His point is that there is less poverty and less slavery now than ever before. Sure there is still huge amounts of povery and slavery, but thats because we as a society have scaled. Would you rather an extreme poverty rate of 80% out of one billion as it was 200 years ago, or 9% out of eight billion as it is today? Comes out to around the same number of people in absolute poverty, but today this still leaves 7,2 billion lives that are above that, and at least 4 billion that live comfortable lives. Luxurious lives by historical standards. Do you want to eliminate poverty or create wealth? Be destructive or constructive? Work against something or for something? I know what i choose...
@@vincnt0169 No socialist nation ever had slavery so it's irrelevant, and objectively speaking (in the real, empirical world and not in your head) the absolute number of people in poverty in the world have been increasing. The fact total world GDP goes up or the total number of people living "luxurious lives" is going up is irrelevant because most of that wealth is concentrated into a few hands. The actual _absolute_ number of people in poverty has increased. The only place where there's been serious poverty reduction is in socialist China.
He spews talking points but its so reductive to the reality that capitalist actively work to destroy any other economic system before it has a chance to succeed. You can't compare the number of people that died under capitalist slavery, economic wars to maintain capitalist, rich people might and the number of socialist leaders assissinated to ensure capitalisms success.
Yeah, China only managed to more than double their life expectancy under Mao, far more than the capitalist equivalent India. And the Soviet Union only managed to go from semi-feudal peasant society to space exploration within a couple of decades despite brutal sanctions and wars of extermination from imperialism. But sure, it was all a complete failure. It was such a failure that a majority of former USSR citizens say life was better back then than today.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Churchill “Capitalism the worst form of economy, except for all the others.” Lesh
Churchill, the guy who absolutely loved to genocide non-white people in India and elsewhere, and who thought Mussolini was a good guy. One of the worst racists and imperialists of the 20th century.
It is always depicted, as if a bunch of smart people have thought out capitalism as a system and then applied it to society. But actually it developed out of previous economic systems by countless interactions, inventions, historical and cultural changes and had been labeled a new system by historians, when some general standards arose which seemed to justify recognizing it as something categorically different from previous stages. This does mean that capitalism is historical too, in the sense that it changes, had a beginning and will have an end eventually. Maybe the changes which later historians might perceive as categorically new to describe the "next" economic system are already happening, but maybe capitalism will stay a lot longer and might exceed our own life time. Nobody knows. But personally i believe the most contributing factor for the emergence of a new economic system in the long run will be climate change. Suffice to say that the next system might not necessarily be "better" in fact it might be drastically worse. But let's keep discussing reform and political changes in the hope to be shaping a better world for our children and grand children.
Nothing functions properly when corruption persists. The USA boasts the best system to govern a country, but without addressing corruption, nothing will succeed. If individuals utilize their power for personal gain, rather than working collectively for the benefit of themselves and their people, progress is hindered.
@SurprisedHermitCrab-uc7qf yes irrespective of systems. It's always corruption. But anyone at this point who defends capitalism is a paid propagandist! The system itself, by definition, means people are being exploited.
Sure there is still huge amounts of povery and slavery, but thats because we as a society have scaled. Would you rather an extreme poverty rate of 80% out of one billion as it was 200 years ago, or 9% out of eight billion as it is today? Comes out to around the same number of people in absolute poverty, but today this still leaves 7,2 billion lives that are above that, and at least 4 billion that live comfortable lives. Luxurious lives by historical standards. That doesn't excuse the wrongs that are still going on today, and there are improvements we can make, but we have to stay realistic and think things through, give capitalism credit for what it does right. Under capitalism, if you work just out of ego, just to make yourself more comfortable, that can be done by providing a service to others. You earn things for yourself by providing value to the collective. The more value you provide, the more the collective will pay you back. Social systems can be okay in moderation, to help everyone gain access to stable opportunity, but looking at their history they tend to corrupt and devolve, especially when scaled up with the purpose of "equality". We don't want to be equal. We want to be better, we want to grow. Take away that drive and you take away most of the human spirit. In the complex system of our society, eliminating poverty by force is just too complicated, we have to grow out of it naturally. In the end it comes down to your focus. Do you want to eliminate poverty or create wealth? Work against something or for something? Fight things or build things? I know what i choose...
