SOCIALISM: An In-Depth Explanation

Thank you to everyone who supports these projects on Patreon. I wouldn't be able to devote so much time and so many resources to one video otherwise. I'm trying to make the best work I can and the donations really do make it possible. If you'd like to chip in and support me, check out www.patreon.com/rchapman. Video notes below. This video dealt with the concepts of socialism and liberalism in the broadest sense possible (historically and geographically). So I was concerned with enduring concepts seen through a global lens. You might have noticed that I didn't even mention the US in this video. The US didn't play a major role in the development of socialism. The most remarkable thing about it, according to my research, was actually the lack of socialism developing there. It was the major country that seemed to defy the trend when the rest of the world was somewhat turning towards socialism (around 100-140 years ago). The US has the Democratic Socialists of America now, but they are small players in both American politics and socialism abroad. From my understanding they're currently closer to Marx and Fabian socialism (having an end goal of 'complete socialism') than democratic socialism typical elsewhere, like Europe. So they, to some extent, defy the generalizations I made of democratic socialism in this video, but they still generally insist on operating in properly democratic political spaces. Categorizations are historically pretty messy within socialism (socialists often claim labels mean things that conflict with other labels that other socialists use, both in other movements and other points in time), and like I said at the end, democratic socialism means different things to different people. If you're looking for one modern authoritative statement of democratic socialist thought, the DSA is not the association to provide it. The Labour Party's updated Clause IV is a better bet (which I read in the video), and yes the Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. Tony Blair (who oversaw the change to Clause IV): 'The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party.' For those who want to read more about Marx's theory of historical development, he saw it occurring through the lens of 'dialectics,' (a Hegelian idea) which is when you interpret the world through conflicting, opposite forces that resolve into a greater, more perfect whole. That's why both Hegel and Marx thought the world was becoming more perfect over time. 'Stages of the dialectic' were being passed through, and things were being resolved into greater and more perfect wholes over time. That's also why Marx's analysis was framed almost entirely through the conflict of two classes: the bourgeoisie and proletariat. He saw them as two opposites in conflict that would resolve into a greater whole: the dictatorship of the proletariat, bringing forth communism. So Marx believed dialectics provide some sort of penetrating insight into the world, even giving him insight into the inevitable future of humanity. He thought Hegel's dialectics were too mystical by being based in Spirit, and he thought he corrected that by basing his theory in matter. Both dialectics and Aristotelian essences are ideas that modern philosophers (like Russell) call 'scholastic.' They're inherently vague but nonetheless treated as precise by academics/theoreticians. That being said, I recently read an excellent biography on Marx by Jonathan Sperber, and he claimed that Marxists historically overemphasize the importance of dialectics to classical Marxism. That's something I've thought myself and I agreed with him. Marx himself rarely and usually only indirectly discussed them. I think the aspects of Marx that I covered in the video are the more important points and dialectics is the next level of detail if you're interested in understanding his underlying logic. You might have also noticed in Lenin's quotes that he used the term 'social democracy' for his style of socialism. It's a term that Marxists, Marxist-Leninists, and democratic socialists all claimed to describe their style of socialism, making it pretty meaningless in the context of socialism at the time (why I ignored it). I think there's more agreement now that it means something akin to what I described as democratic socialism here, but that in turn has led to endless fighting about whether or not there's a difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. Bernie Sanders, for example, announces himself as a democratic socialist, and it leads to fighting over whether he's a democratic socialist or actually a social democrat. I think it's an unnecessary and messy distinction, and think democratic socialism covers the concept well enough. If you ask the question: 'what single term covers all socialists who vow to work within properly democratic systems?' The answer is democratic socialists. The term social democracy is too fraught to be that single term. It's been used historically in too many loose and contradictory ways. That being said, you can use 'social democrats' to describe democratic socialists and people will now generally understand you. Others say social democrat means you specifically want a mix of capitalism and welfarism, which seems like it's a line socialists further left have taken to claim that any socialists that endorse any privatization aren't actually socialists (they argue that they're correctly called social democrats). By that logic the Labour Party and Swedish Social Democrats aren't socialists. Why? Because they don't want to completely abolish private property. The same goes for Chinese, Cuban, North Korean, and Venezuelan socialists, again, because they all endorse some amount of privatization. So this paints socialism in a pretty tight box, which defies the overwhelming trend in socialism in the last 100 years or so. From there your perspectives are 1) the one I laid out in this video, which most socialists around the world more or less agree with, or 2) socialism is now a small movement (made up of those who still want 'complete socialism') with few modern political successes, who have to somehow claim that all these self-described socialists around the world (like Bernstein and those in Europe) are in fact labeling themselves incorrectly. To me this is akin to saying that the only 'true' liberals around the world are classical liberals (wanting small government), and anyone who deviates from classical liberalism isn't actually a liberal. You have to let political philosophies evolve with the times, and socialism has done that (as has liberalism). On that note, democracy wasn't consistently used as a meaningful term by socialists until democratic socialism came around. Before then, it mostly was used by socialists to indicate a claim that their policies represented the 'will of the people,' a legacy that came from Rousseau's Social Contract. For one, that alone doesn't work as a conception for democracy. Even for a basic definition of democracy, power needs to be broken up beyond just the commanding majority. Think of what can happen if a majority can do whatever it wants to a minority. The other problem is that socialists at the time didn't tend to articulate a method for proving that their policy actually represented the will of the people. They just said it. The only methods that I'm aware of to date for establishing public opinion are polls and elections, and for either to work as a gauge for public opinion, they can't be held in a context where the population is under political duress. If disagreement or criticism is punished, then you can't expect to learn what people actually think. It was democratic socialists that insisted the word 'democratic' be used meaningfully in the context of their socialism, (meaning political opposition isn't suppressed, elections are open, and freedom of criticism is secured) making them the first to consistently use the word correctly in the tradition, at least to my knowledge. Last note - some say the video became biased when it covered Lenin, apparently thinking I was too harsh on him. He is heavily propagandized in some circles and is heavily villainized in others. In such circumstances it can be hard to tell who he really was and what he was really about. For our purposes here I wanted to give a straightforward explanation of his main contribution to socialism (Marxism-Leninism). If you think the way he came off was too harsh, I'd recommend researching the period I described in the video when he set the standard for repression in the Soviet Union shortly after coming into power. It's called the 'Red Terror.' I tried to give Lenin some humane nuances but that's the man we're dealing with. He used authoritarianism to bring about socialism, making it suddenly and for the first time an official ideology for a major world power. That was his main contribution to the subject. - Ryan

