. It operates by the impersonal, self-operating profit-driven mechanisms of the market. The means of production, the factories, farms, offices, natural resources, land, and so on, most are owned and controlled by capitalists, the private sector, and some are owned and controlled by the state, the public sector. All of this is exactly the same as the generic form of capitalism. There are only two differences. One, social democracy has a bigger public sector, and two, it has a stronger welfare state. What is the welfare state? That's something that we've all forgotten over the last few decades. The welfare state is a government with policies and programs meant to provide people with social and economic welfare and wellbeing. This can include sending a check or income support for people who are unemployed or unable to work due to disability. It can include regulations to protect the environment, protect consumer safety, and protect the rights of workers. And it can also include free or subsidized public goods, like free college and university, or subsidized housing, or crazy things like giving people medical care without charging money. Then what in heaven's name is the point? Every country's government has at least some policies and programs to improve people's social welfare, but in most countries, this isn't so much a welfare state as it is to use the technical term an itty-bitty welfare study. But social democracy is supposed to have a welfare state for real, at least in theory, though in reality, it may fall short. Okay, let's now get into the controversy. Is social democracy socialist or capitalist? Those who claim it socialist make the following argument. Social democracy is socialist because it has what's called a welfare state. And furthermore, the state owns and controls some industries, sometimes as public services provided for free or at a low cost, and sometimes to generate profits that are used to fund social welfare programs. All of this shows that the state is using its control of the economy for the common good of all. And since the state has a democratically elected government, then the state represents the people. It represents society or the social body of the population. So clearly, this is social control of the economy for the common good of all. And therefore, social democracy is socialist. So that's one side of the debate. On the other hand, are those who say social democracy is capitalist? And they say capitalism doesn't stop being capitalism just because it has a welfare state. Socialism requires social ownership and social control of the economy. And in social democracy, the vast majority of the means of production are owned and controlled by the capitalist class. The fact that there even is a capitalist class should already be a very clear indication that it's not socialism. Also, the main forces controlling the economy are markets and the profit motive. These forces are so powerful that the state can't claim to control the economy. That's like being in a boat on a stormy ocean and claiming you control the boat. You don't. You're getting tossed around by the waves. And furthermore, state control of the economy is not the same as social control of the economy. Even if the state has a democratically elected government, this doesn't give the people real control. It just gives people a vote for who does have control. Choosing who has power is not the same as having power yourself. Like imagine if someone else had total control of your right hand. Even if you can choose who this person will be, you still don't control your own hand. And that person who does control your hand can make you smack your own face, pick your nose, pick someone else's nose, or even use your right hand to chop off your left hand. So what's your perspective? Is social democracy socialist or capitalist? You be the judge. And what an adorable judge you are. A libertarian socialist is someone who wants a socialist society with no state. They're opposed to hierarchies of domination, they're suspicious of hierarchies in general, and they place a high value on individual freedom. They're strongly opposed to the type of system found in places like the Soviet Union. They think this is a brutal authoritarian system of exploitation and oppression, just as bad as capitalism. A rough synonym for libertarian socialism is anarchism. And the spirit of anarchist philosophy is exemplified in a quote from an anarchist by the name of Mikhail Bukunin. We are convinced that freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice, and that socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality. Libertarian socialists have a wide range of ideas about what a libertarian socialist society should be like. But all of them agree that it must be a classless, stateless society. Why classless? Because if economic classes exist, then the class that has more power, and there's always a class that has more power, can use that power to exploit us, to control us and coerce us. And why stateless? Because if the state exists, this means that the people who control the state become our rulers and have the power of armies, police, and prisons to force us to obey their command. March along, sing our song with the army of the free. One of the functions of the state is to manage society and create social order. But, say libertarian socialists, we can achieve this without a state. The difference is that instead of society being managed by an exclusive group of people who make all the decisions, society would instead be managed by popular participation and direct democracy, a federation of self-governing local communities and self-managed workplaces. And instead of social order being created by domination and violent force, social order would be created by voluntary cooperation and free agreement. Another thing that all libertarian socialists agree on is that in a libertarian socialist society, everyone must own the means of production, factories, farms, natural resources, and other things that are used to make products and provide services. Everyone must own them, why? Because if some people own the means of production and others don't, that creates a class of owners and a class of non-owners. And this class division creates a power imbalance that enables domination and exploitation. And we don't want that. So in a libertarian socialist