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

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'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!

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 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! ❤️

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.

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.

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 (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.

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

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 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

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.

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.

It’s really good to see you growing. You deserve it. Can’t wait to come back in a year or so when you have half a million or even a million subs. Great work bro. Love it.

Your format is pretty awesome and made me instantly subscribe.

I never comment on UKposts 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

I love speeches in which very single word is exquisitely chosen to make perfect sense. You're gifted at the craft of weaving ideas into a sort fabric of rationality.

Could you do a comprehensive video for Capitalism? I feel like there is nuance in both Socialism and Capitalism that conversations these days miss. One's totally good, and the other is totally evil. You do a good job at hitting an objective tone in your videos.

Great video breaking down a very nuanced topic. It may have deviated a bit from your succinct explanation, but it would've been great to hear you touch on anarchism as well.

Man, that was fantastic Analysys!!! I listened to lots of lectures, Yale etc. But your analisys is just another level. Fresh mind, own understanding, not just academics repeting same old stories, the way they was always told. You are todays intelectual!!! Respect and Best Regards!! Inspired!! Thank You!

Ryan, you’re one of the best orators/lecturers I’ve ever had the pleasure of listening too. Your summation skills are excellent. Thank you for these videos.

This is a wonderfully accessible video. I love seeing the threads of these philosophies laid out like this. It really helps me to see how we’ve ended up here. Your channel is a godsend

This was brilliant & I loved your revised definitions at the end! Thank you so much for creating this explanatory masterpiece! *Cheers from MI* 🍺

What a great video! You have illuminated much. Clearly and with precision. And without bias or a cajoling tone.

Ryan, I must appreciate the clarity with which you explain political and economic concepts. For many years, I have been reading books on these important topics, often voluminous, and I have not been the wiser until I stumbled on your UKposts channel. You cover massive terrains in each topic, and I had to frequently pause the recording to reflect and understand the sub-topics and terminologies, which in themselves could constitute independent topics. I was wondering whether you are considering breaking up a topic into fundamental subtopics and presenting these as short 2 to 5 minute animations. This will certainly assist many more people to grasp these important relevant issues. Thank you very much for the great job that you doing.

I loved how you developed the concept through historical events-shaping revisions, which in turn influenced events and further fleshing out the the more practical concept of socialism. Great content, Ryan. 👍🏻👏🏻 Your channel deserve and need to have more follower. But such is life, bro.

This is great! Its really nice to have the facts laid out without giving opinions. Its a really good feeling to draw my own conclusions without interference :D

I am happy I stumbled upon this channel. This seems like a place for free thought and critical analysis of ideas while also taking from primary sources. Good job!

The YT algorithm actually did good in recommending your channel to me. Very objective and well stated videos so far from what I've watched. It's a shame that more people don't take time to fully understand the terms they throw around. It's interesting to see that a lot of the more failed versions of political and economic ideologies seem to be linked to absolutism.

An excellent material, Ryan! Very concise and on the point. It's hard to believe that there was a time when "Das Kapital" was a mandatory reading in school... Anyway, I'm somewhat glad for putting up the effort. As a recommendation for future videos: I, personally, would be truly glad to see more meditations on subjects within the realm of political psychology.

Great presentation, impeccable, objective and constructive. I'm going to watch the rest of the channel because I thought this video was one of the best I've seen on UKposts.

this was unbelievably good, thank you so much for summarising and simplifying the definitions and history of socialism!

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!

It is not just the topic or definition, it is how you put it into words, the perspective and process you gained a subscriber G

Might I ask if there is a transcription of this video? I would like to reference parts of it in my writings.

I'm only 18 minutes in and this is the first video I watch on your channel and I'm already impressed. I love your format, specially how you're showing the source lines of all you sentences, which firstly shows your credibility and secondly makes it way easier to pick up a thought and continue with it, since it'll be easier to find in the source.