I have a masters degree in theology, and a PhD in psychology and I have rarely heard anyone present such complicated ideas with such clarity. You have a gift.

Explaining both Aristotle and Hegel is crucial to beginning to understand Marx. Rarely do people (or professors tbh) do this. Great video!

why doesn't this guy have more subs? Calm, coherent, easy to follow, no silly gemmicks. Just pure intellectual diamond

i love when youtube algorithm decides to throw at you these pearls and let you discover wonderful smart people from the other side of the world. This is how I wish history and politics got explained at schools. Thanks from the bottom of my heart.

I'm 22 years old, and am COMPLETELY clueless regarding politics. I don't have any political opinion other than "I hope we can all get along" and have felt pretty ashamed of that. This year when my country was voting for a new state minister I couldn't vote for any party since I didn't feel knowledgeable enough. Your channel has really helped me in grasping the fundamentals of politics and ethics, so that I at least can understand the different terms political representatives like to say a lot. Your channel is educating a whole generation of people around the world, thank you! :)

I love this introduction to writers in this context instead of the common “here’s the explanation from my perspective”. This can then be a jumping board to reading those people directly or learning more about them. It’s really refreshing to see.

This is the best description of socialism I have ever heard. Tracing it back to the roots and exploring how it evolved through the various schools of thinking is the perfect way to build a well-rounded understanding of such a complex term. Thank you so much Ryan for this incredible content!

