@@onetwothree4148 I liked him. It was a pretty serious audience and leftists aren't used to being made fun of the way conservatives and libertarians are.
socialist companies are legal in capitalist countries, capitalist companies are illegal in socialist countries... that tells you exactly how little regard socialism has for freedom.
Snoo Lee Sweden is a capitalist country, although the welfare state is destroying the economy... as socialist ideology always does... www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/sweden-capitalist-success-welfarestate-sclerosis But take another shot at it sparky.
Dude they have so little regard for freedom that they don't even allow child porn production companies or child labor camps, thous god dam socialist making laws against voluntary interactions.
@@tigerclaw1000 The child is volunteering to do labor and porn? Not only that, I don't think children have the capacity to decide such things even if they did volunteer.
0:00 Intro 0:40 Beginning remarks by Naomi Brockwell, Soho forum moderator. 1:08 The Resolution “Socialism is more effective than Capitalism in bringing Freedom to the masses” 1:44 Dave Smith, comedy act 9:51 Lol. Man vs audience member 10:23 “You would lose a fight to my Grandpa” 12:20 Format of the Debate 13:54 Opening Remarks: Bashkar Sunkara. 15:00 “Democratic Socialism is Not Anti-Liberalism 16:36 contracts made under duress. 16:52 Asymmetrical Dependency 17:15 Democratic Socialism in practice. Europe 18:50 Fruits of Your own labor 20:05 But Capitalism produced wealth, which you use for Socialism. 22:22 Socialist don’t hate everything Capitalism. 23:40 Capitalism is a barrier 26:45 Taking a shot at comedy, and hierarchy 27:25 Own it. 28:20 Gene Epstein Opening Statement.
Straight White Male the French enlightenment was trash. The Scottish Enlightenment was good. Lumping these groups together is silly when their theories played out lead to completely different things. The French brought us positive rights (privileges that can be destroyed at the whim of the majority). The Scottish Enlightenment brought us negative rights, (freedom from state intrusion into those rights). The former believes rights are given by the state and thus can be curtailed by the state. The latter implies that you’ve always had these rights and specifically innumerates why the state can’t interfere.
In the span of 2 minutes, this guy bashes Gene over the head for not acknowledging that "capitalism is all about profit, man *puff* *puff*" and THEN says that under socialism, state banks will allow new businesses to be started based on objectively measuring profitability. *facepalm*
@vertex2100 dude North Dakota has had an extremely successful state bank for decades. I don't know what or why you are talking about Marx and Communism, China was never Communist and never claimed to be, capitalism *may lead to Socialism, then after there is no longer scarcity in the world there can be Communism (which will be like Startrek, no class, no currency, everyone can just have whatever the hell they want within reasonable means because there is no longer scarcity of goods)
@@noirto2 US currently has the lowest jobless rate since 1969. And there's a year over year shortage in high paying "blue collar" jobs like welding, truck and heavy equipment drivers, sanitation workers, plumbers, electricians... And that labor shortage is causing the already good pay to rise. That's another benefit of a market economy: prices. They highlight what labor and resources are most needed. Higher prices, higher wages, more production, which leads to lower prices and balances the market out. But government manipulation via higher education subsidies and low federal loan rates push people into overcrowded market sectors. Yes, there are a large number of college graduates out there with massive government backed debt that can't be bankrupted away trying to find jobs in fields that don't have any openings. But that doesn't mean the working class as a whole is suffering. US workers are the #4 best paid in the world. www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_price_rankings?itemId=105 And according to libertarian think tanks like Cato, Switzerland, #1 on the pay list, is more economically free market than the US. infogram.com/human-freedom-index-infographic-1hxr4zonyg556yo
@@nmh5001 While the jobless number look good on paper, if they are forced to work while wearing adult diaper to keep their job. And if they stop work they starve, it not exactly a great picture.
Workers controlling the means of production is one the stupidest thing imaginable, who would ever take the risk of creating their own business if it was just going to be taken from them by their own employees once it was big enough?
It's pretty easy. If you're the sole employee you're good. If not and you personally own more capital make two corps and have one be the labor Corp and the other be the capital Corp. Initially the capital Corp makes loans to the labor Corp at interest, you can defer or whatever because you own it. When there are enough employees and they no longer vote to take loans then you recover the profit of your loan investment and continue to collect salary. When you're ready to cash out of your share and effectively stop working at the firm the worker firm takes a loan from either a bank, private equity, or the remaining workers cash share and buys you out.
@@tigerclaw1000 He specifically mentioned that banks would be government run in his scheme. Not to mention he supports vast amounts of new tax dollars being controlled by government. As Gene mentioned if all he wants is "worker control" nothing is stopping socialists from forming democratically structured businesses and like minded communities right now voluntarily. But what he really wants is mob control over the economy, which will turn into a strong man controlling the economy as always happens when power is centralized. And it will fail as it always has.
@@tigerclaw1000 Why do you think when communists take over they always call themselves "The People's" party. North Korea is the "People's Democratic Republic", China calls itself the "People's Republic". "The people" only control the economy through government, and the elites of society will always run it, not the common man.
@@destroya3303 Will first of all worker cooperative are not competitive with private business in a capitalist economy, because private business exploit there workers and put more capital in the hands of fewer people who have an incentive to open a new business like that and replicate the process of exploitation. Cooperative by there very structure cant just buy another means of production and higher a manager to operate it and extract value from it like a private owner can, because it go's against there nature and the whole point of worker cooperatives, also because cooperatives are democratically run workers are not as likely to subject them self's or let some one subject them to bad working conditions that maximize profits because its not the top priory for them especially when its them who pay the price for this, unlike in a private business where the capitalist reaps almost all the rewards and pays none of the price for bad workings conditions. All of thous things make cooperatives better for humanity as a whole but unlikely to spread in a system that favors maximizing profit by squeezing the common people. Hence the need for state's assistance. I will respond to the rest later, how ever, id like you to make an argument for why you think that capitalism can exists without a state or a large state, assuming that's what your position is.
Capitalism = voluntary interaction Socialism = forced interaction The mental gymnastics necessary to suggest socialism is preferable, I do not understand.
@@voswouter87 -- The reality is that while it's true that resources are in abundance, not everyone is equal in total ability. This is for a plethora of reasons, both genetic and environmental. It's the latter part that so-called "progressives" actively refuse to understand. It's not that they can't, it's that they actually *won't.* This is basically the core of the arguments made in the materials you linked to. It's good to see that *some* people have the ability to think for themselves. ;) Keep that shit up.
@@Excedrine Resources seem in abundance, but that's only the case now because of hard work. I think I lean progressive myself in terms of instinct, but I've abandoned those values in rational thought. But it seems to me people are very unlikely to do that. I also see conservatives having massive respect for Christianity. Even though it's a super progressive religion: pastebin.com/mDEFP2Xp The only explanation I see for that is that they instinctively have massive respect for tradition. So I'm not saying that conservatives are any better. I think people being unable to rationally think about these issues comes from government pressure. Because everything government does necessarily punishes people for being of high quality and rewards them for being of low quality. Quality as the extent to which they are productive and/or responsible and/or rational. I'll take the example of having a military that protects a certain region: - The productive are punished because their money is stolen to protect the unproductive - The responsible are punished because their efforts/ability/preparation to protect themselves are wasted and used to protect the irresponsible - I don't see how the rational are punished in this case s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5a/16/98/5a1698f7dd9a96b35c2285fd2a4bde24.jpg Edit: How military defense would work in a free society: Women wouldn't have the false sense of security from government through police protection so they would value the ability of a potential husband to protect them. You would also get an honor culture where the ability of men to defend society is valued by the local community. Honor cultures have a bad reputation because of the well known horrors in honor cultures driven by Islam. But that's because those honor cultures are based on a horrible set of values. Governments stamped out honor cultures in the west because they're consistent and governments want to be able to implement any law that serves their interest, even if total bullshit. But the essence of an honor culture is that individuals do what's in the interest of the society. If you're worried about the strength of such a system, consider that muslims don't want to kill their children, but the honor culture is so strong they do it anyway.
@@voswouter87 -- I tend to lean a bit right-of-center in the broadest terms, but am more socially liberal (live-and-let-live) and fiscally conservative (taxation is theft). Anyway, conservatives *definitively* have reverence for tradition, and there are many "progressive" tenets in Christianity as well. That doesn't necessarily make conservatives that much like what we would describe as "progressives" today, however. But, you *could* say that the rational and productive are punished in more of a round-about way, though. Given that the government has instigated and actively encourages the take-over of of education, entertainment, and the media by out-of-their-mind leftists (note that I did not say "liberal"), we are all bombarded by the twisted "social justice" mantra in every which way that one can possibly be communicated to, which basically all boils down to: "whitey is the devil incarnate and they should all feel horrible all of the time about what their ancestors did to mine hundreds of years ago, and they have no valid opinions of their own about literally anything, anywhere, ever and they should all lay down like the animals they are and DIE! REEEEEEEEEE!" That's punishment enough in my book! :P I could also easily foresee traditional, organized volunteer militias forming in a free society. You could even spice it up with voluntary donations from the community for more specialized equipment beyond small arms. Think MANPADS, mortars, AT mines and rockets, etc. If you're worried about the ability of such a force to repel or even hold its own against any state military, I would like to kindly guide your attention to the Vietminh, Mujaheddin, Taliban, and the SNA, for starters.
@@Excedrine "and there are many "progressive" tenets in Christianity as well. That doesn't necessarily make conservatives that much like what we would describe as "progressives" today, however." Agreed, I think they rarely actually follow Christian values. The only one I can see they hold consistently is charity, which is giving money to strangers for being poor. That's the opposite of meritocracy. It's not socialist because those conservatives don't want to involve the state in that. Of course a lot of progressives are also Christian, that's a different issue. It seems to me the conservatives who consistently adopt Christian values become alt-right or nazi's. If you look at Hitlers plan 16 out of 25 of his points where socialism. "out-of-their-mind leftists" I call that a progressive, maybe combined with government indoctrination and feminism, you get religious behavior. Note that conservatives who tout their Christianity express very little religious behavior. I think that's because they've been hammered for it by the feminists. But it does seem that the insanity pressure from government has very little influence on them. Yes the hatred of the own culture/tradition seems crazy. I think it's perfectly explainable by the opposite of the conservative instinct to respect tradition. Combine that with the frustration of not being able to achieve any results. Even when progressives control government it leads to disaster (Democrat run cities). They don't do the rational thing and investigate their values, but just blame whatever they don't agree with and get angry. They see a lot of suffering, even where there's none like with the difference in outcome between groups. They think a lot of this suffering is unnecessary, even when it is, like with economic need, which is needed to motivate. There's a lot of pain behind this anger. I think we could partly solve this through better communication techniques: www.slideshare.net/hajnali3/nonviolent-communicationalanguageoflifemarshallbrosenberg But this is difficult to do, I'm trying to do it myself, but not very successful yet. And the threat of government motivates us to go the other way. It motivates us to see others as enemies and to use controlling language. Yes, I totally agree a free society would be able to defend itself and repel a technically superior attacker.
My god, we’ve found the libertarian Bernie! In all seriousness, I really enjoyed this debate. Both speakers did a pretty good job giving an intelligible version of the general argument for their position and provided me with some food for thought. Would’ve liked to see them get deeper into arguing about Bhaskar’s point that market pressures push co-op businesses toward some of the same negative practices as individually owned businesses. Here’s hoping for more such debates in the future!
In short, co-ops exist within the market just as other businesses do. Besides the workers retaining all profits, the only real difference is that instead of there being a boss who hires and fires according to the demands of the market in search of profit, workers themselves hire and fire each other so that the co-op can remain in business. A co-op is not some magical way to opt-out of capitalism, it is a business like all others and its leaders (the workers) have to follow the whims of the market unless they want to go under.
*@Christopher Stanis* yes, Yuri Bezmenov was so prophetic in his 1980s interview (th-cam.com/video/y3qkf3bajd4/w-d-xo.html ) it’s chilling. We still haven’t reached the apex of the subversion from what I can see. The pipeline of future workers and academics and whatnot are stuffed to the bursting point with subverted minds due to the wholesale takeover over teaching institutions by subversives.
It's all rhetoric. For socialists, all that matters is getting political power. The smart ones refuse to engage in even thinking about what comes next.
Consumerism, if you find it unpleasant, is the result of humans, not capitalists. Capitalists try to find things to sell consumers, but consumers have the power of choice, the power of redistribution of money, etc. If you don't like some consumerist things, don't buy them and they will go away. There's no such thing as coercion in a free market.
There is coercion in any market. The foundation of private productive property is coercion via violent exclusion. All of this income is unearned income or economic rents. You are coerced by the market into choosing a job because that's the only way to live. Consumerism is a result of this market and the idea of marketing and in oligopoly and monopolistic competition market structure product differentiation(advertising) is what develops a consumers preference.
*"You are coerced by the market into choosing a job because that's the only way to live."* Incorrect. The market does not come to you with a gun and force your participation. You are not forced by the market to take or remain at any given job anymore than you are forced gunpoint to buy any given product or rent a property. Your premise is flawed from the very start. Personally, I support your right to choose to go off the grid and build your own home and live by your own labor to build a home and procure your own food if you should so choose. However, regardless of whether or not you choose to engage in the market, government will still demand taxes and in a way, THAT is your coercion to participate to attain the means to pay those taxes. The difference is when you want things that you cannot produce either due to a lack of time and/or skill that other people can. To attain these things, you have the following options: 1. Learn to do it yourself. 2. Trade with those that can. 3. Take from them by force what they have. Options 1 and 2 are the market. The market is made up of individual people like you or I, living our lives with our respective property voluntarily trading or not trading with others. I do not personally have land. I do not personally have the means to build my own house, nor do I know how. I do not have the means to make my own electricity or my own means of attaining electricity, nor do I know how. So what shall I do? Take from others by force for what I see is my right? No. I do not have the right to other people's time or property. Instead I can trade with what I can produce and with my time to attain the means to my ends with those willing to also trade with me. Through this, I can get food, housing, energy, clothes, entertainment, etc. without spending a minute trying to make it for myself and instead engage in other activities I prefer which is all due to the market.