society, everyone owns the means of production, but this can take different forms. For example, in libertarian market socialism, which we'll be talking about later, every worker either owns or co-owns a business. But most libertarian socialists are opposed to market socialism, even in the libertarian market socialist version of it. The way they feel about markets and socialism is the way you might feel about a pubic hair on your pizza. It's ruining a good thing. No, God, please no! When most libertarian socialists say that the means of production belong to everyone, they mean that all of it belongs to everyone. They don't mean that everyone owns a business or co-owns a co-op. The means of production are not divided up with each person owning a piece. All of it belongs to everyone. For the means of production, the concept of ownership is abolished. It no longer exists. Okay, next question. In a libertarian socialist society, who controls the means of production? The answer to that is workers. Why workers? Because whoever controls the means of production also controls the people who do the producing. And that's workers. If you control a factory, you control the factory workers. If you control a farm, you control the farm workers. The only way workers can avoid being under someone else's control is if workers control the means of production themselves. And that's how it is in libertarian socialism. Whether it's a factory or farm or office or any other work environment, the people who work there are the ones who manage it. And they do so with no bosses. Not even you, boss baby. Instead of bosses, workers can share or rotate management duties. And for major decisions, they can decide things together as a group by direct democracy, in general assembly meetings. And workers do more than just self-manage each enterprise. They also self-manage each industry in its entirety. Food production, clothing manufacturing, electronics, healthcare transportation, every industry self-managed by those who understand it the best, the people who work in it. This is made possible by what are called workers' councils. And the members of these workers' councils are, as the name suggests, workers. But these workers are also delegates. Delegates who've been sent by their coworkers to be on this workers' council. A delegate is a member of a group who is chosen by that group to represent the group and act on behalf of the group. And in this case, the group that delegates represent is the group of workers in each enterprise. Workers from an enterprise choose one of their coworkers to be their delegate. And all the delegates from various enterprises in the same industry come together to form a workers' council for that industry. Workers' councils can be organized based on both industry and location. So there could be a workers' council for the restaurant industry in Brooklyn or a workers' council for steel manufacturing in Philadelphia, et cetera. And workers' councils in the same industry, but different locations, can also join together into federations at the regional, national, or even international level. But let's not get too complicated. Let's get back to the purpose of workers' councils, which is so that an industry can be managed by the people who actually work in it. But this management isn't done in some sort of top-down, heavy-handed, dominating way. No! It's not about setting quotas and so on. On the contrary, each delegate must obey the instructions of the group of workers in the enterprise that they represent. And those workers can recall and replace their delegate at any time. Workers' councils don't dictate to or control the enterprises of an industry. Each enterprise is autonomous. Instead, the workers' council takes on projects that apply to the industry as a whole. For example, they might be tasked with figuring out how to improve working conditions for that industry or how to improve workers' safety. Or they might pursue the goal of making the industry more efficient and productive or making it more environmentally friendly. For some of these projects, the Delegates on a Workers' Council might have to consult with people who have expert knowledge. Like, if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, you're gonna wanna consult with people who have the experience and expertise in doing this. And that's fine. The point is that these experts give advice and the workers themselves are the ones who get the final say. But the good news is that because workers are managing the industry that they work in, they already have a ton of knowledge and expertise on that industry. So in most cases, the only experts they'll need to consult are themselves and their coworkers. And this is enhanced because there can also be councils or associations for workers with particular types of expertise, like there can be a council for environmental scientists or for chemical engineers, epidemiologists, and so on. Many libertarian socialists also believe that even though workers control the means of production, the economy as a whole should be controlled by everyone. Now, this doesn't mean that there's a nationwide organization that everyone takes part in to manage the national economy. It means that people are free to take part in decision-making on issues that affect them. For example, people can meet with their neighbors in directly democratic assemblies to decide what public goods or services they want and need in their community. Do we want more parks? Do we want better public transit? A new hospital? A new art gallery? Do we want the city to shut down the coal power plant that pollutes the air? These are things that everyone can have a say in. Libertarian socialism aims to create a society where no person or group has power to control or dominate other people. In other words, no dominance hierarchies. When people take part in managing the economy or managing society, the decision-making process should be egalitarian. Sounds nice, but how can this be achieved? There are many ways this can be done and many ideas that I don't have time to get into, but here's a basic summary. When decisions need to be made that will impact not just an individual or a few individuals, but an entire region or city or community, then the people who live in that region or city or community are the ones who make the decision. This is based on