Your ability to be thorough and unbiased like this is exactly is why I support you on Patreon each month. Amazing work! Thank you!

Well researched and well presented, a far cry from the simplistic distortions heard daily from contemporary news/media.

I found value in this summary. Interesting take on Lenin, not at all the emphasis I usually take from his work and a Trot milieu. Thanks for the background on Bernstein, really helps in understanding the context if Luxemburg's polemic.

Of all the political analysts I have found on this venue, I find your attitude of calm objectivity married with thorough research to be the best.

Outstanding research work and tutorials! Flowing and not long-winded due to your prepareness and clearly exemplifying excellence!

Thank you so much for this, Ryan! Especially for clarifying the difference between the ‘Old’ and ‘New’ Labour Parties in the UK. As a UK resident from a traditional Labour area, this is very helpful.

Anyone know the music in the background of this (starting from the Overview)? It has a really nice harmonic structure to it which I think is mixolydian but I can't hear it well enough to be certain.

Ryan’s back 💯🌍 - very curious for this one. I want a solid grasp of socialism beyond just economics class. I reckon Ryan will provide such an analysis… let’s see!

If I could criticize one thing, it would be that I wouldn't use the term "Democratic Socialist" to describe the rise of the liberal parties in favor of social welfare in post-WWII Europe. Like you explained, their prominence was in large part due to their social stability and democratic rule within a capitalist economy. The better term would be to call these parties by how they describe themselves: "Social Democrats".

That was very interesting. I am a scientist, but have a very long standing interest in history. I have never had much time for political theories, and have always found that they tend to ignore history. I also find the idea of there being a single course that history must follow. I think this idea is inherently dangerous....hearing peolple say that they are "on the right side of history" is terrifying to me. As you say, you can justify any act by saying that historical progress is pre ordained. These talks have really made me realise that I have missed something by being too dismissive of political theories. It is also interesting how many of the names you mention were already familiar to me as people who made major contributions to scientific thought.

I'm a last year undergrad student of political science and after watching numerous videos on socialism i can confirm that this is the best video on the internet. Many people find this topic quite complicated. But this video contains all the proper infos. I'm so happy that i found this channel

Ryan, this is yet another masterpiece of extremely well researched education. Wherever we lie on the political spectrum, it is essential we understand the terms and actions of how we got here, and comprehend at least the meaning of the tools are our disposal. Thank you!

Incredibly well researched and presented in a painstakingly unbiased way. Amazing as always Ryan!

Well done presentation in substance, austerity and articulation (to mention a few remarkable features) 💥👍

I imagine myself in a library looking at endless rows of books. In them I may find the answers to the when, why and how of the human condition. Entropy has its way with my head and I run out of time. TY for condensing so much into your videos.

The term "capitalist", meaning an owner of capital, appears earlier than the term "capitalism" and dates to the mid-17th century. "Capitalism" is derived from capital, which evolved from capitale, a late Latin word based on caput, meaning "head"-which is also the origin of "chattel" and "cattle" in the sense of movable property (only much later to refer only to livestock). Capitale emerged in the 12th to 13th centuries to refer to funds, stock of merchandise, sum of money or money carrying interest.[20]: 232 [21] By 1283, it was used in the sense of the capital assets of a trading firm and was often interchanged with other words-wealth, money, funds, goods, assets, property and so on.[20]: 233  The Hollantse (German: holländische) Mercurius uses "capitalists" in 1633 and 1654 to refer to owners of capital.[20]: 234  In French, Étienne Clavier referred to capitalistes in 1788,[22] six years before its first recorded English usage by Arthur Young in his work Travels in France (1792).[21][23] In his Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817), David Ricardo referred to "the capitalist" many times.[24] English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge used "capitalist" in his work Table Talk (1823).[25] Pierre-Joseph Proudhon used the term in his first work, What is Property? (1840), to refer to the owners of capital. Benjamin Disraeli used the term in his 1845 work Sybil.[21] The initial use of the term "capitalism" in its modern sense is attributed to Louis Blanc in 1850 ("What I call 'capitalism' that is to say the appropriation of capital by some to the exclusion of others") and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1861 ("Economic and social regime in which capital, the source of income, does not generally belong to those who make it work through their labor").[20]: 237  Karl Marx frequently referred to the "capital" and to the "capitalist mode of production" in Das kapital (1867).[26][27] Marx did however not use the form capitalism, but instead used capital, capitalist and capitalist mode of production, which appear frequently.[27][28] In the English language, the term "capitalism" first appears, according to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), in 1854, in the novel The Newcomes by novelist William Makepeace Thackeray, where the word meant "having ownership of capital".[29] Also according to the OED, Carl Adolph Douai, a German American socialist and abolitionist, used the term "private capitalism" in 1863.