James It’s called reality . What kind of immature 12 year old pie in sky scheme ideology sells you that owning property and items and that you have to work for money is some how oppression ?
If I see a commercial that makes me want something, the companies evil? How stupid do you think people are? Advertising goods/services is somehow oppressing people into consumerism? Holy shit! If I actually bought everything adverstised to me, I'd live in chaos.
Bhaskar doesn't even run his own organization as employee owned, but wants to make it illegal not to?? At least make your own organization a small proof of concept.
When I lived in Honduras people would come by and offer to cut you lawn with machetes for x dollars. So if each work can cut one lawn a day with a machete for $5. So they make $5/day. Then one of those guys saves his money and buys a lawn mower and then one man can cut one lawn in 2 hours and the guy who saved up to by the lawn mower pays his workers $10/day. In this case who is exploiting whom? Also a couple of points about factories where people are not allowed to pee when they need to. People like me often complain about the seats on the commercial aircraft we fly one but still pick the cheapest flight. We'd like to have more comfortable seats but we mostly do not want to pay for them. Maybe it is the same with those jobs, the workers would like to have better work conditions but maybe they are still opting for the highest paying job that they can get. I hated school in the fist and second grade (one result of that was that is I spent 2 years in the first grade) so I would ask to go to the men's rooms very frequently and walk around the school after I was done and so I lost men's room privileges and of course the inevitable eventually happened. this could happen a non capitalistic system. If people where better capitalism would be even greater than it is, like the Micky mouse club village (th-cam.com/video/RkjYqgmL7hI/w-d-xo.html) but they aren't that good and in democratic socialism you give the majority of those not so great people more power over us odd folks.
J Oliver I don’t think the failure of socialism is due to people “not being good enough” but rather is due to the absurdity that a massive pluralistic nation should be governed like a family
Arm chair politicians should just look at history. Capitalism is the lesser of the 2 evils where at least a worker has the opportunity to become an elite. Socialism locks that out completely
Socialism also precludes you from freely associating in certain ways. You cannot form hierarchical businesses. You cannot act independent of the democratic will.
We have great examples in Germany and Korea, where a single people (same DNA, same education, same wealth, same culture) are split in two, and the communist side always is poor, hungry and suffer government violence.
Capitalism is a non-coercive means of dealing with human's instinct to compete and survive. Socialists believe that these instincts are merely social constructs that can be trained out of people (eg the "New Soviet Man" theory). I've never heard one explain why it is that all living organisms compete to survive. Is it just a social construct that certain plants grow large leaves to shade out competing plants or that the black walnut tree's roots exude chemicals that are toxic to other plants? Capitalism is a civilized way of dealing with these instincts that is beneficial to all parties. Quite an amazing invention, really.
@Volkstribun the belief in the legitimacy of government Authority is a religion. Capitalism is voluntary. A corporate Monopoly has never existed in human history without government regulations to keep other capitalist from competing with them.
@Volkstribun what you don't seem to grasp is that a forest is an idea, it's a concept, there's no such thing as a forest. There's only trees. And the same goes for human beings, there's only individuals. You are a collectivist. you know those good intentions you have? They're going to lead a straight to hell
@Sam Yaza Your carrot analogy says tons about what you've read. Can I suggest reading Milton Friedman? Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say you have a water well on your property & you want to give it to your fellow villagers but a band of people stop you from giving it to then people you want to help. Instead they force you to give them to them. In turn they decide to give you back 30% of the water. Now you have only 30% of the water you rightfully owned & have been forced to aid people that aren't in your village. Now, who's at fault for the children in your village that die because of dehydration? The answer is it's your fault because you should've fought for your right to own your well. That's what socialism & "centralized planning" is. It's a third party taking your rightfully owned property & distributing it to who they deem worthy & then they leave you with the crumbs.
Haven't finished watching yet, but based purely on Bhaskar Sunkaras opening statement he seems to be presupposing his conclusion. Lots of talk about how the world should work, no arguments/evidence what he's suggesting will actually work.
@Joshua: Not only that, he has to sweep under the rug that horrific failures that socialism has brought about every time it's been tried with any seriousness. The best argument he can make is that worker's rights and some form of welfare state have taken away the sharpest edges of capitalism. But that's a far cry from the legally-mandated, worker-owned means of production he's advocating for.
@Chrimony: You're talking about "socialism" in the form of centralized planned economies. The "socialism" being talked about here is referring to democratic, worker-owned enterprises in a market system... two different kinds of systems dude. You have to understand that socialism is a very broad term and encompasses many different kinds of systems.
@@zrexx4832 Most of the pro-capitalist posters are stuck in the 50's and 60's fervency of anti-communist propaganda. The rest are utopian "any government messes up my pure capitalism" folks. It's hard to break through to explain that socialist thought has evolved.
How can a person simultaneously believe that an individual worker is entitled to the fruit of his own labor and believe that taxation is not also a form of oppression?
Imagine that a supply of workers meets the demands of businesses. Imagine that those workers are needed for the capitalist to create profit. Imagine that those workers need the job to survive. This is not a free choice to voluntarily contract your labor, this is wage slavery. This cycle of inequality (poverty trap, under employment, lack of opportunity/education) can be offset by taxation on those earning money based on this system (i.e. labor is theft rather than taxation is theft). If you look at the labor theory of value vs freedom from coercion from the majority/state/democracy, then maybe you'd come away with a mixed economy. If you look at it from only one perspective, you will fall into fantasy (anarchist capitalism vs planned economies)
@@WizzKidxKOx Yeah. There's only one problem with that. The labor theory of value was debunked when Marx was still alive by Böhm-Bawerk, and then again and again and again in a variety of different ways by a variety of different economists from a variety of different schools. Value is SUBJECTIVE, not objective. Value does NOT come from labor. And then once you realize that, literally the ENTIRE idea of Marxism and the clash of classes completely falls apart. Please, go read some economics and stop doing yourself and everybody else such a disservice by spouting this bullshit.
I get it, effort put into production does not equal value in a marketplace. Gotcha. Socially necessary labor time is ambiguous. How do you deal with inequality without taxation then?
Bhaskar ought to be reminded that India (and I'm assuming he's left India for greener pastures), is to a great degree socialist (in terms of state interference in economy, education, other aspects of life etc). I would know, I live here. None of his utopian visions have come to fruition here. Socialism does not work outside the shoddy, B grade publications that he runs.
India only recently saw some meger progress, after rejecting straight-out socialism. Socialism is responsible for the dire circumstances and often deaths of billions of Indians for decades.
Yes people tend to miss that many of the poor countries are more socialist than the USA is. I lived in Honduras for a while where the electricity, phone, and medical care (they did allow private care also unlike Canada so not completely socialized) were provided by Government, along with things like schools, water and roads that government in the USA provides . They also had agriculture programs and huge tariffs, industrial policies etc. Overall I'd say that they were much more socialist than the USA and maybe even more than Sweden. And BTW the electricity and water typically went out in the middle of the day and the phone service was bad. I also think that their culture was a little less conducive to socialism so they should have less government than us not more.
@@lozoft9 yeah, and about more than half of the states gdp is contributed by remission from keralite working abroad. Because the retarded commies won't allow anybody to do business in the state peacefully. I should know. I live there
I want to impose all these political rules to force people to work how I believe they should, but I don't think coercion will be necessary. -Bhaskar What?
I want people to have the FREEDOM to work for someone else who does no work but owns the business and has inherited it from ancestry but I was born poor so ok that I work for him and get no say in what i do.
@@james192599 You assume that the business owner who paid for all the equipment, pays all the rent and expenses, goes through the work of setting up the business, the legal aspects, hiring and managing workers, putting in 60-80 hour weeks does NO WORK, and that businesses and wealth just fell into their laps? Boy, you want to talk about greed. You have no idea what business owners do, you're just an entitled brat who thinks the world owes you a living just because you draw breath!
Do you need coercion to do what benefits you? Of course not. Most socialist forms of economics would benefits people who don't currently own most real estate and business assets (95% of people), so it would be a natural choice. If only the pathway was an easy one, that's where strategy comes in.
@@tomservo75 blah blah blah it's the same old bullshit rhetoric. You think you deserve more of a right to live because you decided to gamble your money on setting up a business so you can exploit the labor of others for profit? Because YOU decided to work 60-80 hour weeks, it's somehow our responsibilty to work for your profit to prove ourselves worthy of receiving basic necessities? BOY, it's you fuckin people who are the entitled little brats, and it's YOU fuckin people who want to rule over people's lives and impose obstacles that you deem as necessary to earn the right to live. Fuck you.
State owned banks? At least in my country state owned banks are riddled with cronyism, and inefficiencies (there's even kickback schemes to the ruling party). People who run those banks would effectively be of a superior class to the workers, because of how much power lies in their decisions.
The same with my country. Is not until 1998 during the asia financial crisis that the government banks were privatized. There are banks that still partially owned by the government but those banks are run privately and for profit as well.
If the people do not control the banks they do not control their own currency. If they do not control their currency they do not have a government, they only have a small collection of private banks who make the rules by being the ones who deal out the money to the world governments. Every country that does not have a private bank is sanctioned, attacked, or subverted. Why? Because the private bankers at the top exist to enslave the working classes of the world to debt slavery. A nationalized bank has to be accountable to it's citizens. If it does this it is instantly better than private banks in every single way.
@@thenorthowl2033 Did you know the FED, a government institution is always there to save private banks that are screwing up? How exactly do you make the FED accountable by "the citizens"? A free banking system is the one that has the least incentive to corruption since when banks screw up, they just go under. In this sense, the private banks want more government, since they benefit the most. Big corporations also use the government to create barriers of entry for new competition harming consumers as well. I agree with you that corporatism sucks (corporations getting benefits by government at the cost of the people), but the treatment should be less government, and more free markets.
@@johnpatmos1722 I had to go back and watch the video again or at least part of it. The Capitalist, in my opinion, had every advantage here from skill at debate to the topic to be debated. He didn't need to resort to rhetoric meant to create an emotional reaction. To me it seemed a deliberate attempt to stir up the right-leaning audience. In these debates crowd reaction is more an indicator of 'winning' than voting. We know this. We know groupthink is more persuasive than words. There are several instances where he practices crowd manipulation techniques rather than engage in honest debate where he had the upper hand anyway. Context is always important. If your trying to convince others data in ineffective when you can stir up emotions. One method he employed was the use of strawman arguments. Strawmaning is manipulation. There are several instances where rather than attack the argument from his superior position he resorts to manipulative tactics. So over all I t think if we take it in context to the forum, the topic, and the method used the capitalist was more interested in manipulation to gain a perceived crowd approval to win over providing useful information. The Socialist, kinda just sucked for so many reasons.
This idea of a socialist firm means what? What is the incentive for anyone to work harder than anyone else? We see what happens in Government when there is no incentive to work harder than anyone else - all work at the pace of the slowest and laziest. A socialist run firm will fail spectacularly.
It's always painful to see such reasoning. Yes, bull scale communism sucks. But many people love to work hard for the common good. French state enterprise saw reduced productivity after being privatised and pressured to increase profits. All society is run with 20% of employees making 80% of the work, both public and private. You have people who want to work like crazy for the common good in public corporations, once you turn those companies into profit oriented entities, those people are demoralised or leave. That being said, you need a racially homogeneous and cohesive society to get people to dedicate themselves to the community. In a divided country like the US, only free for all individual money seeking is possible.
@@Bvic3 To begin with I think "common good" is a myth, but with that aside, those who want to work for the "common good" can do so right now in the US; they are called charities and non-profits. You say that what is needed is to have a "radically homogeneous and cohesive society" in order to have your wish come true, but this would require fundamentally changing human nature, which is something that Marx believed could be done. He thought that a totalitarian socialist government could recreate mankind to rid them of their self-interest, which would lead to the end goal of communism, and at that point the state would no longer be necessary. Trouble is, though, that he was wrong; the theory of tabula rasa has been debunked for many years. Not everything is a social construct. All living organisms compete with each other for resources naturally, and humans are no different. When you have property that is not clearly owned by an individual then you will inevitably have conflicts over it's use. This is as much a natural law as the speed of light, and it cannot be changed. The Soviets used to give out medals and name people national heroes to try to channel the competitive nature of people into their forced artificial society. What capitalism does is to integrate that natural competitiveness into society so that all parties benefit. There is no need for a belief in "common good" in a capitalist society. And when I say "capitalism" I mean purely capitalist, not the monstrous "mixed economy" we have in the US. A purely capitalist society would have zero coercive government intervention and manipulation. It is the socialist components of our government-coerced mixed economy and belief in "common good" that cause us all of our grief. In Belgium the police and fire departments riot _with each other_ in the streets over who deserves bigger government pension benefits. Cab drivers set car tires on fire in the streets and block roads in riots because of independent Uber drivers. Maybe they'll stop their self-interested rioting when they become "New Men" 100,000 years from now... In a purely capitalist society untainted by forced government socialist policies you can work to help others by running or donating to a charity, and in the US this is very successful given that we are on average some of the most generous and compassionate people in the world. Government force is not necessary and only makes people resentful and less charitable.