the common sense principle that those who are affected by a decision should be the ones who make that decision. So how does a community make decisions? People who live in that community have meetings. These meetings are often called general assemblies. In these meetings or assemblies, they decide things by direct democracy, with every person getting an equal say. Nobody is forced to go to these meetings if they rather not, but everyone has the freedom to do so. The community might decide to delegate some decisions to a committee, but this committee has no authority over the community. On the contrary, the community as a whole chooses the members of this committee, is able to recall or revoke its members and can even veto its decisions. So that's how things can be decided locally in communities and beyond the local level for municipal, regional, or in those rare cases that it's necessary, national and international, we can organize federations with councils of delegates. These delegates can be recalled at any time by a recall vote, they're frequently rotated, and they're mandated to carry out the will of whoever they represent, which means that decision-making power remains in the hands of the people. Delegates cannot impose or force a decision on society. The final say is the democratic will of each unit in the federation, which once again means that decision-making power remains in the hands of the people. Now, if that explanation was too brief and too vague and too undefined to make much or any sense, I'm gonna discuss it a little bit more in a soon-to-be-released video and even more in other videos further in the future. In the meantime, you can look up an anarchist FAQ and read section I, which is called What Would an Anarchist Society Look Like? A question which it discusses in depth. A libertarian socialist society would make room for a diversity of approaches to socialism. The only limits are these. Society must be both libertarian and socialist, which is kind of what you'd expect given the name. In other words, society must be both stateless and classless, but beyond that, each community is free to decide its own way to do things. That's the thing about a stateless society. There's no central power or authority telling each community what to do and how to do it. These are things that people are free to decide for themselves. If you want a real-life example of a libertarian socialist society, probably the one that comes closest is found in Spain during the Spanish Civil War of 1936 to 1939, which coincided with an anarchist-inspired revolution. The anarchists had no doubt about their main objective, to defeat fascism. But for them, the campaign was not just against the army rebels, but against capitalism itself. During this revolution, a libertarian socialist society was in the process of being created and a lot of progress was made. But this example is far from ideal since it existed under the conditions of a civil war. And now we come to the big question. Is libertarian socialism really socialist? Well, that depends. The not-real-socialism accusation is made of libertarian market socialism, and we'll talk about that soon. But what about types of libertarian socialism that are anti-market? Everyone controls the economy, so it would be hard for anyone to say that this doesn't fit the definition of a socially-owned and controlled economy. So you don't really find anyone saying that libertarian socialism is not socialist. Instead, libertarian socialism faces a different accusation, the accusation that it is impossible. Arguments about this get so heated, you could cook dinner on it. There are socialists who believe that a socialist society could not survive without a state. And because libertarian socialism is stateless, they think this means that any libertarian socialist society ever created would always and inevitably be destroyed by its enemies. It's an interesting debate, but we don't have time for it in this video. However, I will be discussing this in the next video, so be sure to stay tuned. Once upon a time, there was the market. And once upon a time, there was socialism. And socialism and market did not get along. But one night, they both got drunk. Really drunk. So drunk, they somehow ended up having a night of drunken, regrettable sex. And they did that sex in every position imaginable. And even some that are unimaginable. Market is an absolutely unimaginable market. Market is an absolute freak in the sack. And socialism does a lot of yoga. So they came up with some really weird stuff. The next day, they barely remembered what happened. But nine months later, they had a baby. That baby's name? And that there's the truth. Okay, so now that we know market socialism's origin story, let's find out what it's all about. In market socialism, workers own the means of production through worker-owned businesses. In the public sector, the state may own some means of production, but the rest are owned by workers. It's not the case, as it is in capitalism, that some people own businesses and other people are employees. No, sir. Instead, every business is co-owned by everyone who works there. No one is just an owner or just a worker. They're always both. Factories to the factory workers, farms to the farm workers, mines to the miners, garbage to the garbage collectors. That last one doesn't sound so fun, but you get the idea. These worker-owned businesses are called workers cooperatives, or workers co-ops, or just co-ops, depending on how much you want to shorten the name. A business can be owned by just one person, but only if the owner is the only person who works there, like an ice cream truck driver, a small shopkeeper, or a sad and lonely YouTuber. Not that I would know anything about that. Don't worry, I'm not lonely. I have my dolls. And in market socialism, who controls the means of production? The general idea is that workers control production through some form of workplace democracy. However, depending on the workplace, this may be done directly or indirectly. The direct option is for workers to manage things themselves. It's simple enough, workers would share management duties, either a permanent division of duties, or workers can rotate or take turns at management tasks. And big decisions can be made by all the workers together using direct democracy. Then there's the indirect