Build faster, get started with Zapier for free:
Earth is 71% water, 29% land, and only a fraction of it is useful. Scarcity—and who owns what—drives every economic system humans have ever built.
From Karl Marx writing Das Kapital in deep poverty to the 28-year natural experiment inside divided Berlin, we trace how socialism evolved from a radical economic theory into a system governing a third of the planet—and why central planning keeps running into the exact same problem.
**CHAPTERS**
0:00 The Finite Land Problem
1:10 From Feudal Lords to the Industrial Revolution
4:11 The Enclosures & Factory Town Realities
6:15 Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Capital
8:47 The Profit Debate: Reward vs. Exploitation
9:36 How Prices Work: Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down
11:33 The Berlin Natural Experiment: West vs. East
16:25 Inside Soviet Central Planning: Politburo to Grocery Shelves
19:45 The Trabant, Life Expectancy, and Economic Signals
20:49 Are Nordic Countries Actually Socialist?
21:51 Absolute Power: The Incentive Traps of Centralization
**KEY TOPICS**
* **The Land Ownership Shift:** How conquest, feudal estates, and market taxes transformed how humans view property.
* **Das Kapital:** Why Marx’s masterwork thoroughly critiqued capitalism but left the alternative completely open.
* **The Role of Prices:** Why bottom-up consumer signals coordinate supply chains better than central planning commissions.
* **Divided Berlin:** A side-by-side look at two grocery stores 20 minutes apart—and the 10-year wait for a Trabant.
* **The Nordic Model:** Why Sweden, Norway, and Finland are free-market economies with big safety nets, not socialist states.
Follow Maxinomics on social:
X:
Instagram:
TikTok:
source
And, of course, the ones deciding, were outside the system.
Why are you using East Germany as an example of democratic socialism when it was control by the communist USSR. That's like comparing Norway to North Korea.
Democratic Socialist Countries Overview: Democratic socialism is practiced in various countries worldwide. Nordic Nations — Sweden, Denmark, and Norway are often cited as prime examples of democratic socialism, focusing on universal healthcare, education and cure for the elderly. Be careful of those that you allowed to do your thinking for you. They fear those with knowledge and control the ones without it…
This is a misleading depiction that deflects the fact there are genuinely greedy powerful people who want to monopolize the economy to the extent they can control your entire lives. Power at any extreme is prone to becoming abusive and all sideds need to be closely checked so that no camp is capable of overreaching and unnecessary intruding upon the course of your own existence. Socialism would be basic ethical human decency only if the ones practicing it are wise enough to apply it judiciously as would most other systems. The key is always within the wisdom upon how it is expressed.
Iceland and Norway both define themselves as Democratic Socialist countries. Iceland — #1 in the Ranking: Offers the highest standard of living with an HDI of 0.972.
Switzerland — Known for its robust economy and excellent healthcare system.
Norway — #3 in the Ranking: Ranks high due to its wealth from natural resources and strong social programs.
Again we seem to not be able to understand that communism and socialism although related not the same thing. The United States has had elements of socialism since FDR. No one is advocating for full blown socialism but a blend of capitalism and socialism. (Democratic socialism). As a country the United States always seems to have money for war but never money to take care of its citizens. (Universal healthcare or Medicare for all).
Bottom up vs top down. This is the best explanation I have seen describing capitalism vs socialism. Brilliant!
Thesis: Income from Capital Invest should not be allowed
I have trouble with this. I regard by country as probably a democratic socialist Society.
At it's best, it had a minimum wage which allowed people to live. It allowed unions who bargained for better wages. It tried to stop those that are necessary for the economy to prosper being exploited, and tried it in general to make life better for everyone.
It has helped me and past generations to prosper and I hope it will survive to help future generations.
I am Australian and I trust my government who continue to do the best for its citizens.
Thanks. You enlightened me to the issue of socialism and the problem with capital.
Nowhere in Das Kapital does Marx describe "the workers owning their means of production" as the government owning and controlling capital, it directly condemns that. All this video compares is state capitalism vs imaginary free market capitalism. Small family businesses are not capitalism, family owned and operated factories and farms are not capitalism. Worker owned co-ops are not capitalism. Trade is thousands of years older than capitalism. If your hand makes it, you own it. If your hand plants the seed you own the fruit from the tree. But that's overly simplistic.
Honestly this video ignores a big part of the picture, workers on the capitalist side of Berlin had a strong and uniquely powerful workers unions because of the isolation, there was nowhere to bring scabs from, union busting was difficult because they were all survivors of war,. It was not a comparison between "free market capitalism" vs "communism." It was a comparison between unionized workers, regulated market, capitalism, with government funded social safety nets and then on the other side state capitalism. The more power a small number of people have over a large population the worse conditions get for most people.
