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 https://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 got a blackrock ad on this video

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

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.

Being 16 and learning this is eye👁 opening

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 feel like I’ve learned so much in such a short period of time. I swear 6 month university courses have taught me less than these 50 minutes. Thank you, man

so, I belong to an underprivileged society.
My caste wants to escape poverty. But, We don't have the means to.
Few years ago, we all came together and started a money piggy bank, every single member would donate some money each month. As the money wasn't enough to set up a collective business but it was surely enough to cover unexpected cost of living like a surgery, a wedding, someone's tuition fee etc.

We were extremely skeptical at first but after 6 years we now have enough money to provide scholarships for people who are not part of our community.

What I am trying to say is, an idea of collective good only works when the collection of people feel responsible for others around them. We care for each other because we are of the same caste but now we have enough resources that we can lend a helping hand to those in need just because they are in need.

28:35 as we have like 7 companies holding the economy 😳

Usually the idea of private property is clearly differentiated in terms from ownership of means of production and personal property.   Neither Marx nor any major communist thinker that I know is against owning personal items or even a home.  What they are against is large scale economic rent, using capital to extract more wealth without any benefit to society.

This should be made very clear because it's a big misconception that communism is against all private property.  The point is to prevent extreme concentrations of wealth and power, which I think most would agree with in principle.

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 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.

Theeee absolute most accessible description of socialism I’ve found

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! ❤️

Excellent, relevant and fascinating content.  Appreciate all your hard work and research bringing this content to life in an engaging fashion.  Keep up the good work!

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.

Clarity,simplicity,explicity,immensity,
authenticity,balance,
comprehensiveness,knowledge
Appreciate your video❤️❤️

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

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.

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