@@LongDefiant The belief that a monopoly organization that funds itself by forcefully taking people's money and other property, going into debt, and printing its own money, is going to work in your best interest is the real utopianism... I'm sure Statism is thought of as a perfect system by boomers like yourself and others.
Gene's rebuttal is basically "I can't imagine this working so it just can't work." A lack of imagination does not equate to a rebuttal. Very weak response.
The burden of proof lies on the people making the claim for socialism. And a 100 years of history demonstrates that socialism doesn't work. The socialism that does work exists in the minds of ivory tower intellectuals, i.e., it is merely a pretense. There is good reason to think that socialism won't work, namely it being incongruent with human nature.
@@phantasmagoria1297 Considering that capitalism took somewhere between 3-400 years to develop, it seems like there is a double standard at play with that argument. EDIT: Not to mention that the development of modern capitalism directly led to tragic events in human history like genocide (settler colonialism) and artificial famines (Irish potato famine), etc.
A) I consider myself an economic idiot and yet would wipe the floor with Bhaskar in a debate. B) Even being an economic idiot, I would have even less patience for Bhaskar than Epstein did and call Bhaskar an idiot on stage.
Bhaskar seemed to not understand depreciation. To be fair given a chance to explain he might show he is not as in the dark as he seemed but woo what he said was silly.
Gene could have destroyed Bhaskar simply showing how socialism fails economically, however it is incredibly enlightening that Gene portrayed socialism accurately as a top down authoritative system that must be forced on the people, which many wouldn't support. To comply with this top down central planning, dissidents or people that simply do not intend to comply with the system must be dealt with coerccively. Bhaskar could not properly answer that question and instead drew pictures of a utopian and unrealistic image of how his system would work.
As a side note here, as someone from a former Soviet country -- if our opinion matters to the freedom-loving people of the free world at all -- for us (or at least some of us) "the record of socialism", which Gene Epstein describes from his third-person perspective as "unimaginably horrible", was not all that horrible at all: people still made both economic and social choices -- in some places more than what they have now in their allegedly "free" countries -- and they did not have to fear about the basic necessities such as food, housing and healthcare all the time. living on the edge, unless they are from a wealthy family. You could travel to a large swathes of the world affordably, you had vacations that are almost unimaginable in the US, and at least until the later years of the Soviets, the quality of life, and social mobility was increasing. The government was delivering electricity, water and other needs even to remotest villages, higher education was accessible to everyone willing and having to capacity to pursue it without the financial barriers that characterize them in the West now. Arts, science and culture also flourished under Soviet Union, producing some of the best works of humanity (you can go do your own research in Soviet arts and science). So, no, it was not so unimaginably horrible, it just involved somewhat different space of choices and freedoms than what was and is available in the West.
we knew nothing during the cold war compared to what we know now about climate change. thats the point he shouldve made. no one would argue that a regime that hasnt existed in 30 years is anymore responsible for climate change than the capitalist governments that still exist. so thats not the debate. the debate at the heart of this point is whether market intervention (not free market) is more capable of solving this then a lack of intervention (free market). be honest, which do you think is the answer?
@@ProlificThreadworm The state and private business are closely linked. Do you think removing the state would create free-er enterprise? or would the private businesses just form a new state that protects their power?
1:25:29 "Global Warming is threatening our planet and Capitalism is resposible for this". Citation please. The number of people killed in natural disasters is VASTLY reduced today from the distant past. There is little evidence that people are in any more danger of the climate than they have before. In fact maybe less. In the late 1800s millions died in global heat waves.
He really isn't a great debater. He ducked some basic questions that were asked, as he clearly knew he would be cornered into answering the question negatively. Nope not a great debater at all, more like a plain ol windbag.
He suffers from what a lot of socialists have, which is not asking enough questions to arrive at correct answers. At 59:16 for example. He only has assertions that he can state, and that's as far as his analysis goes. No questioning.
@Briana Tippens Fact doesn't mean right. People who can buy slaves could probably profit more than people can't in the labor market. I made an extra comparison I agree but only to make the point that just cause something is factual doesn't make it right or desirable.
All socialism vs. capitalism debates should only take place when both parties pass a basic economics test. Basic understanding of supply and demand, positive sum games, Say's law, Pareto's law, Price's law, comparative advantage and marginal utility would stop 99.9% of socialists dead in their tracks. Their arguments only work in their dream world.
@@KarlSnarks Well aware of Richard Wolff. He is included in the group that needs to learn basic economics. He doesn't believe that supply and demand dictates price. That is econ 101. He believes in labor theory of value, which has been provably wrong for 150 years. He is only respected by Marxists. There are creationist scientists too. A degree doesn't mean you're not an idiot.
The problem with what Sunkara and that angry old man in the audience are proposing is that competition is as much a part of nature as humans are; you see it in every living organism. So in order to create the world they want they will have to have a huge oppressive state that forces people to not behave the way they would in a civil society naturally. It astounds me that so many nature lovers are socialists because they would have to create an artificial world to get what they want, and they'd have to use violence to maintain it.
Appeal to nature fallacy. Almost anything other than Anarcho Primitivism is artificial that forces (or should I say keeps people from) doing what they'd do naturally. And this oppressive artificial system is something that we call Order.
The concern I have, this becomes a repeat cycle, as if nothing is learned. Using capitalism to achieve socialism which ultimately collapses and therefore reverting back to capitalism, until it's time to try socialism again. Extreme lack of wisdom. It simply comes down too, which system lasts longer, and which provides actual growth. Two simple answers to both. The cycle will never stop.
I think we could break out of the cycle if children were educated in free market economics and how to think logically. Our civilization would achieve escape velocity quite literally and we'd have 8% growth per year instead of 3%, which would mean incredible breakthroughs in a few decades (life extension, AI, air cars, space flight, off worlding, etc...)
@Brian Bagnall it will take the slaughter and deprivation of many more generations. But eventually, hopefully, all will agree that even though real communism has never been tried, the death per attempt isn't worth it anymore.
didnt really go against people for voluntary exchange of goods and services asterisk property rights mandatory and also these socialists just want welfare and should be called such because they dont want to end capitalism or they will starve
Lol. True. It was weird though that were some that still got triggered rather than enjoy the comedy. No one is excluded in comedy. All is fair in comedy. Offend everyone. Just laugh!!
@@mayac.1345 I didn't identify most of Dave's statements as being "comedy". They were just a diatribe of sentences betraying willful ignorance and stupidity on his part.
Regarding why we're using fossil fuels in our power grid rather than solar: this has nothing to do with the oil industry controling the government. The reason is basic math. The solar industry employs 374K people. The average worker makes about $40K. Total wages alone per year costs the economy more than $15B to provide solar, which only accounts for 1.3% of the total power grid. Now, contrast that with coal. The coal industry employs 187K (HALF of that employed by solar). The average worker makes $60K, making the yearly cost $11B in wages. What do we get for that $11B? We get 30% of our power grid! If we tried to replace our coal energy with solar, it would cost us an additional $351B in labor alone, and we would pay that every year ... forever. The real answer is that we don't use solar becuase at this point in the evolution of the technology, it's simply NOT economically viable. This isn't political ... this is basic arithmatic. This is also not a cost we can shunt off to the government or to the corporate sector ... EVERYONE uses electricity. EVERYONE pays for electricity. To keep the math simple, we'll take that $11B cost for coal power and call it $110 per month as an electric bill (cost for a very small apartment). If we went solar, that cost would jump to $3,510 per month! I don't know about you ... but I can't afford $3K+ per month just for electricity. THIS is why we don't use solar widely. When solar advances to the point that it can legitimately compete with coal, it will replace it and we won't need a government program or mandate. People will use it because it's cheaper. There is no more reliable reason than that.
The problem in debating socialists is that everything the socialists present is either lie,delusion,or distortion.If one were to attempt to bring the debate into reality you are faced with a deluge.
It's actually the free marketers who have no concept of history and rely on thought experiments and perfect competition for their theory to make sense.
Bhaskar : I want a system where workers vote on what to produce, how much, and how much each individual gets paid Gene : You can do that under Capitalism already, you can have a Socialist styled business under Capitalism... Bhaskar : Yeah but I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force Gene : Why do that if you can get what you want without imposing it? Bhaskar : I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force Gene : Why do that if you can get what you want without imposing it? Bhaskar : I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force Gene : Why do that if you can get what you want without imposing it? Bhaskar : I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force Ad Infinitum
Well under capitalism, capitalists tend to lobby for policies to keep themselves in power. They lobby to keep their businesses authoritarian. Do you think that if most workers really have the choice to work for a democratically run business?
@@thejicaman5329 I think most workers would see that under the currents system they have a greater chance of upward mobility and increased earning potential where as in socialist everyone is mediocre. People want more they have a drive and instinct to achieve and gain more. By not allowing people to shine individually you resign everyone to the level of the weakest links value and worth and potential
@@thejicaman5329 also, who assumes the risk for all these now worker owned businesses? Who is responsible for covering payroll when revenue fails to make a profit in any given month? Who is gonna pay out for unexpected financial liabilities, obligations and expenses that arise? Who is the fall guy when a business finds itself in legal trouble? Who is going to pay the costs to continuously train, upgrade and modernize said businesses...
@@daniferris980 1. You're assuming there is no upward mobility in a co op which is untrue 2. People working for co ops tend to be much more invested in the business because they have a stake in it 3. Most people who work in co ops can be paid more because a gross amount of profit isn't going towards a minority of people who own the business 4. How does allowing democracy in the workplace stop people from shining individually?
@@daniferris980 who assumes risk right now? The owners. In a democratic workplace itd be the same, except coops tend to have higher survivability through economic downturns (probably because pay cuts and the like would be agreed upon democratically and not imposed on the vast majority of workers by the business owner) you also make an assumption that co ops are not profitable and can't reinvest in themselves and train their workers???? Source? I think you just don't really understand how co ops work and that's fine. I recommend reading up on co ops a little more, you'll find they're quite interesting. The biggest one is Mondragon, a good place to start
Let’s simplify all this. The test is what happens when someone says no I don’t want to. Socialism refers to the group will to dictate to the individual who says no. It’s slavery wearing a noble mask.
It's also shitty in theory, because also in theory it's theft and authoritarianism. Also it's economically nonsense, because there are no market prices which signify scarcity and no profit, which gives people the motivation to work.
@@lisu907 You must be one lucky Chinese. Communist party members in USSR did great, too, materially. Us little people didn't. And besides, it all depends on what you compare it to, what standard you use. One can be poor, but free and happy when another is rich and a slave and very unhappy.
Socialists always fail to understand one very important thing: People aren’t inherently good, responsible, rational and contributing members to societies. It takes hard work and dedication to instill these in people in order to have good, respectful safe societies. The best way to have people learn this is to make the individual responsible for their livelihood,. Not to say their shouldn’t be safety nets to help people get on their feet, but to have the government cover every aspect of our lives is foolishness that will just breed laziness and contempt for the system until it collapses.
Wealth (not money per se) but wealth does not appear out of thin air. Wealth is the result of value creation. The goods and/or services must have value otherwise we are talking about un-valued entities that might have been brought into existence at some cost, that not enough people or zero people want. That said and ethically speaking, all consumers are producers. To the exception such as purely inherited wealth, capitalism provides a solution which can be recognised in an old saying: "from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations. So because all consumers are producers, then wealth has to be produced, not taken. And there is no limit as to how much wealth can be created but for that of man's mind. In order for something to be brought into existence at must be the result of thought. Socialism denies the value of individual thought. And strives to punish it rather than allow the actions of thought to be rewarded. Socialism is the enslavement of man's mind. There is no collective brain.
To Bhaskar's argument: There is nothing preventing workers from starting their own businesses and controlling the means of production in the current system.
@@soulfuzz368 BS worker owned co-ops do work and do out compete. Do some research. The reason people don't form Co-Ops is because people with the upfront capital want to see a return.
Jim Braatz www.shift.coop/ I helped found a worker cooperative in 2010 called Cycle. Cycle is part of the Canadian Worker Coop Federation and I still know and talk to many of their members. There are plenty of good reasons to start a coop and I even believe that it is a more ethical business model, but to say that they outcompete a corporate model is plain wrong. Many of these coops get grants and subsidies from the canadian and provincial governments to start out and most of them will always struggle financially. In my experience and talking to other members, the most difficult part is creating a singular vision democratically.
Bhaskar's Socialism: "free" stuff for everyone, regulated markets, all businesses must be cooperatives, corporatist technocratic governance but at least you get to vote alot. Apparently the coops will refrain from lobbying the government, being voted out of a job is better than being fired by a boss and workers will risk their wealth by taking liability as part of the coop rather than accept a wage or Bhaskar will jail them. Also good luck being in a minority or not politically connected because your job and your rights are up to the whims of the mob or the state-bankers.
Presumably gibs will be so basic that people will want to work to buy luxury items like avocado toast and butt implants. People will prolly try to vote themselves more and fancier entitlements though.
How can that chick say with a straight face that workers in the USA often wear diapers because they can't take a 2 min break. And teachers too? She's off the planet
@@MariaKoroleva.Realtor I can tell you for sure, from everyone I’ve ever known, nobody has had to wear a diaper to go to work. Most people barely even work at work lmao
He lost me at “give up your rights to private property.” Make no mistake that’s exactly what he’s saying. Hand over your right to property and we’ll handle it better than you could. We’ll make sure your property is distributed to people who didn’t work for it at all. He’s basically saying I’ve never taken, nor do I have any understanding of, basic economics.