option, which is for workers to democratically elect someone, or several someone to become the manager or managers. And if workers don't like their manager, they can recall them, which is to say, democratically vote to fire them. Workers firing their boss. Oh, how the tables have turned. So, that's who controls the means of production in market socialism. But because this is a market economy, the economy as a whole is largely controlled by markets and the profit motive, same as in capitalism. Which, depending on your opinion, is either a good thing or it's a goddamn disaster. Alongside this, the state also tries to control the economy through regulation and so on. If you're looking for real life examples of market socialism, there's never been a society that truly and fully implemented the system. But one place that came somewhat close is Yugoslavia, during the years of about 1948 to 1990. Another example that somewhat approximates market socialism, although it's not a society, is found in the Mondragon Corporation, a federation of over 250 worker cooperatives, which has existed in Spain in the Basque region since 1956. Again, these examples are not market socialism. They only give you an approximate idea. Okay, now let's get into the controversy. Is market socialism actually socialist or not? Let's look at the debate. On one side are those who say, yes, market socialism is socialist because workers own and control the means of production. This amounts to social ownership and control, because it includes every single working person in society. Every worker is an owner and every owner is a worker. That's social ownership of the means of production. Every worker also takes part in governing the workplace, and that's social control of production and social control of the economy. Therefore, market socialism is indeed socialist, and the drunken one night stand between socialism and the market was not a mistake. That's one side of the debate. On the other side, are socialists who say, no, market socialism is not socialist. For starters, if workers choose other people to manage their co-op business, this diminishes the degree to which workers actually control production. Instead, control is handed over to professional managers. Those managers become their boss, and although workers can elect and fire their boss, there's still a dynamic of superior and subordinate, order giver and order taker. But that's just one issue. The other issue is this. Even though every worker co-owns a cooperative business, this isn't social ownership, it's private ownership, because each business is the exclusive property of whoever works there. In other words, the means of production are divided up and owned in separate pieces. That's not social ownership. Social ownership requires that all of the means of production belong to everyone. If the means of production are divided up into separately owned businesses, these businesses will be forced to compete with each other. Competition between worker-owned businesses has many of the same problems as competition between capitalist-owned businesses. Economic competition creates economic inequality, wealth for workers at successful businesses, and poverty for workers at unsuccessful businesses. Economic competition is also an obstacle to economic cooperation throughout society, and cooperation is what's necessary for social control of the economy for the common good of all. And finally, because market socialism is a market economy, the profit motive reigns supreme. This is yet another obstacle to social control of the economy. For all these reasons, market socialism is not actually socialist. In reply to this last point, market socialists say that a market economy doesn't have to be utterly dominated by market forces, that the state can use its power to regulate the economy and protect society from the market's most harmful effects. But the critics don't think that this is good enough. Since business interests influence politicians, the government can't be relied on to properly regulate the market. And even if government made an honest attempt to control the economy, it has to struggle against the overwhelming force of the profit motive and the market, which is like trying to control a boat on a stormy ocean. So, what's your perspective? Is market socialism really socialist? Or not? You be the judge. And once again, you make an adorable judge. The next one is easy to explain, libertarian market socialism. It's very similar to regular market socialism, but with a few differences. The main difference is that in regular market socialism, the state plays a role in the economy, such as by creating and enforcing regulations. But the state has no role in libertarian market socialism, because, like in all forms of libertarian socialism, there is no state. The state has been smashed. Another difference. In market socialism, workplaces can be controlled by specialized managers. But most libertarian market socialists advocate that workers directly self-manage production with as little hierarchy as possible, which can be done if workers share management duties. So, workers might take turns being a manager, they might divide management tasks so that each worker does a little bit of management work. For big decisions that affect an entire enterprise, workers can meet together in a general assembly and decide by direct democracy, or in big enterprises by delegate democracy. The role of boss or someone who has command over workers, that role is eliminated. That being said, there are cases and places where it makes sense to have someone in charge who gives instructions and directions that others must follow. For example, when making a movie, the movie set needs a director. Or in like a surgery room, there's usually like a head surgeon and then the other surgeons and nurses and other medical staff have to follow their lead. Like in that kind of situation, it makes sense to have someone who's taking the lead, but that's different than a permanent hierarchy of someone being the boss who has command over everyone else. This goal of eliminating the role of boss and advocating for workers' self-management is something that libertarian market socialists have in common with all libertarian socialists. Libertarian market socialists are into worker-owned businesses, but most of them don't believe land or natural