A little late to The Party (see whut I did thur?) but I can't help but notice the part about the dictatorship of the proletariat and how Marx never "clearly articulated what that means or what that looks like" followed immediately by showing a highlighted quote that ends directly prior to exactly that: "The proletariat organized as the ruling class." A Marxist "state" is one that is organized by and with the interests of the working class as it's primary aim, "wresting, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie" and laying the groundwork for the transition from socialism (sometimes termed "early-stage communism") to communism (sometimes termed "late-stage communism" or the "second phase of communism"). It begins with the socialist organizational maxim, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their work," and, following the withering away of the state (no need for a state to appropriate the means of production when it's already done that and there's no bourgeoisie to struggle against anymore), "From each according to their ability, to each according to their *need*. To contrast, a capitalist state is organized with the interests of capital (not capitalists specifically but the very concept of capital itself) and it's reproduction and maintenance (through organized and systemic violence) as it's exclusive aim, constantly ramping up it's repressive aggression and stripping away the rights and freedoms of the individual to counteract the ever-growing and inevitable sequence of crises resulting from capitalism's in-built contradictions that will, inevitably, lead to it's destruction. There's also some conflation between shared ownership of the means of production and collective ownership of products themselves. It's not the products themselves that are owned collectively (personal property) it's the things necessary to create the products we need ( private property) that would be collectively owned and democratically operated. Nobody's going to come take your home or car or toothbrush or whatever because you didn't pay your rent or lease or fine or fee or whatever meaningless contrivance some capitalist can cook up to hide the fact that their claim to your property is spurious at best and downright theft at... Well, always. It's always theft. I think the section on Lenin would have benefited from even the briefest mention of Marxism-Leninism taking one of the most agrarian, poor and underdeveloped feudalist societies on Earth and, at a time where it was under siege by what was effectively the world's strongest and most advanced military force, pushed them all the way back to Berlin, crushed the Nazi war machine, and then oversaw the protection and development of the only other superpower in the history of mankind, produced higher average levels of quality of life than it's capitalist counterparts at equal levels of development (https://libgen.li/ads.php?md5=f32a35c1b94844ed2e5d9c60aa9ba5fe ) and led to a wide variety of scientific advancements (especially aerospace) all while the capitalist nations that'd had centuries to develop (the majority of which was the result of literal chattel slavery and colonial exploitation) did everything in their power to sabotage and destroy that society. I think it's also telling that a similar society, though far smaller in size, managed to not only survive both the economic sabotage and even direct, full-scale military invasion from the most powerful capitalist nation on Earth but, even after inflicting damn near every one of the most heinous war crimes imaginable from large-scale, civilian-targeted violence, widespread use of chemical weapons, torture, etc., successfully pushed their shit in and threw them out on their ass. And it certainly wasn't bourgeois electoralism that made that possible. I'd recommend for anyone who really wants to do their own research to check out "The Principles of Communism" by Friedrich Engels to start (it's practically a pamphlet and can be accessed online for free) and then move on to "Value, Price and Profit" and "Wage Labor and Capital" by Karl Marx (also free, though definitely more substantial). I'd then try to slog through Das Kapital if you can manage it but the previous works should be sufficient to provide at least a foundational knowledge of dialectical materialism and scientific socialism.

this is the most straightforward and digestible understanding of socialism i've seen yet. it really helps to explain the different ideas and manifestations instead of trying to tie it all into a single definition. thank you!

I was really lazy in school and never really studied because I was so addicted to my phone & now I'm 23 and suddenly find history and how society/economy works really interesting. 🙏 Watching your videos makes me feel a tiny bit more educated and makes me really happy. I appreciate your work so much! ❤️

Thank you Ryan for such a comprehensive overview. There are not many 45 minute+ educational videos that can keep me engaged throughout its entirety. You've added to my understanding of socialism immensely.

I don't normally watch American history youtube vlogs because the Americans always take so long with silly introductions, trying to be funny, liking the sound of their own voice, but this guy is brilliant. I really enjoyed this, no BS, straight to the point and explained in a simple and entertaining way. Well done Ryan. You are a great teacher. Keep up the fantastic work

As someone with socialist leanings, I really appreciate the nuances and lack of overt bias in this video. Where some people go instantly to moralistic terms, you take a rationalist approach; which I admire. Edit: something something warzone in comments yadda yadda

Thank you. I am 67 and have been interested in politics all my life, but evidently I still have things to learn. Your presentation of the roots of socialism was brilliant and added to my knowledge.

The summary at the end is the best I have ever heard. This whole video on socialism is the best that I have ever seen. This channel on social history is the best I have ever found.

Your format is pretty awesome and made me instantly subscribe.

I truly appreciate your video essays. Your insistence and persistence to report, summarize, and or critique without a clear bias has helped me to understand political and philosophical ideas that roam and inform the society around me. It has also helped me to stay calm and find the humanity in others I engage in lengthy and intensive debates with. I appreciate you.

I think I’m becoming addicted to your presentations. Your methods and articulations and the level you present them in is extremely thoughtful and concise. You presented way that doesn’t necessarily lean, but informs all the same. These concepts and their misinterpretations have evolved to the point of rhetoric. The education you provide and the subsequent clarity is very much appreciated. Extremely well done, sir.

I never comment on YouTube Videos but this has to be one of the most precise, well-informed and thoroughly crafted videos I have seen in a while. Finally some objective explanations instead of egotistical opinion sharing when it comes to these topics! Kudos to you