Capitalism is the best system we have for now though we should transition to a more hybrid system with stronger social programs for healthcare, education, and general well being. Universal Basic Income test results largely suggest it could be a positive net gain on society. The only way to truly grow out of capitalism however will be if/when someone discovers how the replicators from Star Trek work, thus making money largely obsolete and launching humanity into post-scarcity society. Unfortunately, a technology such as this would require enormous amounts of energy, so we’ll need to reach type 1 civilization first; fusion should solve that problem and it may be closer than most think.
@@JustAnotherSeeker I don't think we need a replicator to get there, AI and other technologies might do it before then, but yeah I agree. And yeah, UBI might be a good intermediate for transitioning as well, making people focus on what they actually WANT to do with their lives instead of what they have to do to survive. It seems fair and probably wouldnt hurt the economy that much, cause it wouldnt be much at first. I generally agree that capitalism needs an upgrade, I just don't like that some people don't give it the credit it deserves. It is a necessary step, but we can evolve beyond it. If we're very careful.
I don't agree with communism, but I also think it is very naive and utopian to believe that free markets truly exist or ever could exist. Adam Smith himself knew that the invisble hand is simply an ideal and could not truly exist in practice without being hijacked. There are always vested interests having unfair bias on markets, whether that's the state or anyone else. People need to grow up from this uncritical free-market salvationism
It is true when socialism was a system used organizing material over production for a market it failed and also when this lead to a dictatorial government. But in terms of organizing social benefits under capitalism, it actually served it by providing for better distributed wealth leading to more labor. When material needs are basic in their distribution, this does not ask for billionaires. The question rather becomes what political influence are they buying with their money. Which is not categorized as fulfilling a need, or creating more labor.
It's also a false dichotomy because there are many more systems of self organisation possible. We aren't stuck with just there two. What's ironic is that both these two systems focus on people as means of production.
@@haraldtheyounger5504 I've lived long enough, read enough, and traveled enough to come to an informed opinion. Not too mention having relatives who lived under a community regime. Including ardent communists. I will admit though, that capitalism doesn't address certain needs of society (roads, water, sewer, pensions) and a certain amount of socialism is necessary.
I live in a "third world country", and here, capitalism has failed us since the beginning. And down here, every attempt to change this failed system will suffer the interference of the """"saviors and guardians of the world"""", also known as United States. We are trapped inside a purgatory. We have to live with the consequences of things beyond our comprehension, beyond our actions and capacities. So, capitalism works just for an absurd minority of humans, and the rest will kill each other every single day, in different ways, just to eat the crumbs.
@@baarbacoa Capitalism, like so-called Communism, both way too one-sided and one-dimension. Both utterly lacking humanity. Neither system is preferable, as neither give humanity nor this planet what we actually require. Both demand conformity to the crass, and that conformity comes at a very costly cost. There is another way, one which has been a success in its own way. So I'll leave you to think on that.
when the awareness has rised enough, people will realize, that they were enslaved all the time, just with a nicer finish
Hey I would accept my current living conditions because I get to pick from 3 brands of pistachio ice cream, I feel free /s
What argument does anyone have that capitalism is working. There is huge amounts of poverty and slavery now.
According to capitalism that things are *working* exactly as planned
His point is that there is less poverty and less slavery now than ever before. Sure there is still huge amounts of povery and slavery, but thats because we as a society have scaled. Would you rather an extreme poverty rate of 80% out of one billion as it was 200 years ago, or 9% out of eight billion as it is today? Comes out to around the same number of people in absolute poverty, but today this still leaves 7,2 billion lives that are above that, and at least 4 billion that live comfortable lives. Luxurious lives by historical standards. Do you want to eliminate poverty or create wealth? Be destructive or constructive? Work against something or for something? I know what i choose...