@JAB Initials thank you. These people will lick Jeff bezos’ boot when he owns everything on the planet for 1 Bezos Buck™️/ hr and still push to end government (unless we’re talking about human babies aka more workers for bezos to have his way with eventually) instead of actually revolting to have a better society. ‘He owns everything because god willed him to, we are not worthy’
One question that wasn't brought up is why would anyone even work if they're guaranteed all sorts of things they don't pay for? Who would pay for those services? Who would pay for health care? Who would pay for education? What is the motivation to work and to do good work? As for the one woman's question about working conditions for 20% of Americans today (doubtful number) the answer is simple: quit and find work somewhere else! Amazon (that's who she's talking about) would quickly change its work environment if it couldn't find workers for its existing environments. Also, I hate to bring this up, but the Democratic Socialist Party in Germany in the 1920's through the 1940's showed us what happens under Bhaskar's system, but they don't teach about that in schools today so why would he know that. Even in Germany, 60% of students today don't know who/what Hitler was. He hated capitalism just like the current Democratic Socialists do today.
An interesting thing about most of the communistic societies in the 19th Century in the United States is that they were based upon a generally frugal lifestyle, often to the point of asceticism, and they had highly rigid, conservative moralities. They were also voluntary and communities were not usually bigger than 300 or so people. This means that they pre-selected for people who would live frugal lives, which, paradoxically in some cases led these communities to become successful business firms in the capitalist American economy. The communities, once they accepted someone for membership, claimed as a right, the permanent ownership of all that person's property, save their physical body, should the person decide to leave. It seems to me that these are great examples of functioning socialist societies that lasted in some cases about a hundred years or so--about the outer limits of how long most businesses last. Why modern socialists do not look to these examples for inspiration is mysterious to me, other than the probability that they are ignorant of it and/or are inclined to authoritarianism and state slavery that would prevent people from exiting the society they wish to build.
No, his point is that a person deserves the fruits of their labour. Under capitalism, owners take the fruits of the workers labour, sell it and only give the worker a fraction of said wealth. The owner also gets to decide what gets made, how it gets made, where it gets made and the price it is sold at. If you believe in democracy for deciding on a government, why not the workplace?
@@jojomojojones the owner provides the capital , the infrastructure , the resources for the functioning of the industry , no one gets employment without any capital incentives from the owner , furthermore most of the "fruits of the Labour" has been produced by the investment of the employer in capital intensive technology b, for which the worker pays nothing , furthermore he must if necessary even reskill his own employees at his own cost , to say that the labourer is the unquestionable owner of his own produce is to be ignorant of all the efforts of the owner and other means of production , ie land , capital And organisation and the impact capital has on the production of output , I have nothing against a workers cooperations or individuals who pool resources and provide reasonable checks and balances on wealth accumulation Like the modragon cooperation but to impose those on any business model privately owned is not democratisation but rather theft from the owner.
@@phoenixlegend2921 You miss the point entirely. The owner/employee model is immoral, it’s just a softer kind of slavery and creates a class divide. Just like everyone owns a piece of the nation in democratic countries, everyone should own a piece of their workplace.
@@jojomojojones are you insane how is that owner employer model immoral , because it produces inequality , do you wanna be equal to everyone why should everyone own a piece of the production , how is this idealistic bullshit possible
In capitalism, they less productive workers get paid less, aren’t promoted as often, and may get fired. In socialism, unproductive workers are allowed to become complacent in their position.
They can just to not work. If you wanna drink, you can drink. If you wanna become great scientist, you can become it. It's socialist logic. Freedom of action!
The idea everyone is equal is absurd, except as it relates to how the law is imposed. Individuals are all quite different, come from different cultures, have different abilities and interests. As soon as you "level the field" rather than ensuring a level playing field, you abuse those who excel to the misuse by those who do not. If you want to keep what you produce, then found a business. It's that easy, socialists; you can live the life you want in a free country, including sharing as much as you see fit with others. Any socialist who is willing to prove matters will simply start a commune of like-minded do-gooders who fail to understand economics and capitalism and then live the life they dream. The idea their happiness only comes from government coercion is sufficient to prove they have no real argument outside of force and tyranny. Socialists believe there's perfection and that it is the goal. Capitalism+libertarianism knows that perfection is an unattainable ideal that changes meaning over time and with new information, and thus some must die for others to live, like in nature itself. Socialism is effectively Christianity, a system that only makes sense in a zero-sum world where nearly everyone is poor.
+Home Wall -- Except that in Christianity, it is said that one should give willingly and from the heart, not out of obligation, and also mentions nothing about pushing it off onto the government through coercive taxation. ;)
Bhaskar contradicts himself and doesn't even see the contradiction. He makes sweeping statements criticizing capitalism, that are much more prevalent in socialist countries. Free market societies enable regular people to enjoy luxuries previously afforded only to the rich. In socialist countries there is no incentive to innovate beyond government mandate which is extremely ineffective. It blurs the lines of the true value of different resources leading to massive waste. If you want democracy the free market enables democracy more than any other system by enabling voluntary cooperation between individuals and companies. The argument against private ownership is just pathetic. Business owners face many threats and the incentive for them is to provide a service that people choose to participate with. Consumers see it as providing them value. Socialism prevents an individual from bringing innovation to their fellow man by removing any incentive to do so.
Can anyone direct me to a work place like the one described by the audience member? I've never even heard of a employer anywhere in America who is offering such conditions. Teachers taking their whole class to the bathroom?! Where?
Perhaps, yes. I think professional athletes are payed too much. They're getting paid millions of dollars for just playing a game... they play it really good, don't get me wrong, but it's not like they're doing something actually productive to the needs of society - they aren't curing cancer, cleaning our environment, growing our food supply, teaching our children, rescuing people from certain death, serving on the frontlines, etc. They're playing a game. There's a lot of higher priorities of what that money could be going toward and/or who deserves it. In fact, yeah, it shows markets are a bad way of allocating wealth. Usually, its the people who are getting paid really low that are doing the most important work for society - do you know how much mental health counselors and social workers get paid on average? Around $40k/yr. Police, probation, and corrections officers get paid like $30k. Psychiatric technicians (staff for mental institutions) are paid barely above the poverty line. Meanwhile Lindsey Lohan and Kanye West gets showered with millions for playing garbage pop music. I think it's totally fair to raise taxes on shitty celebrities and redistribute that wealth so other people can get paid better for what they contribute to society.
@@zrexx4832 and do you apply the same personal views to your preferred celebs, musicians, and or athletes? Or just the ones that you think are garbage? Also the reason those people make millions is because of every ass they put in a seat, every pair of shoes they sell, every album they sell, every DVD, every event they do. And as it turns out tebs and or hundreds of thousands of fans across the country that buy the CD, the tickets, the jerseys the shoes etc, bring in substantially more than patients pay for med care, or that the insurance companies pay for patients at a specific clinic hospital etc. They definitely bring in more revenue than the govt is willing to pay doctors for subsidized care.... What I'm curious about is whether you would hold yourself to the same standards you're so willing to subject others to. If you made millions would you only keep what was necessary to live on? Would you want 70,80,90% of your income taken from you? If you had the talent of a pro athlete would you turn down a contract to play based on it's lack of benefit to the overall well being of society? By that same logic I'm assuming artists would be of the same useless category you place celebs in and athletes so should they be taxed extremely high and or defunded all together? What about writers?
Interesting that people keep bringing up all of the wonderful things Democratic Socialism has already done. And I would say in return “look at the cost.” The last 100 years, starting with the catalyst that was The Great Depression, we have been slowly implementing more and more socialist policies and programs. Welfare, roads, schools, social security and on and on the list goes. And I say “look at the god damned debt.” Between the war machine and socialist policies, our credit is nearly destroyed. Wages have stagnated for over 50 years while inflation climbs. Guess where that comes from? Borrowing money at faster and faster rates than you can hope to pay it back. The government has been so utterly terrible at managing money for so long now that even everyday citizens think its normal. The debt culture has infested every level of our infrastructure and hardly anyone even questions it anymore. Do you know why redistribution of wealth never fixes anything? Because that is like treating someone’s cold while ignoring they have Stage 4 Lymphoma. Redistribution means nothing as long as everyone thinks it is normal for both Grandma and the government to be upside down with the bank. Redistribution just shuts the populace up for a while as the government carries on with its terrible planning. The arguments everyone is having is utter nonsense. I agree that socialist programs can give the appearance of having a net positive on society. But I reject outright any of them were ever a great plan for long term success in any way. Remember that large scale issues are the same as small scale issues. Stealing from your future or your neighbor to eat now has never been a smart endeavor for individuals and it ripples into an uncontrollable cancer when done at a governmental level. Whenever you think of systems, just take it down to the individual level in order to understand their merit. If you steal from your own future, you are creating a larger issue than the one you currently have. But still not as bad as If you steal from a neighbor, you are creating a drastically larger issue than the one you currently have. Debt is theft of future. War is theft of neighbors. And we engage in both of these things greatly in America. The bill will eventually come due. Fucking brace yourselves. Imagine what happens if you are an individual and you decide to just keep getting more and more credit cards to cover your already overdrawn house of cards. Imagine the financial ruin that would come of it. Causing you to basically have a life of guaranteed servitude to the banks. So greatly Crushed by the interest that you could never even gather a few hundred dollars to go get another Certification to further your career. You are stuck at your job and paying interest indefinitely unless you quit entirely by opting out with bankruptcy or suicide. And now imagine this is what your government is doing on a massive scale and technically with your support as you voted for it to happen. Lunacy. Absolute lunacy. Capitalism vs Socialism? Pfft, don’t make me laugh. Anybody got a solution for the Stage 4 Lymphoma?No, you just want to pretend like this sheltered wonderful life we have lived in America will just keep going the way it always has. Meanwhile I literally worry about what struggles my grandchildren are guaranteed to go through due to all of our selfishness and ignorance. And by this I don’t mean financial inequality, I mean financial insolvency. Fuck inequality as a concern. How can you talk about inequality if you don’t even own any of the money you think you do. It all belongs to the FED. They can take it all with a 100% tax rate at any time they desire and really leave you and your economic theories perplexed. What a joke.
That and child labor factories and austerity is just as much capitalism as you consider the USSR socialism. Interesting how the No True Scotsman fallacy only works one way. Here, the reality is, there is no "true" capitalism or "true" socialism. This world isn't a movie. It's a complex combination of both belief systems with a heavy emphasis on hierarchy and profit. Doesn't matter what you call yourself. If you support tyranny, austerity, imperialism, and/or authoritarianism, you're wrong. Plain and simple, throughout history humans became more and more liberated, and the liberation of wage slave will be the last emancipation.
If my boss tried to tell me to wear a diaper so I could be more productive, I'll quit and spread the word about their inhumane practices. Nobody should tolerate this!
I think there is a federal law in the US that mandates two 15 minute rest periods and one 1/2 hour lunch period per shift. If that's not enough time to take a piss then you should get a prostate exam.
Amazon is the closest business I can think of. They are legally required to give you more time then that (40 minutes for a 10 hour shift) but if you want more breaks than that it may be 3 minutes
Naomi - best fun yet effective & good Spirited moderator that I've seen for some time! Great way to start this party by bringing in Dave to lighten the mood with some funny jokes! Good debate by these 2 gentleman.
An endless spinning of a neverneverland fairytale of guesses, predictions and utopian anti-reality by Sunakra. Terrifying character, to think people read and are taken in by The Jacobin.
"...land into the arms of a welfare state that will be able to take care of your necessities, get you, if your willing to go back into the competitive marketplace..." You just incentives laziness. What are you going to do with the able body people who don't want to have a job? Are you going to have a progressive system of discipline to correct there behavior? For instance, if they refuse to work you could send them to a camp where they could be reeducated. @57:02
Did you know that re distributive policy can actually increase gdp more than austerity policies in a case by case basis as acknowledged by the IMF? Google it.
How can you fire someone that holds shares? Do you allow them to sell their shares or you just take it from them? If you let them to sell it, who is allowed to buy them? Their colleagues or the one whom will replace them? And if it's the latter will you let the company choose the new employee and let them buy it or put their shares on the market and let anyone bid for it?
The company would probably buy the shares back and sell them to an employee sometime in the future that would also have money from selling their shares at their previous employer. No one takes anything from anyone. It’s not rocket science
Even under business law in capitalist countries, companies can force stock buy backs either by small print or lobbied laws. And companies can also feign ignorance or technical difficulties when people are wanting their money or investments, etc, such as in that Robin Hood app situation.
When two people on a deserted island vote to cook and eat the third, they experice the precursor to social democracy and social democracy's ultimate end- brutality and savergy.
I ALMOST feel bad for Sunkara. Totally out classed. His economic knowledge is lacking. But the lack of economic knowledge is a prerequisite for being a socialist.
So now we are in a pandemic and the economy is absolutely destroyed and people can’t afford to pay rent or food. Now which is best, capitalism or socialism? Pandemics will be a regular occurrence due to frequent environmental changes.
What Bhaskar is talking about at around 48:45 was called Employee Funds en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds . It was a unique way of achieving socialism, without revolution.
Gene knew he was getting destroyed. I just wish Sunkara had gone for the jugular a few times. His comment about the regulations we place upon the employer-employee relationship was especially devastating. Gene had absolutely stopped listening by that point though.
Saw someone complain about something they thought was cringey and stopped watching, so I just wanted to provide a point to let people get through that so that they don't give up on the video.
