Why Would Anyone Work Under Socialism?

Summary

This video explores socialism as an alternative economic model to capitalism, challenging the notion that work is inherently valuable and highlighting capitalism's inefficiencies and inequities. It discusses how socialism could reduce work hours, increase job satisfaction, and use automation to alleviate labor, all while guaranteeing basic needs for everyone. The script addresses common criticisms and questions the necessity of work under a system that prioritizes profit over human fulfillment.

Takeaways

• 😀 The video humorously introduces socialism as a concept, emphasizing its importance beyond just 'sticking it to your dad'.
• 🏭 Capitalism is characterized by a small minority owning the majority of productive resources, which allows them to profit from the labor of others.
• 💡 Socialists propose collective ownership of the means of production to redistribute wealth and improve societal well-being.
• 🤔 The video questions the necessity of fear and scarcity as motivators for work, challenging the capitalist incentive structure.
• 🔑 The 'Protestant Work Ethic' is highlighted as a cultural pressure in capitalist societies to imbue work with innate value, regardless of its nature.
• 🌐 Material coercion is identified as a significant driver of work under capitalism, where the lack of a guaranteed minimum standard of living forces people into labor.
• 📉 The script points out the failure of capitalism to maximize productivity or human potential, with more unemployed people than available jobs in the US.
• 🤝 Socialism is presented as a system that could reduce work hours through equitable distribution and embracing automation, improving work-life balance.
• 🛠️ The potential for a more democratic and accountable workplace under socialism is discussed, where management could be elected by workers, reducing hierarchy.
• 🌱 The script suggests that fulfilling work, with clear results and community impact, can be a strong incentive under socialism, even when basic needs are met.
• 💰 The video acknowledges potential limitations and challenges under socialism, such as the resolution of disputes over scarce resources, but argues for its legitimacy in comparison to capitalism.

Q & A

What is the main subject of the video script?

The main subject of the video script is socialism, exploring its definition, how it contrasts with capitalism, and the potential societal and economic implications of adopting a socialist model.

What is the economic model currently in place according to the script?

The script states that the current economic model is capitalism, characterized by a small minority privately owning the majority of productive resources and using this ownership to generate profit.

How does the script describe the concept of 'means of production' in capitalism?

In the script, 'means of production' refers to the tools and resources required to produce goods, which are owned by capitalists, allowing them to put others to work and generate profit without necessarily working themselves.

What is the socialist perspective on ownership of the means of production as presented in the script?

The script suggests that under socialism, ownership of the means of production should be collective, enabling the redistribution of what is produced among the people or its use for societal benefits, such as ensuring no one lives in deplorable conditions.

How does the script address the concern that people might not work if their basic needs are guaranteed under socialism?

The script proposes that in a socialist society, people might still be motivated to work due to a reduction in the total amount of work required, better working conditions, and the intrinsic satisfaction of contributing to society and seeing the impact of their work.

What is the 'Protestant Work Ethic' mentioned in the script, and how does it relate to capitalism?

The 'Protestant Work Ethic' is the idea that work is inherently valuable, regardless of its nature. The script explains that capitalist cultures have adopted this belief to incentivize people to work, even in degrading or boring conditions, by associating work with moral goodness.

How does the script discuss the issue of unemployment in the context of capitalism?

The script criticizes capitalism for not providing a guaranteed minimum standard of living, leading to material coercion where people work out of necessity to avoid destitution. It also points out the discrepancy between the reported unemployment rate and the actual number of people unemployed or underemployed.

What is the script's stance on the effectiveness of capitalism in maximizing productivity and human potential?

The script argues that capitalism does not effectively maximize productivity or human potential. It points out that there are more unemployed people than available jobs and that the system prioritizes profit over fulfilling human needs, leading to overwork for some and unemployment for others.

How does the script suggest that work incentives might change under socialism?

The script suggests that under socialism, work incentives could shift from material coercion to intrinsic motivation, such as contributing to the community, having democratic control over economic decisions, and working in more humane conditions.

What role does automation play in the script's vision of a socialist society?

The script posits that automation could play a significant role in reducing the amount of work required per person in a socialist society. Without the fear of job loss driving up profits, automation could be embraced to alleviate the burden of work and improve living standards.

How does the script address potential limitations of socialism?

The script acknowledges that socialism would not be a perfect society and might still face issues of scarcity and the need to resolve disputes over resources. However, it argues that socialism offers a more legitimate and equitable approach to addressing these issues compared to capitalism.