There are two ditches – capitalism and socialism. Capitalism ignores the needs of the poor and helpless. Socialism ignores the needs of the rich and clever.
Both groups constitute parts of any society in history, and mostly the capitalists win. The result can be seen on the streets of all large cities in the USA: Victims of poverty and stupidity
and addictions of several kinds – living and dying on the streets because there is no safetynet to catch them – different from such as the Scandinavian countries with their remains of
post 2. World war Social Democrats; securing free health sevices; free education incl. universities and state building and control of most all public infrastructure like roads, harbours,
airfields, electricity and electrical and electronical communication services. This system is these days eroded by privatization, and we may end up like the USA where capital is
spending all its powers in order to avoid sharing with those unable to fend for themselves.
Capitalism only works because the law makes it possible. All alternatives are restricted, making variations impossible.
I think most of the materials on earth are land because below every ocean is land,.
Great production value but let's be honest, this isn't a neutral explainer — it's a pro-market essay dressed up as a documentary. Reducing "socialism" entirely to Soviet-style central planning is a pretty convenient choice, because it lets you skip every other model that exists (mixed economies, cooperativism, market socialism, etc). And presenting Hayek's economic calculation problem like it's some unanswered, settled fact is just not accurate — economists actually did respond to that argument, that debate has a whole history the video conveniently skips.
Also, using Berlin as "the perfect natural experiment" glosses over the fact that one side was a one-party dictatorship and the other got billions in Marshall Plan aid — that's a pretty massive confound, not a clean A/B test. And it's funny how 19th century capitalism gets the full unflinching treatment (child labor, enclosures, all of it) but Nordic countries barely get 90 seconds of scrutiny.
Good research, solid visuals, but this is an argument, not an explainer. Would've respected it more if it just owned that instead of pretending to be neutral.
So how is it that workers own the means of production in a centralized fully government administrated economy? Ever hear of a coop? It's really not as unprecidented and mind boggling as you have made it seem. There are even coops that exist within capitalist countries.
Fascism isn't a requirement of socialism. It can be democratic and take signals from the bottom up as well.
There are examples of grocery stores successfully operated by a government, such as ones which are available to military families in the US.
This is clearly just more of the same lazy pandering for capitalism with a very selective choice of what to see and not see from the history of the world.
Markets, innovation, and economies still exist within socialism. Bureaucracies still exist within capitalism, they're just privately owned and benefit the few. Grow up.
I feel like this entire video is mixing up socialism and communism, they are not the same thing.
Its funny how people not talk about the down fall of America.Its a 3 word country .By the way your rong there is a lack of brick layers ,still there is no one getting rich ,of them. But a good pop artist well were are planty of are.Get rich somtimes.This to ceap up the dream.
This has been coming for over half a decade now. It grew slowly at first (LBJ) but the growth over each generation is exponential.
I thought Socialism was an economic system where the means of production can be owned and managed by the public or a democratic government. Where the people are generally paid based on individual work and contribution. I also thought capitalism and socialism could coexist.
Even in the United States there are social safety nets like Social Security and Medicare; paid for by collecting taxes and meant to assist citizens who have a need. I thought even farmers in the United States are benefiting from Socialism; the Federal Government collects taxes and pays farmers to grow specific crops. In a capitalist society farmers would be subject to all the risks of weather, disease and price uncertainty. I’m sure most small to medium farms would use their land for something more profitable or stable if it weren’t for government subsidies.
From my understanding, investment from the Federal government in to emerging technologies, healthcare and infrastructure is a big reason why companies have been so successful and profitable.
What he describes in this video sounds to me like Communism; where the means of production are controlled by a centralized government.
One huge aspect of the planning quotas, that you touched in with the croissant example, is that plans are aggregated at the top, and disaggregated at lower levels. The famous example is one you mention, nails. The factory has a quota for ails, maybe even by broad category. But there are all sorts of nail types. The foundries providing the metals,works the same way, the factories making the tooling work the same way. Managers are awarded my making quota, not providing downstream consumers what they need.
The capitalist created the value. End of. Come on.
Socialism…for people who want more than they could ever earn on their own.
The incentive problem is not even the worse problem socialism has. Socialists will simply swipe it aside saying that changing human nature would fix it, which it would. But the economic calcularion problem is a very real technical problem that they have no answer for. Thay is socialisms real problem.
I think the construction/plumber example is where this argument needs to get more practical.
In a normal market economy, a plumber is free to decide where he works, who he works for, what jobs he accepts, and what he charges for his labor. If someone needs a plumber at 8 PM and is willing to pay his emergency rate, he can take that job. If another customer offers more, he can choose that job instead. He can even leave one company and work for another or start his own business.