Bhaskar appears to be advocating for worker owned cooperatives competing in a regulated market vs. private owned business with labor/workers. What's to stop a salaried/hourly worker from negotiating to receive their compensation in a predetermined valuation of ownership equity equivalent to the W2 cash/wages earned otherwise? Employee Stock Ownership Plans exist, or alternatively a worker could purchase shares of the company stock with 100% of their wages (if publicly traded) and "live off the dividends or distributed earnings." This is merely an accounting trick, and doesn't appear to fundamentally solve the problem Bhashar claims exists. The division of labor would still exists and the value of that labor would still be subjective. Dangerous, difficult, and unpleasant tasks or responsibilities would still need to be preformed with reward/punishment determined by a third party (i.e. boss, customers, or shareholders).
I was thinking the same thing. I work for an ESOP. I still have to negotiate a wage. There's still a CEO. And as he admitted, hierarchies will naturally form either way. So the only difference between the two seems to be one side requiring the use of force to mandate a desired structure.
Bhaskar appears to have it all figured out, instead of force, he has a four step plan of disciplinary intervention to modify employee - I mean owner - productivity. Instead of the capitalism vs. socialism debate, these types of conversations in 2018 should be focused on what should the role of the welfare state be and how best to administer those resources. Both limited government advocates and strong safety net proponents could come to a comprise with something like a negative income tax. A department of the government could be eliminated, with benefits being managed via IRS tax refunds/payments. This would reduce overhead costs, and allow for more money to be given directly to those in need. When these types of proposals are mentioned to Democratic Socialists - their heads explode.
This is infeasible. Few people are actually paid enough money to buy much stock off the market and very few employers would negotiate to give away shares in a company as payment because creating more shares would just dilute their value and investors would raise a hissy fit as capitalists are wont to do. Currency is a much more stable form of payment.
@@lozoft9 - Spot on, cash is king. It's immediately fungible and can be used to acquire the goods/service an individual deems optimal to their needs/wants. Yet there appears to be a tolerance for non cash payments in the form of employee sponsored health plans, employee sponsored retirement plans, and government sponsored retirement plans (i.e. social security). All these auto populated redirects of ones cash flows, eliminate choice and the ability to price shop the good/service. Most people would rebel against the idea of receiving payment in the form of vouchers at a predetermined grocery store or auto dealership - yet we are conditioned to tolerate it for other exchanges.
Its because of government education these people that go to obediance camps and learn to love the government want a better world. And im not against that but understanding the true problem is the key. Socialism does nothing but destory economies as people dont produce good under authority and regulation
as a first generation Latino immigrant in the US, the intro speech from the socialist gentleman gave me goosebumps and triggered literal ptsd, im a war survivor. they all sound exactly the same, theyre fully convinced that their system will work and that they have a progressive idea. Truth is, it's an archaic idea and it never works because their premise on the assumption of what humans are and the nature of mankind is grossly ignorant. The scary part comes when their ideas fail because they had flawed presumptions and since they are also flawed prideful humans, they refuse to admit that they were wrong, so they blame groups of people and determine that if they can get rid of that particular group of people, by putting them in prison or even death, then their ideas will work, then when their ideas continue to fail, which they inevitably will, they proudfully oust the next "culpable" group of people. It's evil and worst of all, they are atheist so they have no fear in ultimate justice. Socialism is flat out EVIL!!
What a fascinating debate! I had great time listening to both side's arguments. Please, keep organizing these debates. They are really something else.
Without the comedian though. That guy was kinda funny but mostly immature and annoying
Just finished watching. What a shit show. Most intelligent dem soc I've seen. Not impressive, but better than most
@@onetwothree4148 I just watched that debate I completely agree.
@@onetwothree4148 I liked him. It was a pretty serious audience and leftists aren't used to being made fun of the way conservatives and libertarians are.
socialist companies are legal in capitalist countries, capitalist companies are illegal in socialist countries... that tells you exactly how little regard socialism has for freedom.
IKEA comes from a socialist country. this whole discussion is mass ignorance.
Snoo Lee Sweden is a capitalist country, although the welfare state is destroying the economy... as socialist ideology always does... www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/sweden-capitalist-success-welfarestate-sclerosis
But take another shot at it sparky.
IKEA left Sweden because of the high taxes... You can't make this shit up!!!!
Dude they have so little regard for freedom that they don't even allow child porn production companies or child labor camps, thous god dam socialist making laws against voluntary interactions.
@@tigerclaw1000 The child is volunteering to do labor and porn? Not only that, I don't think children have the capacity to decide such things even if they did volunteer.
0:00 Intro
0:40 Beginning remarks by Naomi Brockwell, Soho forum moderator.
1:08 The Resolution
“Socialism is more effective than Capitalism in bringing Freedom to the masses”
1:44 Dave Smith, comedy act
9:51 Lol. Man vs audience member
10:23 “You would lose a fight to my Grandpa”
12:20 Format of the Debate
13:54 Opening Remarks: Bashkar Sunkara.
15:00 “Democratic Socialism is Not Anti-Liberalism
16:36 contracts made under duress.
16:52 Asymmetrical Dependency
17:15 Democratic Socialism in practice. Europe
18:50 Fruits of Your own labor
20:05 But Capitalism produced wealth, which you use for Socialism.
22:22 Socialist don’t hate everything Capitalism.
23:40 Capitalism is a barrier
26:45 Taking a shot at comedy, and hierarchy
27:25 Own it.
28:20 Gene Epstein Opening Statement.
I knew that no good would come from me actually watching it.
@Snappingturtle 267 they ignore all the facts and evidence and then act like they have moral high ground because it'll make you feel good.
Thanks for your work kind person.
@Snappingturtle 267 How is socialism the most failed system of all time? Socialism has never had time to flourish.
Snappingturtle 267 Not true at all. No country is just capitalist, no country is just socialist. You wouldn’t call a country like China prosperous?
Really? "Jacobin Magazine"? Why not rename it "Terror Today" or "Guillotine Gazette" or "Robespierre Review"?
"The Bolshevik" would be a little too on point, I suppose.
Straight White Male the French enlightenment was trash. The Scottish Enlightenment was good. Lumping these groups together is silly when their theories played out lead to completely different things. The French brought us positive rights (privileges that can be destroyed at the whim of the majority). The Scottish Enlightenment brought us negative rights, (freedom from state intrusion into those rights). The former believes rights are given by the state and thus can be curtailed by the state. The latter implies that you’ve always had these rights and specifically innumerates why the state can’t interfere.
Straight White Male Wrong. The Jacobins were some of the earliest socialists.
@@thotslayer9914 "both have their merits"
The fuck they do.
"Really? "Jacobin Magazine"?"
Kind of like The Young Turks.
Love the moderator politely and endearingly gets both sides to shut up when needed to.
Simp
@@YS-hl1hy well aren't you a special little creature
In the span of 2 minutes, this guy bashes Gene over the head for not acknowledging that "capitalism is all about profit, man *puff* *puff*" and THEN says that under socialism, state banks will allow new businesses to be started based on objectively measuring profitability.
*facepalm*
@vertex2100 literally every single thing a bank does is based on some perception of profitability. What are you talking about.
@vertex2100 dude North Dakota has had an extremely successful state bank for decades. I don't know what or why you are talking about Marx and Communism, China was never Communist and never claimed to be, capitalism *may lead to Socialism, then after there is no longer scarcity in the world there can be Communism (which will be like Startrek, no class, no currency, everyone can just have whatever the hell they want within reasonable means because there is no longer scarcity of goods)
He's saying about majority of profit for the few vs profit for the mass.
- Comes from third-world country, “Ugh the consumerism!” 🤣🤣🤣 Dave you slay me
That old guy. Lol. "Capitalism is about competition, and competition creates LOSERS!" Na, dude. Capitalism just shows us who the losers are.
Primo comment.
Haha nice
guess American worker class are losers in your opinion than, they seem to be struggling to find employment these days.
@@noirto2 US currently has the lowest jobless rate since 1969. And there's a year over year shortage in high paying "blue collar" jobs like welding, truck and heavy equipment drivers, sanitation workers, plumbers, electricians... And that labor shortage is causing the already good pay to rise. That's another benefit of a market economy: prices. They highlight what labor and resources are most needed. Higher prices, higher wages, more production, which leads to lower prices and balances the market out. But government manipulation via higher education subsidies and low federal loan rates push people into overcrowded market sectors. Yes, there are a large number of college graduates out there with massive government backed debt that can't be bankrupted away trying to find jobs in fields that don't have any openings. But that doesn't mean the working class as a whole is suffering. US workers are the #4 best paid in the world.
www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/country_price_rankings?itemId=105
And according to libertarian think tanks like Cato, Switzerland, #1 on the pay list, is more economically free market than the US.
infogram.com/human-freedom-index-infographic-1hxr4zonyg556yo
@@nmh5001 While the jobless number look good on paper, if they are forced to work while wearing adult diaper to keep their job. And if they stop work they starve, it not exactly a great picture.
I despise the notion that "democracy" is a good thing. It's soooooo prevalent and annoying!
It is funny because there are no countries that are purely democratic, and few actually want the notion of mob rule unless you are part of the mob.
Exactly, Gene's opening statement gave a little incite into tyranny by democracy.
"Democracy is six foxes and five chickens voting on what's for dinner." I doubt you're having corn.
Democracy is the fairest way that people have found to take shit from each other.
Democracy is where average joes are deciding on complex issues.
Workers controlling the means of production is one the stupidest thing imaginable, who would ever take the risk of creating their own business if it was just going to be taken from them by their own employees once it was big enough?
It's pretty easy. If you're the sole employee you're good. If not and you personally own more capital make two corps and have one be the labor Corp and the other be the capital Corp. Initially the capital Corp makes loans to the labor Corp at interest, you can defer or whatever because you own it. When there are enough employees and they no longer vote to take loans then you recover the profit of your loan investment and continue to collect salary. When you're ready to cash out of your share and effectively stop working at the firm the worker firm takes a loan from either a bank, private equity, or the remaining workers cash share and buys you out.
@@mr.colemak404 I'm so confused... lol. Have you done this before?
In actual socialism, you'd never create a business until the state said it was to be done.
@@mr.colemak404 sounds quite unrewarding.
But we could vote for 365 paid vacation days per year and fantastic pensions
Bhaskar: Let's give government control over everything and pretend it will be different this time.
Gene: Let's not.
wow, evil bernie is really triggered
That's a straw man, Bhaskar wants worker ownership over the means of production not state control over the means of production.
@@tigerclaw1000 He specifically mentioned that banks would be government run in his scheme. Not to mention he supports vast amounts of new tax dollars being controlled by government.
As Gene mentioned if all he wants is "worker control" nothing is stopping socialists from forming democratically structured businesses and like minded communities right now voluntarily.
But what he really wants is mob control over the economy, which will turn into a strong man controlling the economy as always happens when power is centralized. And it will fail as it always has.
@@tigerclaw1000 Why do you think when communists take over they always call themselves "The People's" party. North Korea is the "People's Democratic Republic", China calls itself the "People's Republic". "The people" only control the economy through government, and the elites of society will always run it, not the common man.
@@destroya3303 Will first of all worker cooperative are not competitive with private business in a capitalist economy, because private business exploit there workers and put more capital in the hands of fewer people who have an incentive to open a new business like that and replicate the process of exploitation.
Cooperative by there very structure cant just buy another means of production and higher a manager to operate it and extract value from it like a private owner can, because it go's against there nature and the whole point of worker cooperatives, also because cooperatives are democratically run workers are not as likely to subject them self's or let some one subject them to bad working conditions that maximize profits because its not the top priory for them especially when its them who pay the price for this, unlike in a private business where the capitalist reaps almost all the rewards and pays none of the price for bad workings conditions.
All of thous things make cooperatives better for humanity as a whole but unlikely to spread in a system that favors maximizing profit by squeezing the common people.
Hence the need for state's assistance.
I will respond to the rest later, how ever, id like you to make an argument for why you think that capitalism can exists without a state or a large state, assuming that's what your position is.
Capitalism = voluntary interaction
Socialism = forced interaction
The mental gymnastics necessary to suggest socialism is preferable, I do not understand.
@@voswouter87 I just caught a fucking mouse in a grocery bag and smacked it against the floor.
@@voswouter87 -- The reality is that while it's true that resources are in abundance, not everyone is equal in total ability. This is for a plethora of reasons, both genetic and environmental. It's the latter part that so-called "progressives" actively refuse to understand. It's not that they can't, it's that they actually *won't.*
This is basically the core of the arguments made in the materials you linked to. It's good to see that *some* people have the ability to think for themselves. ;) Keep that shit up.
@@Excedrine Resources seem in abundance, but that's only the case now because of hard work.
I think I lean progressive myself in terms of instinct, but I've abandoned those values in rational thought.
But it seems to me people are very unlikely to do that.
I also see conservatives having massive respect for Christianity.
Even though it's a super progressive religion:
pastebin.com/mDEFP2Xp
The only explanation I see for that is that they instinctively have massive respect for tradition.
So I'm not saying that conservatives are any better.
I think people being unable to rationally think about these issues comes from government pressure.
Because everything government does necessarily punishes people for being of high quality and rewards them for being of low quality.
Quality as the extent to which they are productive and/or responsible and/or rational.
I'll take the example of having a military that protects a certain region:
- The productive are punished because their money is stolen to protect the unproductive
- The responsible are punished because their efforts/ability/preparation to protect themselves are wasted and used to protect the irresponsible
- I don't see how the rational are punished in this case
s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/5a/16/98/5a1698f7dd9a96b35c2285fd2a4bde24.jpg
Edit:
How military defense would work in a free society:
Women wouldn't have the false sense of security from government through police protection so they would value the ability of a potential husband to protect them.