Outlines

00:00

😀 Introduction to Socialism and Capitalism

The video script begins by acknowledging the support of patrons on Patreon and invites viewers to become patrons for early access and exclusive content. It then introduces the topic of socialism, humorously suggesting it's about 'sticking it to your dad' before explaining that socialism represents a fundamentally different societal and economic model. The script contrasts socialism with capitalism, where a minority privately owns the majority of productive resources and uses this ownership to generate profit without necessarily working themselves. It suggests that socialists envision a collective ownership of the means of production and a potential for a more equitable redistribution of wealth and resources.

05:00

😔 Critique of Capitalism's Labor Incentives

This paragraph delves into the dynamics of work under capitalism, highlighting the cultural and material coercions that compel individuals to work. It critiques the notion of 'the Protestant Work Ethic' and the belief that work is inherently valuable, regardless of its nature. The script points out that capitalism does not guarantee a minimum standard of living, creating a situation where individuals must work to avoid destitution. It also challenges the idea that capitalism maximizes productivity or human potential, citing the discrepancy between the number of unemployed individuals and available jobs, and the misleading nature of official unemployment rates.

10:03

🤔 The Reality of Unemployment and Job Satisfaction

The script presents data suggesting that there are more unemployed people than available jobs, contradicting the promise of capitalism to provide opportunities for all. It discusses the harsh reality of unemployment and underemployment, and the government's role in maintaining a 'reserve army of labor' to keep wages low and profits high. The paragraph also addresses the dissatisfaction many workers feel with their jobs, citing Gallup data that shows a majority of Americans are disengaged from their work. This dissatisfaction is attributed to the alienating nature of work under capitalism, where individuals work for the benefit of others rather than for personal fulfillment or community betterment.

15:07

🛠 The Potential of Socialism to Improve Work Incentives

The script outlines how socialism could potentially offer better work incentives by addressing the issues found in capitalism. It suggests that with collective ownership of the means of production and guaranteed basic needs, there would be less work required from each individual. The potential for reduced work hours and the positive impact of automation in a socialist society are discussed, as well as the possibility of a more democratic and equitable distribution of work. The paragraph also considers the idea of rewarding certain jobs more than others to account for differences in desirability and the potential for people to find fulfillment in work that contributes to society.

🤷‍♂️ Addressing the Limitations and Potential of Socialism

In the final paragraph, the script acknowledges that socialism is not a perfect system and may still face issues of scarcity and the need to resolve disputes over resources. However, it argues that socialism offers a more legitimate and equitable method for addressing these issues compared to capitalism. The video concludes by reiterating the importance of community support and the role of Patreon in enabling the creation of this content, inviting viewers to join the Patreon community for early access and exclusive benefits.

Keywords

💡Socialism

Socialism is an economic and political system where the means of production are owned and controlled by the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals. It is the main theme of the video, which discusses how a socialist society would operate differently from a capitalist one, focusing on collective ownership and the potential benefits such as the guarantee of basic needs for all. The script mentions socialism as an alternative to the current capitalist system, critiquing capitalism's concentration of wealth and advocating for a more equitable distribution of resources.

💡Capitalism

Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the pursuit of profit. In the script, capitalism is characterized by a small minority privately owning the majority of productive resources, leading to a system where workers are put to work to generate profit for the capitalists, regardless of their own needs or the societal impact. The video contrasts capitalism with socialism, highlighting issues such as wealth inequality and the exploitation of labor.

💡Means of Production

The means of production refers to the resources used in the production of goods or services, such as companies, factories, and tools. In the script, it is emphasized that under capitalism, these are privately owned, allowing capitalists to control the labor force and profit from it. The video suggests that in a socialist system, the means of production would be collectively owned, which could lead to a more equitable distribution of wealth and power.

💡Work Ethic

The work ethic, particularly the 'Protestant Work Ethic' mentioned in the script, is the belief that hard work is intrinsically virtuous and necessary for individual success. The video discusses how capitalism instills the value of work in society, suggesting that work is morally good regardless of its nature. This concept is critiqued in the context of socialism, which may offer different incentives and values for work.

💡Material Coercion

Material coercion refers to the pressure exerted on individuals to work due to the necessity of earning a living, often in the absence of a guaranteed minimum standard of living. The script uses this term to describe how capitalism compels people to work to avoid poverty, hunger, or other hardships, contrasting this with the potential for a socialist system to provide basic needs unconditionally, thereby changing the nature of work incentives.