I'm out of words. Thank you for your work. Subscribed and will happily contribute financially to your channel as soon as I have funds to spare.

beautiful explanation, enjoyed it right until the very end. Thank you!

It is timely we all need to review all history with an ideology that originated from where, in order to understand to see today’s deep corruption in all entities and governments. Thanks for a good summary.

As someone who lived in one of the versions of Socialism (Yugoslavia) I completley agree with Ryan. Socialism/Communism implemented in Warsaw pact countries was quite different than what was in Yugoslavia (Non-Alaigned movement) and Stalin in particular hated the fact that Yugoslavia didn't wanted to become a member of Warsaw pact.

Your speaking and teaching abilities are exceptional, and your ability to summarize complex ideas is impressive. Thanks for this one : )

You seem to be a great guy and great explainer as well. Thank you and respect. 💯👌🏽

Young Man, you do a very comprehensive and easy to understand presentation! KEEP IT UP !

This might sound odd, though I have for some time been curious and had the want educate myself on such ideologies, but funny as it may sound a video game is what finally drove me to learn about Socialism and other types of ideologies like your other fantastic video on Fascism. Funny enough that game was Disco Elysium, a role playing game that involves both socialism and fascism within its setting.

This is a great video! Really enjoyed it. There is however bias by omission on a major part with respective the Lenin’s suppression of the opposition and civil war - the bourgeoisie were fighting to destroy what the Bolshevik’s were trying to build

I rarely leave comments, but for this one I will. This is the 3rd video of yours I have watched, and have thoroughly appreciated all of them. Your research is impeccable and shows the highest levels of professionalism with regard to the content. I currently teach AP European History and in the future plan to have my students watch this video to show the roots and longitudinal changes in socialism, especially from Marx to present.

I love how you synthesize very complex ideas and make them easy to digest for my tiny brain. Thank you.

Well done, Ryan. Good to see a young person doing the kind of critical thinking and deep research you present. Gives me hope.

New to your channel and loving it.❤

I absolutely love politics and philosophy. And this video is clear and well explained, I learnt more than i already knew by studying, and helped me sort some thoughts!

It's a channel that can remind people history and the humanities are serious disciplines, not just ideological flexing points

Thank you for this very thorough and interesting lecture. Although I have never voted left of center I found it highly informative and rewarding to watch. I will certainly watch a few more of your videos. Greetings from Sweden

I loved this video thank You. So informative. Yes, I am Cuban! My parents fled communism to the US years ago. Can you talk about the Cuban regime one day and how it went wrong. Thanks!!

All your videos are amazing. Thank you so much!

The music, the graphics, the transitions... the quality of this video's sound and visuals are incredibly nice compared to your already really good videos on your channel. Whatever you did to change it, good work!

I’ve been trying to go back and understand the philosophies which got us here and Ryan Chapman seems very adept at synthesizing these concepts to a level where they are easily understood, how they relate to each other and how they have developed over time. His statement in another video that when you try to achieve equality you by definition have to intrude on freedom is such a key point.