You would also get an honor culture where the ability of men to defend society is valued by the local community.
Honor cultures have a bad reputation because of the well known horrors in honor cultures driven by Islam.
But that's because those honor cultures are based on a horrible set of values.
Governments stamped out honor cultures in the west because they're consistent and governments want to be able to implement any law that serves their interest, even if total bullshit.
But the essence of an honor culture is that individuals do what's in the interest of the society.
If you're worried about the strength of such a system, consider that muslims don't want to kill their children, but the honor culture is so strong they do it anyway.
@@voswouter87 -- I tend to lean a bit right-of-center in the broadest terms, but am more socially liberal (live-and-let-live) and fiscally conservative (taxation is theft). Anyway, conservatives *definitively* have reverence for tradition, and there are many "progressive" tenets in Christianity as well. That doesn't necessarily make conservatives that much like what we would describe as "progressives" today, however.
But, you *could* say that the rational and productive are punished in more of a round-about way, though. Given that the government has instigated and actively encourages the take-over of of education, entertainment, and the media by out-of-their-mind leftists (note that I did not say "liberal"), we are all bombarded by the twisted "social justice" mantra in every which way that one can possibly be communicated to, which basically all boils down to: "whitey is the devil incarnate and they should all feel horrible all of the time about what their ancestors did to mine hundreds of years ago, and they have no valid opinions of their own about literally anything, anywhere, ever and they should all lay down like the animals they are and DIE! REEEEEEEEEE!" That's punishment enough in my book! :P
I could also easily foresee traditional, organized volunteer militias forming in a free society. You could even spice it up with voluntary donations from the community for more specialized equipment beyond small arms. Think MANPADS, mortars, AT mines and rockets, etc. If you're worried about the ability of such a force to repel or even hold its own against any state military, I would like to kindly guide your attention to the Vietminh, Mujaheddin, Taliban, and the SNA, for starters.
@@Excedrine "and there are many "progressive" tenets in Christianity as well. That doesn't necessarily make conservatives that much like what we would describe as "progressives" today, however."
Agreed, I think they rarely actually follow Christian values.
The only one I can see they hold consistently is charity, which is giving money to strangers for being poor.
That's the opposite of meritocracy.
It's not socialist because those conservatives don't want to involve the state in that.
Of course a lot of progressives are also Christian, that's a different issue.
It seems to me the conservatives who consistently adopt Christian values become alt-right or nazi's.
If you look at Hitlers plan 16 out of 25 of his points where socialism.
"out-of-their-mind leftists" I call that a progressive, maybe combined with government indoctrination and feminism, you get religious behavior.
Note that conservatives who tout their Christianity express very little religious behavior. I think that's because they've been hammered for it by the feminists. But it does seem that the insanity pressure from government has very little influence on them.
Yes the hatred of the own culture/tradition seems crazy.
I think it's perfectly explainable by the opposite of the conservative instinct to respect tradition.
Combine that with the frustration of not being able to achieve any results.
Even when progressives control government it leads to disaster (Democrat run cities).
They don't do the rational thing and investigate their values, but just blame whatever they don't agree with and get angry.
They see a lot of suffering, even where there's none like with the difference in outcome between groups.
They think a lot of this suffering is unnecessary, even when it is, like with economic need, which is needed to motivate.
There's a lot of pain behind this anger.
I think we could partly solve this through better communication techniques:
www.slideshare.net/hajnali3/nonviolent-communicationalanguageoflifemarshallbrosenberg
But this is difficult to do, I'm trying to do it myself, but not very successful yet.
And the threat of government motivates us to go the other way.
It motivates us to see others as enemies and to use controlling language.
Yes, I totally agree a free society would be able to defend itself and repel a technically superior attacker.
My god, we’ve found the libertarian Bernie!
In all seriousness, I really enjoyed this debate. Both speakers did a pretty good job giving an intelligible version of the general argument for their position and provided me with some food for thought. Would’ve liked to see them get deeper into arguing about Bhaskar’s point that market pressures push co-op businesses toward some of the same negative practices as individually owned businesses. Here’s hoping for more such debates in the future!
In short, co-ops exist within the market just as other businesses do. Besides the workers retaining all profits, the only real difference is that instead of there being a boss who hires and fires according to the demands of the market in search of profit, workers themselves hire and fire each other so that the co-op can remain in business.
A co-op is not some magical way to opt-out of capitalism, it is a business like all others and its leaders (the workers) have to follow the whims of the market unless they want to go under.
45:00 Smile libertarians: even today’s socialists agree we need freedom and markets and competition. I think we’re wearing them down. ;)
*@Christopher Stanis* yes, Yuri Bezmenov was so prophetic in his 1980s interview (th-cam.com/video/y3qkf3bajd4/w-d-xo.html ) it’s chilling. We still haven’t reached the apex of the subversion from what I can see. The pipeline of future workers and academics and whatnot are stuffed to the bursting point with subverted minds due to the wholesale takeover over teaching institutions by subversives.
Socialists: Look at us, we are conceding on our principles because people are realizing that socialism sucks in its truest form.
It's all rhetoric. For socialists, all that matters is getting political power. The smart ones refuse to engage in even thinking about what comes next.
Ever heard of John Maynard Keynes?
Oppenheimer
>Ever heard of John Maynard Keynes?
Yeah, he's the guy who found the loophole in the idea of "no taxation without representation."
Consumerism, if you find it unpleasant, is the result of humans, not capitalists. Capitalists try to find things to sell consumers, but consumers have the power of choice, the power of redistribution of money, etc. If you don't like some consumerist things, don't buy them and they will go away. There's no such thing as coercion in a free market.
There is coercion in any market. The foundation of private productive property is coercion via violent exclusion. All of this income is unearned income or economic rents. You are coerced by the market into choosing a job because that's the only way to live. Consumerism is a result of this market and the idea of marketing and in oligopoly and monopolistic competition market structure product differentiation(advertising) is what develops a consumers preference.
*"You are coerced by the market into choosing a job because that's the only way to live."*
Incorrect. The market does not come to you with a gun and force your participation. You are not forced by the market to take or remain at any given job anymore than you are forced gunpoint to buy any given product or rent a property. Your premise is flawed from the very start. Personally, I support your right to choose to go off the grid and build your own home and live by your own labor to build a home and procure your own food if you should so choose. However, regardless of whether or not you choose to engage in the market, government will still demand taxes and in a way, THAT is your coercion to participate to attain the means to pay those taxes.
The difference is when you want things that you cannot produce either due to a lack of time and/or skill that other people can. To attain these things, you have the following options: 1. Learn to do it yourself. 2. Trade with those that can. 3. Take from them by force what they have. Options 1 and 2 are the market. The market is made up of individual people like you or I, living our lives with our respective property voluntarily trading or not trading with others.
I do not personally have land. I do not personally have the means to build my own house, nor do I know how. I do not have the means to make my own electricity or my own means of attaining electricity, nor do I know how. So what shall I do? Take from others by force for what I see is my right? No. I do not have the right to other people's time or property. Instead I can trade with what I can produce and with my time to attain the means to my ends with those willing to also trade with me. Through this, I can get food, housing, energy, clothes, entertainment, etc. without spending a minute trying to make it for myself and instead engage in other activities I prefer which is all due to the market.
James It’s called reality . What kind of immature 12 year old pie in sky scheme ideology sells you that owning property and items and that you have to work for money is some how oppression ?
If I see a commercial that makes me want something, the companies evil? How stupid do you think people are? Advertising goods/services is somehow oppressing people into consumerism? Holy shit! If I actually bought everything adverstised to me, I'd live in chaos.
Bhaskar doesn't even run his own organization as employee owned, but wants to make it illegal not to?? At least make your own organization a small proof of concept.
When I lived in Honduras people would come by and offer to cut you lawn with machetes for x dollars.
So if each work can cut one lawn a day with a machete for $5. So they make $5/day.
Then one of those guys saves his money and buys a lawn mower and then one man can cut one lawn in 2 hours and the guy who saved up to by the lawn mower pays his workers $10/day.
In this case who is exploiting whom?
Also a couple of points about factories where people are not allowed to pee when they need to.
People like me often complain about the seats on the commercial aircraft we fly one but still pick the cheapest flight. We'd like to have more comfortable seats but we mostly do not want to pay for them. Maybe it is the same with those jobs, the workers would like to have better work conditions but maybe they are still opting for the highest paying job that they can get.
I hated school in the fist and second grade (one result of that was that is I spent 2 years in the first grade) so I would ask to go to the men's rooms very frequently and walk around the school after I was done and so I lost men's room privileges and of course the inevitable eventually happened. this could happen a non capitalistic system.
If people where better capitalism would be even greater than it is, like the Micky mouse club village (th-cam.com/video/RkjYqgmL7hI/w-d-xo.html) but they aren't that good and in democratic socialism you give the majority of those not so great people more power over us odd folks.
Socialism is the politics of envy.
J Oliver I don’t think the failure of socialism is due to people “not being good enough” but rather is due to the absurdity that a massive pluralistic nation should be governed like a family
@@wigglethemiddle1 I can't fucking stand my actual family. I'd rather blow my brains out than be everyone's family.
Not being allowed to pee during work is a problem, whatever the pay or other conditions are.
@@artemiasalina1860 , that's not true. You're regurgitating ruling class propaganda.
Arm chair politicians should just look at history. Capitalism is the lesser of the 2 evils where at least a worker has the opportunity to become an elite. Socialism locks that out completely
Thats a point very few people bring up. Socialists want everyone to stay a worker
Socialism also precludes you from freely associating in certain ways. You cannot form hierarchical businesses. You cannot act independent of the democratic will.
Nothing evil about capitalism. It's benevolent.
We have great examples in Germany and Korea, where a single people (same DNA, same education, same wealth, same culture) are split in two, and the communist side always is poor, hungry and suffer government violence.
Capitalism is a non-coercive means of dealing with human's instinct to compete and survive. Socialists believe that these instincts are merely social constructs that can be trained out of people (eg the "New Soviet Man" theory). I've never heard one explain why it is that all living organisms compete to survive. Is it just a social construct that certain plants grow large leaves to shade out competing plants or that the black walnut tree's roots exude chemicals that are toxic to other plants? Capitalism is a civilized way of dealing with these instincts that is beneficial to all parties. Quite an amazing invention, really.
Daily reminder that socialism always ends in starvation and genocide.*
*Every, Single, TIME!
@Volkstribun you're confusing the action of governments with the action of capitalists
@Volkstribun the belief in the legitimacy of government Authority is a religion. Capitalism is voluntary. A corporate Monopoly has never existed in human history without government regulations to keep other capitalist from competing with them.
@Volkstribun are you an unprincipled troglodyte who's trying to control the actions of people around you by using the violence of government.
@Volkstribun "the greater good for the greater number" haven't heard that before... Lmao you should start a movement called the Great Leap Forward
@Volkstribun what you don't seem to grasp is that a forest is an idea, it's a concept, there's no such thing as a forest. There's only trees. And the same goes for human beings, there's only individuals. You are a collectivist. you know those good intentions you have? They're going to lead a straight to hell
Profit isn't the goal of capitalism. Freedom is the goal of Capitalism. Profit is a derivative of the freedom that Capitalism creates.
@Sam Yaza Your carrot analogy says tons about what you've read. Can I suggest reading Milton Friedman?
Let's do a little thought experiment. Let's say you have a water well on your property & you want to give it to your fellow villagers but a band of people stop you from giving it to then people you want to help. Instead they force you to give them to them. In turn they decide to give you back 30% of the water. Now you have only 30% of the water you rightfully owned & have been forced to aid people that aren't in your village.
Now, who's at fault for the children in your village that die because of dehydration? The answer is it's your fault because you should've fought for your right to own your well. That's what socialism & "centralized planning" is. It's a third party taking your rightfully owned property & distributing it to who they deem worthy & then they leave you with the crumbs.
Haven't finished watching yet, but based purely on Bhaskar Sunkaras opening statement he seems to be presupposing his conclusion. Lots of talk about how the world should work, no arguments/evidence what he's suggesting will actually work.
@Joshua: Not only that, he has to sweep under the rug that horrific failures that socialism has brought about every time it's been tried with any seriousness. The best argument he can make is that worker's rights and some form of welfare state have taken away the sharpest edges of capitalism. But that's a far cry from the legally-mandated, worker-owned means of production he's advocating for.
Sadly, I don’t know what’s worse: his ideas or his ability to express them.
Bhaskar is so fucking dumb its hard to watch. Absolutely kills me how he gets to share a stage with Epstein
@Chrimony: You're talking about "socialism" in the form of centralized planned economies. The "socialism" being talked about here is referring to democratic, worker-owned enterprises in a market system... two different kinds of systems dude. You have to understand that socialism is a very broad term and encompasses many different kinds of systems.
@@zrexx4832 Most of the pro-capitalist posters are stuck in the 50's and 60's fervency of anti-communist propaganda.
The rest are utopian "any government messes up my pure capitalism" folks.
It's hard to break through to explain that socialist thought has evolved.
How can a person simultaneously believe that an individual worker is entitled to the fruit of his own labor and believe that taxation is not also a form of oppression?
Imagine that a supply of workers meets the demands of businesses.
Imagine that those workers are needed for the capitalist to create profit.
Imagine that those workers need the job to survive.
This is not a free choice to voluntarily contract your labor, this is wage slavery.
This cycle of inequality (poverty trap, under employment, lack of opportunity/education) can be offset by taxation on those earning money based on this system (i.e. labor is theft rather than taxation is theft).
If you look at the labor theory of value vs freedom from coercion from the majority/state/democracy, then maybe you'd come away with a mixed economy.