💡Scarcity

Scarcity, in economic terms, refers to the state where the demand for goods and services exceeds the supply. The video discusses how scarcity is a factor in both capitalist and socialist systems, but how it is artificially created or exacerbated under capitalism to drive up profits. Under socialism, the script suggests that disputes over scarce resources might be resolved more equitably through democratic means.

💡Alienation

Alienation, in a Marxist context, is the estrangement of people from their work, the product of their labor, and from their own human potential. The script describes how under capitalism, workers are alienated because they do not have control over their work and it does not fulfill their personal needs or desires. The video contrasts this with the potential for work in a socialist system to be less alienating and more fulfilling.

💡Automation

Automation refers to the use of technology to perform tasks that would otherwise require human labor. The script discusses how capitalism may resist automation due to the threat it poses to jobs, whereas socialism could embrace it, as it would reduce the amount of work required from individuals without the fear of job loss, thus potentially improving work-life balance and conditions.

💡Hierarchy

Hierarchy, in an organizational context, refers to the arrangement of people or groups according to their level of authority or status. The video describes how capitalism often features strict hierarchies with little accountability, leading to potential mistreatment of workers. In contrast, socialism might dissolve or democratize hierarchies, making management more accountable to workers, which could improve work environments and satisfaction.

💡Basic Needs

Basic needs encompass the fundamental requirements for human survival and well-being, such as food, shelter, healthcare, and education. The script argues that a socialist system would guarantee these needs for all individuals unconditionally, which contrasts with the capitalist system where access to these necessities is often tied to employment and income.

💡Profit Motive

The profit motive is the primary driving force in a capitalist economy, where the main goal of production and business activities is to generate profit. The video critiques how this focus on profit can lead to overwork, underemployment, and a lack of fulfillment for workers, suggesting that a socialist system might prioritize human needs and potential over profit.

Highlights

Socialism is an economic model that organizes society differently by advocating for collective ownership of the means of production.

Under capitalism, a minority privately owns the majority of productive resources, leading to a profit-driven system.

Socialists propose that collective ownership could lead to a more equitable redistribution of wealth and resources.

Capitalists prioritize profit over societal benefits, which can lead to disparities in living conditions.

The video challenges the misconception that socialism aims to simply 'stick it to your dad', highlighting its more profound societal goals.

In a capitalist society, work is often imbued with an innate value, known as the 'Protestant Work Ethic', regardless of its nature.

Material coercion is a significant driver for work under capitalism, where the lack of a guaranteed minimum standard of living forces individuals into labor.

Despite common beliefs, capitalism does not maximize productivity or human potential, as evidenced by high unemployment rates.

The U-3 unemployment rate is criticized for excluding many who should be counted as unemployed, painting an inaccurate picture of job availability.

The concept of 'work' in a socialist society could be less about maximizing profits and more about fulfilling human needs and desires.

Socialism could reduce the amount of work required per person by eliminating jobs that only exist to increase profits for owners.

Automation under socialism may be more readily adopted as it would not threaten job security, but rather improve living standards.

In a socialist society, hierarchies within companies might be flattened or made accountable to workers, improving work environments.

Work under socialism could be more appealing due to democratic decision-making and reduced working hours.

Socialism could address the issue of job satisfaction by making work more meaningful and less of a time sacrifice.

The video suggests that people are naturally inclined to work and contribute, even when their basic needs are met.

Socialism may still face issues of scarcity and the need to resolve disputes over resource distribution, but in a more equitable manner.

The video concludes that socialism doesn't need to be perfect, but only needs to be an improvement over the current capitalist system.

The content of the video is supported by patrons on Patreon, emphasizing the role of community in supporting alternative viewpoints.

Transcripts

This episode and others like it are made possible by the generous support of my patrons on Patreon.

If you’d like to help support my channel, get early access to every video, and get access

to our patrons only discord server, consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/secondthought.

What is socialism?

If you answered “sticking it to your dad,” you’re absolutely right.

That’s what really matters.

Never lose track of that.

But believe it or not, there is more to it.

Socialism is a fundamentally different project for society.

A society organized around a different economic model.

With that much at stake, it’s natural to wonder how such a society would work, and

because it’s the topic of this video, how this society would work.

Currently we don’t live under that economic model, of course, we live under capitalism,

a system in which a small minority of people privately own the vast majority of all productive

resources: companies, factories, stuff like that.

They own the tools, so to speak, to make stuff.

This ownership over the so-called “means of production,” the means required to produce,

allows capitalists to put other people to work.

That way they make a nice little profit, or a big, humongous “I feel like buying twitter

today” kind of profit, regardless of whether they work or not.