resources should be owned by anyone. They believe that these things should be the common property of all humanity. People would have the right to use this common property, like using natural resources to produce things or using land to live on, but nobody can actually own it. So, is libertarian market socialism actually socialist? There are those who say it is, and those who say it's not. And the reasons people say that it is or isn't socialist are almost identical to the reasons people say that regular market socialism is or isn't socialist. So, rather than repeat those arguments, let's just move on to the next system. Most people are familiar with state-planned socialism. It has very high brand recognition. That's because there have been quite a few well-known examples of state-planned socialism. The clearest example is the Soviet Union, especially during the years that Stalin was in power. In state-planned socialism, who or what owns and controls the means of production? You can probably guess the answer to this one. Snoop Dogg! No, just kidding. The real answer is found in the name. It's the state. In practice, the state might allow some privately-owned businesses or worker-owned cooperatives, but the vast majority of the economy is owned and controlled by the state. The state also plans the economy for the whole country, what to produce, how much to produce, where to distribute it, what should prices be, how much should workers be paid, and so on. As for the market and the profit motive, these things may or may not exist, but even if they do, they take a backseat to state-planning. So, at the macro level or grand scale, the economy is controlled by state officials, and at the micro level, each workplace is controlled by managers, and those managers have been hand-picked by the state. And now it's time for... can you guess? Controversy! Is state-planned socialism really socialist? This debate is so heated you can't even cook dinner on it, because your dinner will burn. Dad, you burnt dinner again? The fuck? Let's hear both sides of the debate. Those who say that it is socialist make the following argument. State-planned socialism is socialist because the state owns and controls the means of production, and this is equivalent to social ownership and control of the means of production. Why? Because the state represents the people, or in other interpretations of state-planned socialism, it's because the state represents the proletarian, also known as the working class. Either way, the state represents the social. And furthermore, the goal of the state is to control the economy for the common good. And if you look at the achievements of countries that have used a state-planned socialist system, they made big strides in reducing poverty, raising levels of education and health, and other social improvements. On the other side of the debate are those who say state-planned socialism is not socialist. They say, first of all, just as socialism is not defined as when the government does stuff, socialism is also not defined as when the poverty rate goes down. Just because a country reduced poverty and things like that doesn't make it socialist, capitalist countries have also reduced poverty, they've also raised levels of health, education, and so on. Here, for example, you can see the improvement in life expectancy graphed for five global regions and for the world in general. There are sharp improvements in every region, and if you look at the data by individual country, you can see that this trend is general. And here you can see the decline in child mortality, more kids are surviving childhood, the poor bastards. Again, you see big improvements across every global region, and showing here you can see improvements in every country. Famines have also become far more unusual than they once were, as seen by this chart showing the global death rate by famine since 1860. And meanwhile, literacy rates have gone way up all around the world. The point here is to show that advances in material quality of life were not at all unusual in the 20th century. Neither capitalist countries nor so-called socialist countries have any unique claim to this. It's not either of these economic systems that deserves any special credit for lifting people out of poverty. They were lifted out of poverty by industrialization, by advances in farming techniques in hygiene and medicine, by antibiotics and vaccines. Now, it's only fair to acknowledge that the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and so on, have had an above-average performance in lifting people out of poverty. But there are capitalist countries that have had an above-average performance, too. Poverty reduction is good, and if socialism is doing its job right, it will reduce and eliminate poverty. But poverty reduction in itself is not evidence of socialism. Second of all, say the people who say that state-planned socialism is not socialist. No, the state does not represent the social. The state is governed by a very tiny fraction of the population, less than 1%. More than 99% of people are not part of the government, and thus don't control the state. And they especially don't control the state if that state is a one-party dictatorship. And any time state-planned socialism has been tried, it's always been a one-party dictatorship. It can't be socialism if the people, and people are the social part of it, don't have control. Furthermore, in state-planned socialism, the state is the employer of the working class. Workers sell their labor power to the state, which is no better than workers selling their labor power to capitalists. In both cases, they sell the hours of their life to someone else in order to survive. It's as if the state takes the place of the capitalist class. State officials and managers have power and control over workers. They give orders, and workers must obey. State officials and managers have power to punish workers, to fire them, and in the Soviet Union, they could even send workers to prisons known as gulags, where workers were subjected to forced labor, or slavery, whichever you prefer to call it. To be fair, not everyone who advocates state-planned socialism is in favor of gulags, and it's possible to have state-planned socialism without gulags. Yeah, I'd like state-planned socialism, please, but no gulags. Ma'am, this is a