If you look at it from only one perspective, you will fall into fantasy (anarchist capitalism vs planned economies)
@@WizzKidxKOx Yeah. There's only one problem with that. The labor theory of value was debunked when Marx was still alive by Böhm-Bawerk, and then again and again and again in a variety of different ways by a variety of different economists from a variety of different schools. Value is SUBJECTIVE, not objective. Value does NOT come from labor. And then once you realize that, literally the ENTIRE idea of Marxism and the clash of classes completely falls apart. Please, go read some economics and stop doing yourself and everybody else such a disservice by spouting this bullshit.
I get it, effort put into production does not equal value in a marketplace. Gotcha.
Socially necessary labor time is ambiguous.
How do you deal with inequality without taxation then?
One thing that both socialists and capitalists can agree on is that dave smith is not funny.
agreed
Bhaskar ought to be reminded that India (and I'm assuming he's left India for greener pastures), is to a great degree socialist (in terms of state interference in economy, education, other aspects of life etc). I would know, I live here.
None of his utopian visions have come to fruition here. Socialism does not work outside the shoddy, B grade publications that he runs.
India only recently saw some meger progress, after rejecting straight-out socialism. Socialism is responsible for the dire circumstances and often deaths of billions of Indians for decades.
Yes people tend to miss that many of the poor countries are more socialist than the USA is.
I lived in Honduras for a while where the electricity, phone, and medical care (they did allow private care also unlike Canada so not completely socialized) were provided by Government, along with things like schools, water and roads that government in the USA provides . They also had agriculture programs and huge tariffs, industrial policies etc. Overall I'd say that they were much more socialist than the USA and maybe even more than Sweden.
And BTW the electricity and water typically went out in the middle of the day and the phone service was bad.
I also think that their culture was a little less conducive to socialism so they should have less government than us not more.
@Rabble Repository no
And you ought to be reminded that the most well-off, well-developed state in India is in fact Kerala, a state run by communists.
@@lozoft9 yeah, and about more than half of the states gdp is contributed by remission from keralite working abroad. Because the retarded commies won't allow anybody to do business in the state peacefully. I should know. I live there
I want to impose all these political rules to force people to work how I believe they should, but I don't think coercion will be necessary. -Bhaskar
What?
I want people to have the FREEDOM to work for someone else who does no work but owns the business and has inherited it from ancestry but I was born poor so ok that I work for him and get no say in what i do.
Socialists are greedy and entitled, they don't think through the consequences, they argue from pure emotion.
@@james192599 You assume that the business owner who paid for all the equipment, pays all the rent and expenses, goes through the work of setting up the business, the legal aspects, hiring and managing workers, putting in 60-80 hour weeks does NO WORK, and that businesses and wealth just fell into their laps? Boy, you want to talk about greed. You have no idea what business owners do, you're just an entitled brat who thinks the world owes you a living just because you draw breath!
Do you need coercion to do what benefits you? Of course not. Most socialist forms of economics would benefits people who don't currently own most real estate and business assets (95% of people), so it would be a natural choice. If only the pathway was an easy one, that's where strategy comes in.
@@tomservo75 blah blah blah it's the same old bullshit rhetoric. You think you deserve more of a right to live because you decided to gamble your money on setting up a business so you can exploit the labor of others for profit? Because YOU decided to work 60-80 hour weeks, it's somehow our responsibilty to work for your profit to prove ourselves worthy of receiving basic necessities? BOY, it's you fuckin people who are the entitled little brats, and it's YOU fuckin people who want to rule over people's lives and impose obstacles that you deem as necessary to earn the right to live. Fuck you.
The stand up at the beginning-unbearable
Absolutely unbearable
Awful. One more doucher who can’t stop obsessing about Trump.
Scrolled right past it. Looks like I chose wisely! Not even sure why a stand-up act had to happen!
10:55 if you want to skip the apparently not-unheard-of-in-Australia practice of opening a debate with a warm-up comedian (?).
Yeah that was weird
he thought he was funny ew.
State owned banks? At least in my country state owned banks are riddled with cronyism, and inefficiencies (there's even kickback schemes to the ruling party).
People who run those banks would effectively be of a superior class to the workers, because of how much power lies in their decisions.
The same with my country. Is not until 1998 during the asia financial crisis that the government banks were privatized. There are banks that still partially owned by the government but those banks are run privately and for profit as well.
If the people do not control the banks they do not control their own currency. If they do not control their currency they do not have a government, they only have a small collection of private banks who make the rules by being the ones who deal out the money to the world governments.
Every country that does not have a private bank is sanctioned, attacked, or subverted. Why? Because the private bankers at the top exist to enslave the working classes of the world to debt slavery.
A nationalized bank has to be accountable to it's citizens. If it does this it is instantly better than private banks in every single way.
@@thenorthowl2033 Did you know the FED, a government institution is always there to save private banks that are screwing up? How exactly do you make the FED accountable by "the citizens"?
A free banking system is the one that has the least incentive to corruption since when banks screw up, they just go under. In this sense, the private banks want more government, since they benefit the most. Big corporations also use the government to create barriers of entry for new competition harming consumers as well.
I agree with you that corporatism sucks (corporations getting benefits by government at the cost of the people), but the treatment should be less government, and more free markets.
CALM THE HELL DOWN GENE! You're making good points but I'm cringing too hard to hear them!
Good points where though xD Do you mean the way that he angrily points at people? Because those are some damn good points
Once someone starts yelling or trying to play on emotions I stop raking them seriously. That's a common form of manipulation.
That's a good point, but manipulators often play on people's emotions to intentionally make them angry so they will be discredited.
@@history6988 end of the day its YOUR job to control your emotion, its a debate not an argument. there are no insults thrown
Passionate display of emotion is not equal to manipulation or to lack of reason, even as we can find it in both.
@@history6988 I agree. I found Sankura smug about Epstein's frustration.
@@johnpatmos1722 I had to go back and watch the video again or at least part of it. The Capitalist, in my opinion, had every advantage here from skill at debate to the topic to be debated. He didn't need to resort to rhetoric meant to create an emotional reaction. To me it seemed a deliberate attempt to stir up the right-leaning audience. In these debates crowd reaction is more an indicator of 'winning' than voting. We know this. We know groupthink is more persuasive than words. There are several instances where he practices crowd manipulation techniques rather than engage in honest debate where he had the upper hand anyway. Context is always important. If your trying to convince others data in ineffective when you can stir up emotions. One method he employed was the use of strawman arguments. Strawmaning is manipulation. There are several instances where rather than attack the argument from his superior position he resorts to manipulative tactics. So over all I t think if we take it in context to the forum, the topic, and the method used the capitalist was more interested in manipulation to gain a perceived crowd approval to win over providing useful information. The Socialist, kinda just sucked for so many reasons.
Someone’s been supported by their parents their entire life.
This idea of a socialist firm means what? What is the incentive for anyone to work harder than anyone else? We see what happens in Government when there is no incentive to work harder than anyone else - all work at the pace of the slowest and laziest. A socialist run firm will fail spectacularly.
>What is the incentive for anyone to work harder than anyone else?
The government will put your report card on it's refrigerator.
It's always painful to see such reasoning. Yes, bull scale communism sucks. But many people love to work hard for the common good. French state enterprise saw reduced productivity after being privatised and pressured to increase profits. All society is run with 20% of employees making 80% of the work, both public and private. You have people who want to work like crazy for the common good in public corporations, once you turn those companies into profit oriented entities, those people are demoralised or leave. That being said, you need a racially homogeneous and cohesive society to get people to dedicate themselves to the community. In a divided country like the US, only free for all individual money seeking is possible.
@@Bvic3
To begin with I think "common good" is a myth, but with that aside, those who want to work for the "common good" can do so right now in the US; they are called charities and non-profits.
You say that what is needed is to have a "radically homogeneous and cohesive society" in order to have your wish come true, but this would require fundamentally changing human nature, which is something that Marx believed could be done. He thought that a totalitarian socialist government could recreate mankind to rid them of their self-interest, which would lead to the end goal of communism, and at that point the state would no longer be necessary.
Trouble is, though, that he was wrong; the theory of tabula rasa has been debunked for many years. Not everything is a social construct. All living organisms compete with each other for resources naturally, and humans are no different. When you have property that is not clearly owned by an individual then you will inevitably have conflicts over it's use. This is as much a natural law as the speed of light, and it cannot be changed. The Soviets used to give out medals and name people national heroes to try to channel the competitive nature of people into their forced artificial society. What capitalism does is to integrate that natural competitiveness into society so that all parties benefit. There is no need for a belief in "common good" in a capitalist society.
And when I say "capitalism" I mean purely capitalist, not the monstrous "mixed economy" we have in the US. A purely capitalist society would have zero coercive government intervention and manipulation. It is the socialist components of our government-coerced mixed economy and belief in "common good" that cause us all of our grief.
In Belgium the police and fire departments riot _with each other_ in the streets over who deserves bigger government pension benefits. Cab drivers set car tires on fire in the streets and block roads in riots because of independent Uber drivers. Maybe they'll stop their self-interested rioting when they become "New Men" 100,000 years from now...
In a purely capitalist society untainted by forced government socialist policies you can work to help others by running or donating to a charity, and in the US this is very successful given that we are on average some of the most generous and compassionate people in the world. Government force is not necessary and only makes people resentful and less charitable.
@@artemiasalina1860 you are a utopian... I'm sure Feudalism was thought of as a perfect system in the same way, too.
@@LongDefiant The belief that a monopoly organization that funds itself by forcefully taking people's money and other property, going into debt, and printing its own money, is going to work in your best interest is the real utopianism... I'm sure Statism is thought of as a perfect system by boomers like yourself and others.
Gene's rebuttal is basically "I can't imagine this working so it just can't work."
A lack of imagination does not equate to a rebuttal. Very weak response.
The burden of proof lies on the people making the claim for socialism. And a 100 years of history demonstrates that socialism doesn't work. The socialism that does work exists in the minds of ivory tower intellectuals, i.e., it is merely a pretense. There is good reason to think that socialism won't work, namely it being incongruent with human nature.
I have a lack of imagination because I cannot see Fairy Land working.
@@phantasmagoria1297 Considering that capitalism took somewhere between 3-400 years to develop, it seems like there is a double standard at play with that argument.
EDIT: Not to mention that the development of modern capitalism directly led to tragic events in human history like genocide (settler colonialism) and artificial famines (Irish potato famine), etc.
Imagination is not an argument.
@@andrewneisess6191 no it didn't quit your bullshit. Colonialism is NOT capitalism. Nor did capitalism cause the Irish potato famine. More bullshit.
A) I consider myself an economic idiot and yet would wipe the floor with Bhaskar in a debate.
B) Even being an economic idiot, I would have even less patience for Bhaskar than Epstein did and call Bhaskar an idiot on stage.
Bhaskar seemed to not understand depreciation. To be fair given a chance to explain he might show he is not as in the dark as he seemed but woo what he said was silly.
@@Floccini I'm going to be doing a point-by-point video response to Bhaskar's opening statement. Watch out for it.
When's the video coming?
Still hoping for a rebuttal?
So far you are correct about the idiot part. Give us another example!
Gene could have destroyed Bhaskar simply showing how socialism fails economically, however it is incredibly enlightening that Gene portrayed socialism accurately as a top down authoritative system that must be forced on the people, which many wouldn't support. To comply with this top down central planning, dissidents or people that simply do not intend to comply with the system must be dealt with coerccively. Bhaskar could not properly answer that question and instead drew pictures of a utopian and unrealistic image of how his system would work.
Exactly. Gene destroyed him by letting him talk too much.
Bhaskar is a market socialist
As a side note here, as someone from a former Soviet country -- if our opinion matters to the freedom-loving people of the free world at all -- for us (or at least some of us) "the record of socialism", which Gene Epstein describes from his third-person perspective as "unimaginably horrible", was not all that horrible at all: people still made both economic and social choices -- in some places more than what they have now in their allegedly "free" countries -- and they did not have to fear about the basic necessities such as food, housing and healthcare all the time. living on the edge, unless they are from a wealthy family. You could travel to a large swathes of the world affordably, you had vacations that are almost unimaginable in the US, and at least until the later years of the Soviets, the quality of life, and social mobility was increasing. The government was delivering electricity, water and other needs even to remotest villages, higher education was accessible to everyone willing and having to capacity to pursue it without the financial barriers that characterize them in the West now. Arts, science and culture also flourished under Soviet Union, producing some of the best works of humanity (you can go do your own research in Soviet arts and science). So, no, it was not so unimaginably horrible, it just involved somewhat different space of choices and freedoms than what was and is available in the West.
It's ok Soviet polluted because they were competing with the US. ROFL. ;p
Indeed! And never mind that GOVERNMENTS are the biggest polluters in every single nation on the planet.
Save the planet, scrap statism!
@Rabble Repository yeah government coercion is prosperity!
we knew nothing during the cold war compared to what we know now about climate change. thats the point he shouldve made. no one would argue that a regime that hasnt existed in 30 years is anymore responsible for climate change than the capitalist governments that still exist. so thats not the debate.
the debate at the heart of this point is whether market intervention (not free market) is more capable of solving this then a lack of intervention (free market). be honest, which do you think is the answer?
@@calysagora3615 that's actually false its 100 corporations that are the biggest polluters and the ones that cause negative externalities.
@@ProlificThreadworm The state and private business are closely linked. Do you think removing the state would create free-er enterprise? or would the private businesses just form a new state that protects their power?