Sometimes they just don’t.

Good for them.

Socialists have a different idea of how things should be run.

Instead of concentrated and individual ownership over the means of production, ownership should

be collective.

That way whatever we produce by working we could redistribute amongst ourselves or use

to do cool stuff like, I don’t know, what if nobody lived on a concrete slab right next

to cars and sewer water.

Crazy ideas like that.

But capitalists like to keep their profits more than they like doing cool stuff, so that’s

pretty much where the story ends.

After all, where does it end with you socialists?

First you want to treat the homeless like they’re people, now you’re telling me

you want everyone to have guaranteed shelter, food, medical care, and education?

I don’t think so.

If people aren’t fearing for their life at least once a day, why would anyone ever

want to work?

How would we get anything done and guarantee these things you’re promising to everyone?

And that’s actually a really good question.

Let’s spend about 15 minutes trying to answer it.

The first piece of the puzzle we need to look at is work under our current system: capitalism.

That’s because socialism is not a perfect, utopian, society where everyone is happy all

the time.

Socialism will have its limitations, and in order to properly assess those limitations

we have to compare them to the kinds of limitations we are currently facing in our resplendent

capitalist economy.

For starters, how does capitalism incentivize work?

A big way capitalists incentivize people to do stuff is by imbuing work with innate value.

You might’ve heard this called “the Protestant Work Ethic” before.

Capitalist cultures have all assimilated the idea that work is good in and of itself.

No matter how degrading, punitive, boring, or evil, it’s morally good to work and morally

bad not to work.

Better to be the CEO of a company dumping waste into a local river than to be one of

those lazy poor people.

At least the CEO is out there doing something.

This innate belief in the value of work is what makes the sentence “get a job” so

universally recognizable to all of us.

But there are a lot of people for whom this kind of cultural pressure doesn’t work very

well.

So the other, most significant way capitalism gets people to work is through material coercion.

You are not guaranteed a minimum standard of living under capitalism, so it’s either

you work or you starve.

You work or you can’t make rent.

You work, or you’re at the mercy of an unfortunate medical surprise.

It’s a brutal way to organize labor in a society, but the theory is that even though

it’s bad, at least it’ll get our society to be as productive as possible, and overall,

that will mean that we will maximize human potential.

Millions may be destitute, but, hey, we got the lines to touch.

Except it doesn’t work.

Capitalism doesn’t maximize productivity or human potential.

Even by its own standards.

In the US, there are more people that are unemployed than there are jobs for them to

do.

While you may have heard that there are more jobs in the economy than people to fill them,

especially during quote “The Great Resignation” that’s not strictly speaking, what’s the

word?

True?

Most news outlets use the government’s preferred data on unemployment.

A number that is usually pretty low because when that number is low, it looks good.

The most commonly used number on unemployment is called the U-3, and the reason it shows

a relatively low rate of unemployment, one that makes Americans look lazy when there

are all those good jobs out there, is because it flat out doesn’t include a lot of people

that it really should.

Excluded from the U-3 unemployment rate are people who are underemployed, marginally attached

to the workforce (meaning they want to and can work but aren’t looking anymore), or

that are categorized as “discouraged.”

All people who in one way or another easily fall into the unemployment category, but aren’t

counted as such.

But that’s not all.

Sometimes, the unemployment number will be even lower than that because the government

just counts wrong.

As a result, when you try to actually count up how many people are really unemployed by

adding up those who are miscategorized, unemployed, and underemployed you get a much bigger number:

26.8 million people.

Way more people than there are jobs to fill.

What does this mean?

Well it means that millions of people are being hit with a stick and promised a carrot

that many of them will mathematically never get the chance to eat.

We are subjecting millions of people to crushing poverty, without guaranteed housing, healthcare,

or adequate food on the theory that it’ll get them to work, despite knowing full well

that we don’t have the room in our job market to accommodate them all.

It’s misery for misery’s sake.

And this is completely contradicting the idea that capitalism can maximize human potential.

That’s because maximizing human potential doesn’t maximize profits.

It is more profitable for our companies to overwork some people, according to one study,

about 1 in 3 Americans, and have a separate, unemployed pool of people in a desperate living

situation, ready to accept just about any job for very low pay.

Our governments care more about how profitable an economy is than putting that profit to

good use, so this reserve army of labor is perpetually maintained.

If governments solved poverty they would hurt profits, and that’s what’s more important

to them.

But that’s for the unemployed.

Those who escape unemployment aren’t making it into some hallowed sanctuary of regalian

pleasure.