Wendy's. But, even without gulags, state officials and managers still have power over workers, including the power to punish. And in countries that have had state socialism, state officials used their power to give themselves, and managers, higher salaries than workers were paid, and also to give themselves special privileges that workers did not get. This isn't social control of the economy for the good of all. This is state control of workers for the good of a new ruling class. Therefore, the critics argue, state-planned socialism is not actually socialist. In fact, some critics call it state capitalism. So, what's your perspective? Is state-planned socialism actually socialist? Or not? You be the judge. Okay, this time as a judge, you look a little weird. Sorry to judge. Marxism-Leninism gets its name from Marx and Lenin. Shocking, I know. But this ideology was not created by Marx or by Lenin. It was created by another guy, Joseph Stalin. And despite its name, Marxist-Leninist ideology has differences with the ideas of Lenin and even more differences with the ideas of Marx. And because of this, there are socialists who are Marxists, who embrace Marxism, but they reject Marxism-Leninism. If you want real-life examples of the Marxist-Leninist concept of socialism, you can put into practice many times. The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, Laos, and Vietnam are all well-known examples. So, how do Marxist-Leninists define socialism? They define it as a society where a Marxist-Leninist political party, or a party whose political ideology is close to Marxism-Leninism, has total control of the state. And this party has the goal of moving society in a transition from capitalism to communism, or the party at least claims to have that goal. For some Marxist-Leninists, this is enough for them to consider a country to be socialist. But for other Marxist-Leninists, it's not socialism unless there's also a state-planned economy. To understand this disagreement, we have to dig into a bit of theory. According to Marxist-Leninist theory, before society can become communist, it must first go through a phase of capitalism, because capitalism leads to rapid industrialization and industrialization then makes it possible to produce an abundance of goods without much labor. And being able to produce an abundance of goods without much labor is the necessary foundation for a communist society. But in that case, what do you do if you have a revolution that takes place in a country where capitalist industrialization has barely even begun? This was the situation after the Russian Revolution in 1917. Russia was mostly agrarian with very little industrialization, and this was still the case when Stalin took power in 1924. Stalin believed that Russia could be industrialized under the direction and command of the state using a system of state-planned socialism or state capitalism, depending on what you prefer to call it, though Stalin himself just called it socialism. To this day, some Marxist-Leninists believe this is the only valid way for a Marxist-Leninist political party to industrialize a country. These are the highly orthodox Marxist-Leninists who see it this way. However, other Marxist-Leninists disagree. They believe that if a country is mostly agrarian and unindustrialized, the capitalist class should be allowed to continue to exist so they can continue to industrialize the country. Capitalists would own and control some, or perhaps even most, of the means of production. It's a capitalist economy, but overseen by a Marxist-Leninist party. And the capitalism is supposed to be temporary. What do Marxist-Leninists think of this? They're split. Highly orthodox Marxist-Leninists rejected entirely. Moderately orthodox Marxist-Leninists accept it as a valid pathway to socialism. However, they don't call it socialism. They call it a dictatorship of the proletariat that hasn't yet reached socialism. And finally, unorthodox Marxist-Leninists say that even during this period when the economy is capitalist, socialism still counts as socialism because a Marxist-Leninist party controls the state. So, to summarize, orthodox Marxist-Leninists say that socialism must be a state-planned economy with no capitalist class. Unorthodox Marxist-Leninists disagree and think the market and the capitalist class can coexist with socialism. And all Marxist-Leninists believe that socialism is defined as a society where a Marxist-Leninist party, or similar type of party, controls the state and is, or at least claims to be, making a transition from capitalism to communism. And by the way, this is why Marxist-Leninist parties usually use the name communist party because communism is supposed to be the eventual goal. However, the goal has not been reached. Communism, unfortunately, is a word that most people misunderstand not because of their own failings intellectually just because there's so much misinformation and miseducation about it, but I explain what it really means in one of my other videos. The link is in the top right corner of the screen or in the video description, so check her out. Okay, so now we come to the controversy. Is the Marxist-Leninist concept of socialism actually socialist or not? Debates on this one get so heated they could burn your house down. Now, we already had the is it socialism debate about state-planned socialism, so it might seem like this also covers the debate on the orthodox Marxist-Leninist concept of socialism, since this is just state-planned socialism combined with a dictatorship by a Marxist-Leninist party. But the fact that there is a dictatorship by a Marxist-Leninist party actually complicates the debate. And the reason for this is because Marxist-Leninist beliefs that if a Marxist-Leninist party controls the state, this means that the state isn't just like a normal capitalist state. It's now what they would call a worker's state or socialist state, which they believe will operate in the interests of the working class. Other socialists find this unconvincing. They say if you look at the Soviet Union and other places where a Marxist-Leninist party controls the state, the state most certainly did not operate in the interests of the working class. It operated in the interests of the party leaders and the rulers of the state, and workers were oppressed and exploited in service of that agenda. And