We don’t have a free market system now. The government spends 43% of GDP.
@@vincnt0169 No socialist nation ever had slavery so it's irrelevant, and objectively speaking (in the real, empirical world and not in your head) the absolute number of people in poverty in the world have been increasing. The fact total world GDP goes up or the total number of people living "luxurious lives" is going up is irrelevant because most of that wealth is concentrated into a few hands. The actual _absolute_ number of people in poverty has increased. The only place where there's been serious poverty reduction is in socialist China.
@@QuantumPolyhedron Okay, maybe I'm wrong, can you show me any stats on that? Cause most of what I found showed absolute poverty decreasing.
He spews talking points but its so reductive to the reality that capitalist actively work to destroy any other economic system before it has a chance to succeed. You can't compare the number of people that died under capitalist slavery, economic wars to maintain capitalist, rich people might and the number of socialist leaders assissinated to ensure capitalisms success.
Yeah, China only managed to more than double their life expectancy under Mao, far more than the capitalist equivalent India. And the Soviet Union only managed to go from semi-feudal peasant society to space exploration within a couple of decades despite brutal sanctions and wars of extermination from imperialism. But sure, it was all a complete failure. It was such a failure that a majority of former USSR citizens say life was better back then than today.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.” Churchill
“Capitalism the worst form of economy, except for all the others.” Lesh
yeah, or not?
Except that’s all nonsense
Churchill, the guy who absolutely loved to genocide non-white people in India and elsewhere, and who thought Mussolini was a good guy. One of the worst racists and imperialists of the 20th century.
@@ludviglidstrom6924 anarchist? nihilist?
It is always depicted, as if a bunch of smart people have thought out capitalism as a system and then applied it to society. But actually it developed out of previous economic systems by countless interactions, inventions, historical and cultural changes and had been labeled a new system by historians, when some general standards arose which seemed to justify recognizing it as something categorically different from previous stages. This does mean that capitalism is historical too, in the sense that it changes, had a beginning and will have an end eventually. Maybe the changes which later historians might perceive as categorically new to describe
the "next" economic system are already happening, but maybe capitalism will stay a lot longer and might exceed our own life time. Nobody knows. But personally i believe the most contributing factor for the emergence of a new economic system in the long run will be climate change. Suffice to say that the next system might not necessarily be "better" in fact it might be drastically worse. But let's keep discussing reform and political changes in the hope to be shaping a better world for our children and grand children.
Nothing functions properly when corruption persists. The USA boasts the best system to govern a country, but without addressing corruption, nothing will succeed. If individuals utilize their power for personal gain, rather than working collectively for the benefit of themselves and their people, progress is hindered.
@SurprisedHermitCrab-uc7qf yes irrespective of systems. It's always corruption. But anyone at this point who defends capitalism is a paid propagandist! The system itself, by definition, means people are being exploited.
Sure there is still huge amounts of povery and slavery, but thats because we as a society have scaled. Would you rather an extreme poverty rate of 80% out of one billion as it was 200 years ago, or 9% out of eight billion as it is today? Comes out to around the same number of people in absolute poverty, but today this still leaves 7,2 billion lives that are above that, and at least 4 billion that live comfortable lives. Luxurious lives by historical standards.
That doesn't excuse the wrongs that are still going on today, and there are improvements we can make, but we have to stay realistic and think things through, give capitalism credit for what it does right.
Under capitalism, if you work just out of ego, just to make yourself more comfortable, that can be done by providing a service to others. You earn things for yourself by providing value to the collective. The more value you provide, the more the collective will pay you back.
Social systems can be okay in moderation, to help everyone gain access to stable opportunity, but looking at their history they tend to corrupt and devolve, especially when scaled up with the purpose of "equality". We don't want to be equal. We want to be better, we want to grow. Take away that drive and you take away most of the human spirit.