💯💯 definitely the getting rid of social anxiety thing hit wit me heavy

That was a very well done video sir, its helped me fill the blanks in my understanding of socialism. It also makes me realize how on point Ludwig von Mises was in his analysis of the ideology as a whole, Primarily in his book 'Socialism'. But its interesting as well how central Germany was to the whole movement, which Mises also covers in 'Omnipotent Government'. In short it has re-affirmed my stance for Austrian Capitalism, but I none the less understand the mentality of Socialism better which is always a good thing.

I have to applaud you on how well you structured this video. Informative, non biased and historical.

As a philosophy-major, this is the most unbiased coverage I've seen. Please, please, please tell me you'll professionally translate this for Spanish, Chinese, and Russian speakers.

This was such an informative video and helped me gain a much better understanding of communism and socailism. You explainig how Marx arguments expand on Aristotle and Hagels really made it come full circle and appreciate the thought behind the philosophy. Well done. This was a wonderfully researched and educational video.

This is a course level video. Thanks a lot❤

Grateful to have your thoughtful voice on UKposts. Really impressive, helpful and apolitical breakdown of socialism.

Thanks again for your very methodical, calm, rational exploration of these topics. In an age in which political thought is dangerously oversimplified to bumper sticker slogans, we need more discussion like yours and less yelling.

You are a great teacher! Thank you!

Ryan’s back - very curious for this one. I want a solid grasp of socialism beyond just economics class. I reckon Ryan will provide such an analysis… let’s see!

Excellent and well thought out presentation of the roots of socialism and its evolution in modern societies. Thank you Ryan for taking the time to properly research this topic and articulating it so well!!!

Great work Ryan. Enjoyed the historical breakdown detail. Respect brother.

Your energy is contagious! 🌟

We appreciate how well you've articulated your insights. You'll always have our support.

Most under appreciated channel. Here’s hoping you’re channel blows up soon.

Understanding how most of these groups and the ideology behind them works is crucial to understanding where some actually come from. Very crucial and informative in understanding specifically the western ideology

AWESOME!!! I have so many questions for you. What about the problems with German Idealism, that is philosophies stemming from Hegel, etc? I'm kind of fascinated by what I see in this area. The rift is not so much in goals, but how one determines what is true or false (i.e. epistemology). Also a difference in metaphysics. This is where "American Ideology" (philosophical traditions arising from John Locke and British Empiricism) differ from Marx and other socialists.

I think you really made socialism accessible to being thought about thoroughly. Thanks a lot !

Great video! It's wonderful how neutral you are in your style of presentation. I think it's admirable that you choose and maintain this style even though the media environment is so opinion focused today. I think these videos bring a lot of people with different opinions together, which is what we need today. To me this is also the most informative UKposts channel I know. Thank you so much!

A someone who still finds ‘worker control of the means of production’ as a good definition of socialism in terms of description of the economic approaches of socialism, I also find your simplified ‘trimmed down’ definition of socialism to be admirable for general use in describing the collective of all socialistic concepts. Well done, I really wasn’t expecting to find a definition that extended beyond the dogmatic over application of economic, philosophical or social descriptions onto the entirety of socialism. Hoping the dictionaries catch up but there’s still so much confusion on the term that I doubt we’ll see much progress any time soon.

This is an amazing video, it does well on divulging and explaining the authors you chose, however I think it would've been interesting to follow leninism with a brief summary of stalin's imperialist rulership to then go towards trotskysm, Gramsci is also an author I think fundamental to introduce socialism/communism and maybe Federici to work through modern marxism and feminism; still very clear and abarquative, especially for those who aren't well versed on the subject. Apologies if my english is poor, It's not my native tongue.

This was amazing to listen to...pure knowledge👌

I how you find meaning in your work good sir. If not, I certainly do. I think a certain kind of human wants a deeply researched explanation, not noise. You excel at providing the former, and save me from wading through the latter. I hope to contribute to your patreon as soon as I am able. I don't care how long it takes to get a new video, just please keep making content.