even if you believe the state did cater to the working class, that's not what socialism is. Socialism is not a state where benevolent rulers paternalistically cater to working class interests. It has to be that the working class themselves direct control with no rulers above them. In response to this, Marxist-Leninists say, well, the workers did at least have some control of the economy through their labour unions, but other socialists say, yeah, but those unions were puppets of the state controlled by the Communist Party, and the workers themselves had no real control. So that's the debate on whether the orthodox Marxist-Leninist concept of socialism is actually socialist or if it's not. Who's right? You be the judge. Let's move on to focus on the unorthodox Marxist-Leninist concept of socialism. Is it actually socialist or not? Let's look at both sides of the debate. Unorthodox Marxist-Leninists say, as long as a Communist Party or Marxist-Leninist Party controls the state and promises to make the transition to communism, then that's all that's required for a society to qualify as socialist. This is why unorthodox Marxist-Leninists consider modern-day China to be socialist, even though so much of the economy is owned by the capitalist class, and even though it's mostly a profit-driven market economy. They believe that a profit-driven market economy with a thriving capitalist class is a necessary stage in the transition to communism, because this is a way to develop the productive forces of the economy. Other socialists don't think this is socialism at all. They say it in no way meets the basic definition of socialism. The means of production are not socially owned or controlled. Instead, they're largely owned by the capitalist class. And the fact that a capitalist class exists should be a great big clue that this is capitalism, not socialism. And furthermore, the economy is not socially controlled either. The economy is controlled by the profit motive and by a totalitarian state. In response to this criticism, unorthodox Marxist-Leninists say, we don't care if our concept of socialism doesn't fit the basic generic definition of socialism. We have our own definition of socialism. Thank you very much. A society where a communist party controls the state and is making the transition to communism. And in response to this response, other socialists say, your so-called communist parties are overrun with members of the capitalist class. The Chinese Communist Party is full of millionaires and billionaires. This is no secret. It's public information. If you think a party full of filthy rich capitalists has any intention to ever create communism, then perhaps you're a bit naive. Capitalists will never create communism because communism is not in their class interests, as someone by the name of Carl might remind us where he's still with us today. And also, it's not true that you need capitalism or state planning to industrialize an economy or increase productivity. This economic development can be achieved by workers managing the economy themselves without any need for capitalists or bosses or the state. For example, in the Spanish Revolution workers democratically and collectively managed industry. And by doing so they achieved many improvements to economic productivity, developed economic infrastructure, and they improved their material quality of life. And by the way, if you want to learn more about this it's discussed in detail in the book The Anarchist Collectives Workers' Self-Management in the Spanish Revolution edited by Sam Dolgoff. This book is available for free online. And if you rather start with a short overview of the topic I briefly discuss it in my video Post Capitalism at How It Could Work. That's a long video so if you only want to watch the part on the Spanish Revolution that starts at precisely 2 hours 11 minutes and 26 seconds into the video. So, what's your perspective? Is the unorthodox Marxist-Leninist concept of socialism actually socialism? Or not? You be the judge. And now, dear viewer we come to the bottom of our list Democratic Socialism Democratic Socialists don't have one particular type or definition of socialism that they advocate for they're kind of all over the place. What Democratic Socialists have in common is they believe that socialism must be democratic in order for it to be real socialism but they have many opinions on what this would actually be like. Some people who call themselves Democratic Socialists are actually into social democracy. That's because they believe social democracy combines a democratic political system with what in their opinion is a socialist economic system. However most Democratic Socialists get annoyed by this because they say social democracy is not socialist at all it's capitalist. Other Democratic Socialists are into market socialism. As you may remember in market socialism workers have some Democratic control of their workplace even if it's just electing their managers and it's this Democratic feature that makes some Democratic Socialists believe that market socialism is equivalent to Democratic socialism. And finally, there are Democratic Socialists who reject market socialism and reject social democracy. They believe socialism should have no markets and that instead the economy should be democratically managed by workers and the public. To quote the socialist author and professor J. David Edelstein A key element of Democratic socialism as distinct from social democracy is meaningful participation and control of daily life at work and in the community workers and community self-management. With managers where needed, elected by and responsible to workers and community members. So, that's three main types of Democratic Socialists. Wow y'all need to figure yourselves out. One type wants social democracy, another type wants market socialism and another type wants a democratically managed socialist economy. Earlier in this video, we already discussed both social democracy and market socialism, but what about the third one? A democratically managed socialist economy. To some extent, we already discussed this too, because a democratically managed socialist economy is in many ways similar to libertarian socialism, so understanding one can help you understand the other. But, there are a couple big differences between Democratic socialism