Most Americans don’t like their jobs.

That may seem subjective, but according to Gallup 66% of Americans are either “not

engaged” or “actively disengaged” from their job.

We might call that kind of feeling “alienation.”

The way Gallup comes up with these numbers is by getting yes or no responses to basic

statements like “At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day” or “At

work, my opinions seem to count” or “The mission or purpose of my company makes me

feel my job is important” and even, basic, bottom of the barrel statements like “My

supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person.”

Why are so many people unable to answer these questions in the affirmative?

It’s because the jobs we’re working, and the context in which we’re working them,

aren’t built with human needs in mind.

We aren’t working for ourselves or our community.

We are working to make someone else wealthier, not to become more fulfilled people, not to

make the lives of the people we love better, just to put another buck in someone else’s

pocket and get enough of a kickback to pay for the things we need and maybe a couple

things we want.

We are alienated from work, and that means we can only ever see it as a sacrifice of

our time.

For the thing that takes up most of our waking hours, that’s a problem.

So what about socialism?

As a refresher, socialism is a society where the means of production are owned collectively

and basic needs are guaranteed to all unconditionally.

For any theory heads in the crowd, here we’re talking specifically about lower-phase communism

just to make our case as difficult as possible to defend.

Anyway, how do you get people to work if all their basic needs are met?

For starters, there’s just going to be less work that needs to be done by everyone.

Convincing people to spend 4 or 5 hours on the job instead of 8 is already making things

easier.

With fewer jobs that exist only to drive up profit for capital owners and by eliminating

the artificial work scarcity capitalism produces, we can greatly reduce the amount of time people

spend working.

The incentives a capitalist society follows lead it to overwork one chunk of society,

while sustaining another group of immiserated people who do not work despite wanting to.

In contrast, in a society where everyone has democratic power over economic decisions,

the most likely outcome is to divide work equitably.

Hence, less work per person.

This reduction in working hours would also be helped by automation, which wouldn’t

face the same resistance as it does under capitalism.

Under capitalism, workers are disincentivized from advocating for more automation because

it threatens to rob them of their job, which they need to live.

Capitalists are also disincentivized from automating jobs away because it’s not very

difficult to find someone desperate enough to do it for lower pay.

Building robots is expensive.

Moving a job outside the imperial core is not.

Under socialism, if a decent existence is not conditional on work, having machines take

over your job or at least alleviate the time and effort it takes is a no brainer.

With a democratic model of economic decision-making, automation has much more room to develop since

it’s in everyone’s interest to reduce the amount of work being done.

Here again, the appeal of a shorter workday or workweek comes back into focus.

In general, this logic of lower working hours can be applied to all sorts of jobs in a more

targeted way.

If a job is particularly unappealing, because it’s especially physically demanding, for

example, the number of hours spent on the job can be reduced in order to make it more

appealing.

Once again, this kind of logic runs counter to what we experience in capitalist society.

Capitalism has, in most parts of the world, drifted towards a standardization of work

around the 8 hour day and the 40 hour work week.

That is because the driving force of work under capitalism is always maximizing the

exploitation of human capacity up to the point where the law steps in.

What this means is that jobs that have no business being 8 hours long are just because

they legally can be.

Less time working is already great, but there are even better ways in which work under socialism

gets incentivized.

One of the big reasons your job can suck is because of who your boss is.

Usually, they aren’t accountable to you, there is a strict hierarchy and odds are you’re

near the bottom.

If you have a bad boss, there's very little you can do about it, and there’s a lot they

can do to make your time on the job a lot worse.

As a result of the common ownership of the means of production, this kind of thing would

not be a feature of socialism.

Either your company’s hierarchy is completely dissolved, or if some amount of hierarchy

is necessary to make things run smoothly, your management would be elected by the entire

body of workers like you can see in some co-ops today.

So, you either no longer have a boss, or your boss is accountable to you, not the other

way around.

A better work environment, where your voice counts just as much as anybody’s is a lot

more pleasant than one where you are told what to do and you can only resist by threatening

to leave the job entirely, an ultimatum that more often than not is not worth making.

Overall, a less alienating job, that takes up a lot less of your time, and treats you

like a human being with agency and not like an interchangeable cog, will inevitably entice

people into working in ways that current capitalist labor doesn’t.

After all, everything we do is work.

If we can make the unpleasant things we do pleasant, we will do them because that’s

how we treat everything else.

That’s why we cook for ourselves, make our beds, and clean the counters.

