Comments by "Digital Footballer" (@digitalfootballer9032) on "Ryan Chapman" channel.

  1. I think of the political spectrum as more of a circle than a linear graph or even a square. I say this because if you start in the center and gradually go either left or right, you eventually converge again on the other side at totalitarianism, as both leftist and rightist ideals, as they become more extreme, inevitably end up totalitarian. While the ideals themselves may actually be quite different, even opposite, the means to enforce them and control the population is basically the same. Look at for example Nazi Germany vs the Soviet Union. Both required dictators/oligarchs, both were highly nationalistic, both had limits on personal freedoms and free commerce, and both put a high emphasis on race/nationality. Just to name a few aspects.
    6
  2. Socialism is a wonderful idea in a world that lacks corruption and where all leaders are benevolent and selfless. Unfortunately we don't live in that world. Capitalism may very well have it's faults, however socialism by its very nature is a very corruptible system because in order to implement it, you must entrust individuals into positions of power to regulate economic practices. This is the inherent vice of socialism, or any ideology that involves central planning...no individual or group of individuals tasked with leadership will ever be pure enough to govern such a system fairly. Capitalism is a model that is more organic in nature, for better or for worse. The better being that any one person, in theory, can succeed through their own labours, the worse being that unscrupulous individuals out there in the free market can manipulate things to their favour, and negative side effects such as monopoly, monopsony, price gouging, etc, can occur. In my humble opinion, a base capitalist system with a modest degree of central control is the best compromise. Granted, of course, that those in control are chosen through free election.
    3
  3. The problem with a system, like socialism, which requires central planning, is people. You must have people whom are elected to organize the central planning, and people by and large are corrupt, or can be easily corrupted. The problem with a system, like capitalism, that is organic in nature (the "invisible hand of the market"), is people. You must trust that in a free market system with little to no central control, that people in the system will act fairly, and while many will, enough will manipulate the system enough that it makes a total laissez faire system a disaster. So there's your problem. It's people. It's always people, regardless of what system you use. Hence why the best solution is to take the best aspects of a multitude of economic systems and implement some sort of a hybrid system. Nobody has quite figured out the perfect mix yet, but in my opinion markets must be free of overregulation, while at the same time, having a degree of control maintaned just enough to prevent unfair market practices. Not an easy task, as those tasked with providing the laws for this regulation can themselves be corrupted and model said laws to their advantage...or just have the right people in the right places to look the other way when they break their own rules. We have seen this in the United States from members of both political parties since day one. Socialism is a government agent coming in your store and taking 90% of your profits to give to the store across the street because they didn't do as well as you. Capitalism is the mafia coming in your store and busting it up because you are operating on their turf. Neither situation is favorable, hence why a middle ground is needed.
    3
  4. ​ @Ezhil-dq8op Most of the poorest countries in the world are either single party States, or are in various states of disarray/anarchy/tribal rule (e.g. Somalia). Few actually fall into the realm of actual textbook capitalism or socialism, they are mostly outliers with various chaotic situations.
    1
  5. In my opinion, pure forms of any system have rarely existed. Communism is a great example, as basically every large nation state that deemed itself communist was really more like authoritarian socialism. Nazis as well had a mix of what is traditionally considered far right (nationalism, the concept of a "pure race", etc), there were absolutely socialistic elements as well, for example commerce and industry under heavy government control, which is the opposite of far right which would be anarchy. You can make the argument also that pure capitalism doesn't exist as well (it has historically in small pockets), but in terms of unbridled Laissez Faire capitalism, it is more or less impossible to sustain without the results being a huge gulf in class, therefore inevitably ending up in an uprising of the lower classes.
    1