and libertarian socialism. Big difference number one. Democratic socialists think a socialist society should have a state, but libertarian socialists don't. Fuck you, state! And big difference number two. Democratic socialists are okay with economic management being done by elected representatives. Elected representatives in the workplace, elected representatives in industrial workers' councils and elected representatives in government. In other words, they're okay with representative democracy. But from the perspective of a libertarian socialist, representative democracy is not real democracy. Real democracy has to be direct democracy, carried out by the people themselves. Or when that's not possible because the number of people is too high and too big, it must be democracy by delegates. And these delegates must be obligated to follow the will of the people who chose them as their delegate. And be in frequent communication with those people so that the delegate can properly understand their wishes. This is different from a representative. Once a representative is elected, they can just do whatever they want, whether people like it or not. So, finally, the big question. The controversy. Is Democratic socialism really socialist? Well, that depends on what you mean by Democratic socialism. Is it social democracy? Is it market socialism? Or is it a democratically managed socialist economy? We already went over the is it really socialism debate about social democracy and about market socialism. But what about a democratically managed economy? Most socialists would agree that this is indeed socialism. The only ones who raise a squabble over it, there's a good word, squabble, are libertarian socialists who say, yeah, it's pretty close to socialism. But, if you're using representative democracy rather than direct democracy and direct self-management, then that creates a level of hierarchy and centralized power that causes most people to lack any meaningful level of control. Therefore, it doesn't quite qualify as socialism. In response to this, Democratic socialists say, oh, come on. Nobody's saying there can't be direct democracy or direct self-management. It's just that this will be combined with representative democracy. To this libertarian socialist say, representative democracy will overshadow and overpower the grassroots forms of direct democracy and direct control, creating an imbalance of power between the people at the top and the people at the bottom. But Democratic socialists are either unconvinced by this or just don't see it as a problem. So, is Democratic socialism actually socialist or is it not? You be the judge. And, wow, that's an interesting look you have going on there, your honor. Hey, I wanted socialism. This is clearly not it. Ma'am, once again, this is a Wendy's. Welcome to the summary and review section of the video. Wow. We've been through a lot together, haven't we? We defined, like, what, almost 10 economic systems? And by now, I'm sure you forgot almost everything. I know I have. So, I thought we should do a review. But I also don't want to make this video too long. I mean, shit, it already is too long. So, to make this review as quick as possible, I created this chart, which summarizes key information about who or what controls the economy in each economic system. If you want to review, you can pause the video and look at the chart for as long as you like. Okay, better pause now, because we'll be moving on in three, two. Throughout this video, we looked at several different concepts or interpretations of what a socialist economic system is or should be. But this only gives us half the picture, because socialism isn't just an economic system. It's also a political philosophy and movement which aims to transform the world to make a socialist system a reality. For socialists, this raises a not so easy question. How to achieve a socialist society? What needs to be done to get rid of capitalism and create socialism? It probably won't surprise you to hear that on this topic, socialists have some big, even colossal, gigantic, gargantuan disagreements. Can we achieve socialism by voting? Or do we need a revolution? Is the state a tool for making revolution? Or is the state a tool for destroying revolution? These are just some of the strategy issues that the various types of socialists disagree on. So, very soon, I'll be releasing a video where we once again look at the definitions of different types of socialism. Only this time we'll focus on what they mean not as economic systems, but as political philosophies with competing strategies for how to create a socialist society. I'll be releasing this video in about a week so keep your eyes open. And I mean that literally. Don't you dare even blink until this video comes out. If it hurts your eyes or you go blind, too bad you might say, but lucky black cat that seems excessive. Can I just subscribe and click the bell for notifications? Well, yeah, I guess if you're a pussy. In the meantime, you might be interested in checking out my video, Post Capitalism. A detailed look at how it could work. Which explains how a libertarian socialist economic system and a communist economic system could work if they existed. These systems operate with no markets and no state planning which may make you wonder, well, then how the hell does that work? How can supply and demand reach equilibrium with no market and no state? Good questions. And what about how things can work in a society that has abolished money? Another good question. And it's exactly these questions and many more that this video will attempt to answer. Getting deep down into the gooey gory details. If you'd like to watch it, then hang on tight. The link to the video will appear on the screen in 35 seconds. Alright, thank you very much for watching this video. This is the end. You are a champion. Feel free to leave a comment sharing your thoughts and opinions. Do you think I got something wrong? Do you think I'm a plant of the CIA? Let me know. If you liked this video and you want to support me in making more videos, well, first of all, thank you very much. And second of all, check out patreon.com slash one lucky black cat. Or if you rather give a one-time donation on Kofi or PayPal, see the video description for links. Have a great day and please remember to love yourself and each other.