It's why 1 in 4 Americans volunteers.

We make necessary things pleasant.

Doing work with a clear result, that has a demonstrable impact, where you can see progress,

and where you work with other people makes people happy.

Work that takes this into account, not just the bottom line, is work that is attractive.

We can do that for a whole economy once we stop prioritizing profits.

But admittedly, all this might not be enough.

All these factors may not be sufficient incentives to produce all of our collective needs and

wants.

If that’s the case, we might choose to add an extra incentive by rewarding some jobs

better than others.

Even if all your basic needs are met, you might still benefit from doing a job very

few people want to do themselves.

This would never lead to the staggering inequality we face today, after all, nobody makes billions

of dollars off of a higher wage, but it would still produce some benefits for those who

are willing to sacrifice more.

In this lower phase of communism, the guiding principle would be “from each according

to their ability, to each according to their contribution” as opposed to the more classic

“from each according to their ability, to each according to their need” we would expect

from a later stage communism.

It’s not an ideal scenario, but again, we’re not even sure it’s necessary.

While you’ll often hear things like “why would a doctor take on such a grueling job

if they could make as much as a janitor?”

that’s not as rock solid of an argument as some may think it is.

In a lower stage socialist country like Cuba, where doctors do not make particularly high

wages but the health sector has been properly funded, there’s an abundance of doctors.

So much so that the country deploys physicians to its neighboring, oftentimes wealthier,

capitalist countries when they’re in need.

Reality does not support the idea that because a task is unpleasant or difficult, people

are not drawn to it.

People like doing things that matter in conditions that fulfill their needs and desires.

Not only that, people don’t like not doing things.

If you’re still wondering why people would work despite having all their basic needs

met, think about what it's actually like not to work.

Within just a few days, doing nothing is unbearable.

We are hardwired to want to do things.

Sitting passively in front of a computer screen all day is more punishing than it is relaxing,

and with an abundance of things to do around you that benefit you directly and your community

as a whole, staying inside all day is almost certainly going to be the worse option of

the two.

But I briefly touched on the idea of limitations earlier, so it’s probably good that I actually

address it before the video ends.

Socialism would not be a perfect society.

For example, would there still be coercion?

The honest answer is maybe.

So long as there is scarcity, there will almost always need to be a way to resolve disputes

over how scarce resources are divided up.

Scarce resources can be physical, material things, but also more abstract ideas like

leisure time.

Under capitalism, the decisions over how to distribute these scarce resources are made

by capital owners and markets, by the competition of all against all, with the consequences

of vast inequality and mass poverty we see today.

Under socialism, these disputes would either be resolved through democratic means, within

a company, community, or throughout society at large in some form of national assembly,

or self-imposed, with the recognition that there is a want that is not met and with individuals

taking it upon themselves to satisfy it.

It’s not clear how much of a role scarcity would play under socialism, given how much

of the scarcity we experience today is artificial or exacerbated in order to drive up profits,

but even if we imagine scarcity to be just as important of a feature as it is in our

current lives, there’s no doubt that the socialist model is more legitimate in settling

the disputes scarcity would produce.

Ok, but can this system work perfectly?

Here again, the honest answer is probably not.

But it doesn’t need to.

It just needs to work better than what we have now.

And better than brutal poverty, massive unwanted unemployment, and a general dissatisfaction

with how we spend the bulk of our days isn’t that hard to do.

I mentioned at the beginning of this video that this kind of content is made possible

by my patrons on patreon.

As you can probably imagine, YouTube doesn’t like to promote left wing political content.

I’ve gotten a lot of reports recently of people not getting notified of my new videos

even if they have the bell clicked.

Because of this, I’m having to rely more heavily on viewers like you to maintain my

channel.

If you like the kind of videos I’m producing, and you’re able to chip in even a dollar

a month, I would greatly appreciate the support.

As a little show of that appreciation, every patron, regardless of donation amount, gets

early access to every video, plus access to our patrons-only discord server.

It’s a really fun place to hang out.

We have everything from a recommended reading list, to a book club, to special channels

for our neurodivergent and lgbt comrades.

I also try to do a live Q&A with patrons every month, which is always a good time.

We’ve built a great little community, and we’d love for you to be a part of it.

So, if you’d like to help support my channel, join the Discord, and get early access to

every video, consider becoming a patron at patreon.com/secondthought.

If you enjoyed this video, consider dropping a like.

If you hated it, a thumbs down.

You can check out my previous videos by clicking the links on your screen.

Thanks for watching, and I’ll see you next week.