Now consider a fully state-directed economy. The plumber isn't simply an independent worker who can advertise his services and accept whoever is willing to pay. His labor is part of a state or collectively organized enterprise. The system determines where his labor is needed, what work he performs, and what compensation he receives. He can't simply say, “I'll work wherever I want, I'll only take the jobs I choose, and I'll charge whatever the customer and I agree is appropriate.”
Construction has the same issue.
In a market economy, if a construction company needs a crane, excavator, truck, specialized tool, or additional contractor, it can simply look around the market, compare prices, rent or hire what it needs, and negotiate a contract. If Company A doesn't have the equipment available, it can call Company B. If Company B charges too much, it can look for Company C.
Under a traditional command economy, construction companies aren't operating with that same freedom. Equipment, materials, labor and other resources can be allocated administratively according to the economic plan. If a construction project suddenly needs another crane, the company can't necessarily just go into an open market and rent one from whoever owns it. It may have to request the resource through the planning system.
That's the important distinction.
It's not that a socialist economy is incapable of having plumbers, construction companies, contracts, computers, or even equipment rentals. It's that under a fully state-directed system, those participants don't necessarily have the *economic freedom to independently choose where their labor and resources go and negotiate their own terms.*
And that brings us right back to the economic calculation problem. The question isn't whether a computer can keep track of every crane in the country. Of course it can.
The question is: *when five construction projects need that same crane, who decides which project gets it, and on what economic basis?*
A market uses prices, contracts, competition, supply and demand, and profit/loss to make those decisions continuously and decentralize them among millions of people.
If you remove those mechanisms, you still have to replace them with something.
This is why I think that socialism or a concept similar or derived from it could potentially thrive within a decentralized environment, a network effect rather than a rigid structured. It needs to ebb and flow, and it needs to be compatible and fair. Pure systems fail, hybrid system are more resilient.
Sounds like socialism will fail no matter what. If the world was all socialism from the beginning, we’d probably not have electricity.
I feel like it’s a system designed by poor people or people who feel sorry for poor people.
The idea of equality for all is amazing, but the reality is, people aren’t equal, neither In intellect or work rate.
Socialism is a false utopia that stifles growth and centralizes power.
While capitalism has its faults, like socialism, the faults are Becuase all systems are implemented me people. And people are often times selfish and greedy.
But at least In capitalism, you have to potential to reach a better life. The only ceiling above you is how hard you are willing to work and to what depths you will go to obtain a better life. In Socialism, there is most definitely a ceiling and it’s out there by people In charge, not but your own abilities
I don't know anywhere in the world where true capitalism has worked.
What a breath of fresh air!
How great would it be if all those that prefer socialism moved from the U.S. and over to Europe?
Socialism is what helped to collasp the Roman Empire. It has destroyed civilizations for over a thousand years.
when you dont even know the diff between comunism and socialism…. ..
Where in the universe you can find "owning" so we can make objecive measurement?
Dude, just let me rule and I'll solve all your problems… don't think too hard about it
Also, at 10 minutes, you're touching exactly what most capitalists/socialists debate about. "The ownership of the means of production", means for example that even though the Congo was rich in gold and other minerals, it never profited from it because it was sacked. Anti communism, comes from those who think that its justified for them to exploit other people for centuries until their resources are drained. Like, some people even say that drinkable water should be like oil, and not be a right but rather something one should buy as a commodity.
such a BS video. LoL Talk about the Congo which was capitalist since belgian kingdom and how anyone that wanted the resources to be made available for its people would be thrown in soup by europeans and muricans.
There are many holes in your video.
1. Socialism doesn't mean dictatorship 21:51
2. 20:53 Nordic Countries have "free markets" but are active in socialism via taxing… In other words, for socialism to work you NEED capitalism.
3. Here you say "No one has fulfilled the ideas by Marx" 21:42 but in the beginning you already had suggested Marx hadn't proposed how things should work, aka a solution. You are contradicting yourself by treating Capital by Marx as a solution that didn't work.
4. 6:40 Do you think that if Marx was a factory worker he would of had the time to write his manifesto?
5. 23:00 "Why would you work any longer if you will earn the same" This rhymes with the argument of "Capitalism inspires innovation, Socialism creates laziness" The Soviet Union, not socialism, was creating laziness with their system yes. But incentive to improve our world is not unique to capitalism – it is part of being human.
6. 23:26 Here you are literally describing late stage capitalism, few above with all the money shaping politics.
I still remember the very day when that wall came down.
Watched it on TV.
What a moment to be alive.