In the complex system of our society, eliminating poverty by force is just too complicated, we have to grow out of it naturally.
In the end it comes down to your focus.
Do you want to eliminate poverty or create wealth? Work against something or for something? Fight things or build things? I know what i choose...
Capitalism is the best system we have for now though we should transition to a more hybrid system with stronger social programs for healthcare, education, and general well being. Universal Basic Income test results largely suggest it could be a positive net gain on society. The only way to truly grow out of capitalism however will be if/when someone discovers how the replicators from Star Trek work, thus making money largely obsolete and launching humanity into post-scarcity society. Unfortunately, a technology such as this would require enormous amounts of energy, so we’ll need to reach type 1 civilization first; fusion should solve that problem and it may be closer than most think.
@@JustAnotherSeeker I don't think we need a replicator to get there, AI and other technologies might do it before then, but yeah I agree. And yeah, UBI might be a good intermediate for transitioning as well, making people focus on what they actually WANT to do with their lives instead of what they have to do to survive. It seems fair and probably wouldnt hurt the economy that much, cause it wouldnt be much at first. I generally agree that capitalism needs an upgrade, I just don't like that some people don't give it the credit it deserves. It is a necessary step, but we can evolve beyond it. If we're very careful.
I don't agree with communism, but I also think it is very naive and utopian to believe that free markets truly exist or ever could exist. Adam Smith himself knew that the invisble hand is simply an ideal and could not truly exist in practice without being hijacked. There are always vested interests having unfair bias on markets, whether that's the state or anyone else. People need to grow up from this uncritical free-market salvationism
It is true when socialism was a system used organizing material over production for a market it failed and also when this lead to a dictatorial government.
But in terms of organizing social benefits under capitalism, it actually served it by providing for better distributed wealth leading to more labor.
When material needs are basic in their distribution, this does not ask for billionaires.
The question rather becomes what political influence are they buying with their money. Which is not categorized as fulfilling a need, or creating more labor.
False dichotomy ol leper. Both systems have benefits but to realize this requires a certain level of education
It's also a false dichotomy because there are many more systems of self organisation possible. We aren't stuck with just there two. What's ironic is that both these two systems focus on people as means of production.
Myriam is a superstar
Obviously hasn’t been anywhere near the UK then with its NHS etc
Hasnt got a clue what socialisme is
Seems
like the next crash is around the corner.
He just accepted the warts and she still threw the warts at him.
Which imaginary genocide is he talking about? Holodomor?
But it is not miserable. On the contrary. Socialism.
He said the basis of the basic. And she owned nobody with that question. The point she was revealing was not meant for capitalist per si but freedom.
I think that capitalism is far and away the most successful system.
Think again, only gather a bit more data.
@@haraldtheyounger5504 I've lived long enough, read enough, and traveled enough to come to an informed opinion. Not too mention having relatives who lived under a community regime. Including ardent communists. I will admit though, that capitalism doesn't address certain needs of society (roads, water, sewer, pensions) and a certain amount of socialism is necessary.
I live in a "third world country", and here, capitalism has failed us since the beginning. And down here, every attempt to change this failed system will suffer the interference of the """"saviors and guardians of the world"""", also known as United States.
We are trapped inside a purgatory. We have to live with the consequences of things beyond our comprehension, beyond our actions and capacities.
So, capitalism works just for an absurd minority of humans, and the rest will kill each other every single day, in different ways, just to eat the crumbs.
@@baarbacoa Capitalism, like so-called Communism, both way too one-sided and one-dimension. Both utterly lacking humanity.
Neither system is preferable, as neither give humanity nor this planet what we actually require. Both demand conformity to the crass, and that conformity comes at a very costly cost.
There is another way, one which has been a success in its own way. So I'll leave you to think on that.
Due to the superiority of the Nordic race in ‘capitalist’ countries.