1:25:29 "Global Warming is threatening our planet and Capitalism is resposible for this". Citation please. The number of people killed in natural disasters is VASTLY reduced today from the distant past. There is little evidence that people are in any more danger of the climate than they have before. In fact maybe less. In the late 1800s millions died in global heat waves.
Denying actual global warming just to defend capitalism is crazy
I've got to admit, Sunkara is a great debator. I don't agree with him, but he presents fact-based logical arguments and good rebuttals!
He really isn't a great debater. He ducked some basic questions that were asked, as he clearly knew he would be cornered into answering the question negatively. Nope not a great debater at all, more like a plain ol windbag.
So you don’t believe in his fact based logic?
He suffers from what a lot of socialists have, which is not asking enough questions to arrive at correct answers. At 59:16 for example. He only has assertions that he can state, and that's as far as his analysis goes. No questioning.
@Briana Tippens Fact doesn't mean right. People who can buy slaves could probably profit more than people can't in the labor market. I made an extra comparison I agree but only to make the point that just cause something is factual doesn't make it right or desirable.
All socialism vs. capitalism debates should only take place when both parties pass a basic economics test. Basic understanding of supply and demand, positive sum games, Say's law, Pareto's law, Price's law, comparative advantage and marginal utility would stop 99.9% of socialists dead in their tracks.
Their arguments only work in their dream world.
Another socialist that debated the libertarian speaker on this platform, Richard Wolff, is actually a economics professor, sooo....
@@KarlSnarks Well aware of Richard Wolff. He is included in the group that needs to learn basic economics. He doesn't believe that supply and demand dictates price. That is econ 101. He believes in labor theory of value, which has been provably wrong for 150 years. He is only respected by Marxists.
There are creationist scientists too. A degree doesn't mean you're not an idiot.
@@KarlSnarks and he's entirely wrong and lied through his teeth at that debate.
What made the majority qualified to run anything an individual has spent a lifetime perfecting
The problem with what Sunkara and that angry old man in the audience are proposing is that competition is as much a part of nature as humans are; you see it in every living organism. So in order to create the world they want they will have to have a huge oppressive state that forces people to not behave the way they would in a civil society naturally. It astounds me that so many nature lovers are socialists because they would have to create an artificial world to get what they want, and they'd have to use violence to maintain it.
Appeal to nature fallacy. Almost anything other than Anarcho Primitivism is artificial that forces (or should I say keeps people from) doing what they'd do naturally. And this oppressive artificial system is something that we call Order.
The concern I have, this becomes a repeat cycle, as if nothing is learned. Using capitalism to achieve socialism which ultimately collapses and therefore reverting back to capitalism, until it's time to try socialism again. Extreme lack of wisdom. It simply comes down too, which system lasts longer, and which provides actual growth. Two simple answers to both. The cycle will never stop.
I think we could break out of the cycle if children were educated in free market economics and how to think logically. Our civilization would achieve escape velocity quite literally and we'd have 8% growth per year instead of 3%, which would mean incredible breakthroughs in a few decades (life extension, AI, air cars, space flight, off worlding, etc...)
@Brian Bagnall it will take the slaughter and deprivation of many more generations. But eventually, hopefully, all will agree that even though real communism has never been tried, the death per attempt isn't worth it anymore.
Hard intro, libertarian having to apeal to 2 audiences :p
didnt really go against people for voluntary exchange of goods and services asterisk property rights mandatory
and also these socialists just want welfare and should be called such because they dont want to end capitalism or they will starve
Yeah a true libertarian comedian tells his jokes to NOBODY because he's such an individualist.
Lol. True. It was weird though that were some that still got triggered rather than enjoy the comedy. No one is excluded in comedy. All is fair in comedy. Offend everyone. Just laugh!!
@@mayac.1345 I didn't identify most of Dave's statements as being "comedy". They were just a diatribe of sentences betraying willful ignorance and stupidity on his part.
@@IndigoVagrant
Haha are you triggered? Is ignorant of the word "comedy." Does someone need to explain the concept of relative humor to you?
Regarding why we're using fossil fuels in our power grid rather than solar: this has nothing to do with the oil industry controling the government. The reason is basic math.
The solar industry employs 374K people. The average worker makes about $40K. Total wages alone per year costs the economy more than $15B to provide solar, which only accounts for 1.3% of the total power grid.
Now, contrast that with coal. The coal industry employs 187K (HALF of that employed by solar). The average worker makes $60K, making the yearly cost $11B in wages. What do we get for that $11B? We get 30% of our power grid!
If we tried to replace our coal energy with solar, it would cost us an additional $351B in labor alone, and we would pay that every year ... forever.
The real answer is that we don't use solar becuase at this point in the evolution of the technology, it's simply NOT economically viable. This isn't political ... this is basic arithmatic. This is also not a cost we can shunt off to the government or to the corporate sector ... EVERYONE uses electricity. EVERYONE pays for electricity. To keep the math simple, we'll take that $11B cost for coal power and call it $110 per month as an electric bill (cost for a very small apartment). If we went solar, that cost would jump to $3,510 per month! I don't know about you ... but I can't afford $3K+ per month just for electricity. THIS is why we don't use solar widely.
When solar advances to the point that it can legitimately compete with coal, it will replace it and we won't need a government program or mandate. People will use it because it's cheaper. There is no more reliable reason than that.
The problem in debating socialists is that everything the socialists present is either lie,delusion,or distortion.If one were to attempt to bring the debate into reality you are faced with a deluge.
It's actually the free marketers who have no concept of history and rely on thought experiments and perfect competition for their theory to make sense.
Gene forgot to take his anti-rawr medicine 💊
Bhaskar : I want a system where workers vote on what to produce, how much, and how much each individual gets paid
Gene : You can do that under Capitalism already, you can have a Socialist styled business under Capitalism...
Bhaskar : Yeah but I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force
Gene : Why do that if you can get what you want without imposing it?
Bhaskar : I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force
Gene : Why do that if you can get what you want without imposing it?
Bhaskar : I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force
Gene : Why do that if you can get what you want without imposing it?
Bhaskar : I want to impose that on every other person in the country by force
Ad Infinitum
Well under capitalism, capitalists tend to lobby for policies to keep themselves in power. They lobby to keep their businesses authoritarian. Do you think that if most workers really have the choice to work for a democratically run business?
@@thejicaman5329 I think most workers would see that under the currents system they have a greater chance of upward mobility and increased earning potential where as in socialist everyone is mediocre. People want more they have a drive and instinct to achieve and gain more. By not allowing people to shine individually you resign everyone to the level of the weakest links value and worth and potential
@@thejicaman5329 also, who assumes the risk for all these now worker owned businesses? Who is responsible for covering payroll when revenue fails to make a profit in any given month? Who is gonna pay out for unexpected financial liabilities, obligations and expenses that arise? Who is the fall guy when a business finds itself in legal trouble? Who is going to pay the costs to continuously train, upgrade and modernize said businesses...
@@daniferris980 1. You're assuming there is no upward mobility in a co op which is untrue 2. People working for co ops tend to be much more invested in the business because they have a stake in it 3. Most people who work in co ops can be paid more because a gross amount of profit isn't going towards a minority of people who own the business 4. How does allowing democracy in the workplace stop people from shining individually?
@@daniferris980 who assumes risk right now? The owners. In a democratic workplace itd be the same, except coops tend to have higher survivability through economic downturns (probably because pay cuts and the like would be agreed upon democratically and not imposed on the vast majority of workers by the business owner) you also make an assumption that co ops are not profitable and can't reinvest in themselves and train their workers???? Source? I think you just don't really understand how co ops work and that's fine. I recommend reading up on co ops a little more, you'll find they're quite interesting. The biggest one is Mondragon, a good place to start
Gene seems to be really surprised and outraged that Bhaskar didn't totally give up and change his views...
i think he was outraged because Bhaskar didn't answer his question
Let’s simplify all this. The test is what happens when someone says no I don’t want to. Socialism refers to the group will to dictate to the individual who says no. It’s slavery wearing a noble mask.
In theory Socialism is great, in practice it's hell. And I say so because for 21 years I lived in the United Soviet Socialist Republics.
It's also shitty in theory, because also in theory it's theft and authoritarianism. Also it's economically nonsense, because there are no market prices which signify scarcity and no profit, which gives people the motivation to work.
The idea is good. It's just that human's too evil.
Welcome home!
really? as a chinese i think we r doing ok
@@lisu907 You must be one lucky Chinese. Communist party members in USSR did great, too, materially. Us little people didn't. And besides, it all depends on what you compare it to, what standard you use. One can be poor, but free and happy when another is rich and a slave and very unhappy.
Socialists always fail to understand one very important thing: People aren’t inherently good, responsible, rational and contributing members to societies. It takes hard work and dedication to instill these in people in order to have good, respectful safe societies. The best way to have people learn this is to make the individual responsible for their livelihood,. Not to say their shouldn’t be safety nets to help people get on their feet, but to have the government cover every aspect of our lives is foolishness that will just breed laziness and contempt for the system until it collapses.
Really interesting panel, kudos for the girl that handled this strong personalities and could relax the tensions
Wealth (not money per se) but wealth does not appear out of thin air. Wealth is the result of value creation. The goods and/or services must have value otherwise we are talking about un-valued entities that might have been brought into existence at some cost, that not enough people or zero people want.
That said and ethically speaking, all consumers are producers. To the exception such as purely inherited wealth, capitalism provides a solution which can be recognised in an old saying: "from shirt sleeves to shirt sleeves in three generations.
So because all consumers are producers, then wealth has to be produced, not taken. And there is no limit as to how much wealth can be created but for that of man's mind. In order for something to be brought into existence at must be the result of thought. Socialism denies the value of individual thought. And strives to punish it rather than allow the actions of thought to be rewarded.
Socialism is the enslavement of man's mind. There is no collective brain.
To Bhaskar's argument: There is nothing preventing workers from starting their own businesses and controlling the means of production in the current system.
Only that worker controlled businesses wouldn’t be able to compete. I think both sides know this but refrain from mentioning it.
@@soulfuzz368 BS worker owned co-ops do work and do out compete. Do some research. The reason people don't form Co-Ops is because people with the upfront capital want to see a return.
Jim Braatz if they could outcompete, there would be more of them. Maybe you do too much research and need to open your eyes.
@@soulfuzz368 I'm the one with eyes open in this discussion since i've actually done any amount of looking =) Seriously go look and prove me wrong.
Jim Braatz www.shift.coop/ I helped found a worker cooperative in 2010 called Cycle. Cycle is part of the Canadian Worker Coop Federation and I still know and talk to many of their members. There are plenty of good reasons to start a coop and I even believe that it is a more ethical business model, but to say that they outcompete a corporate model is plain wrong. Many of these coops get grants and subsidies from the canadian and provincial governments to start out and most of them will always struggle financially. In my experience and talking to other members, the most difficult part is creating a singular vision democratically.
Bhaskar's Socialism: "free" stuff for everyone, regulated markets, all businesses must be cooperatives, corporatist technocratic governance but at least you get to vote alot.
Apparently the coops will refrain from lobbying the government, being voted out of a job is better than being fired by a boss and workers will risk their wealth by taking liability as part of the coop rather than accept a wage or Bhaskar will jail them. Also good luck being in a minority or not politically connected because your job and your rights are up to the whims of the mob or the state-bankers.
Who'd need a job with all those 'free' services though?
Presumably gibs will be so basic that people will want to work to buy luxury items like avocado toast and butt implants. People will prolly try to vote themselves more and fancier entitlements though.
robin water tree
>but at least you get to vote alot.
Genuine democracy is consumer choice.
How can that chick say with a straight face that workers in the USA often wear diapers because they can't take a 2 min break. And teachers too? She's off the planet
Amazon and meat factory workers have had to don't know about teachers though makes no sense
Do you actually believe that in the US every work place conditions meet high standards and every income is enough to survive on?
@@MariaKoroleva.Realtor I can tell you for sure, from everyone I’ve ever known, nobody has had to wear a diaper to go to work. Most people barely even work at work lmao
He lost me at “give up your rights to private property.” Make no mistake that’s exactly what he’s saying. Hand over your right to property and we’ll handle it better than you could. We’ll make sure your property is distributed to people who didn’t work for it at all.
He’s basically saying I’ve never taken, nor do I have any understanding of, basic economics.
@JAB Initials thank you. These people will lick Jeff bezos’ boot when he owns everything on the planet for 1 Bezos Buck™️/ hr and still push to end government (unless we’re talking about human babies aka more workers for bezos to have his way with eventually) instead of actually revolting to have a better society.
‘He owns everything because god willed him to, we are not worthy’
One question that wasn't brought up is why would anyone even work if they're guaranteed all sorts of things they don't pay for? Who would pay for those services? Who would pay for health care? Who would pay for education? What is the motivation to work and to do good work? As for the one woman's question about working conditions for 20% of Americans today (doubtful number) the answer is simple: quit and find work somewhere else! Amazon (that's who she's talking about) would quickly change its work environment if it couldn't find workers for its existing environments. Also, I hate to bring this up, but the Democratic Socialist Party in Germany in the 1920's through the 1940's showed us what happens under Bhaskar's system, but they don't teach about that in schools today so why would he know that. Even in Germany, 60% of students today don't know who/what Hitler was. He hated capitalism just like the current Democratic Socialists do today.
Simple, if you don't work you get sent to the gulag. Socialists who say they are freedom lovers are either liars or they're ignorant.
Just low hanging fruit they ignore
An interesting thing about most of the communistic societies in the 19th Century in the United States is that they were based upon a generally frugal lifestyle, often to the point of asceticism, and they had highly rigid, conservative moralities. They were also voluntary and communities were not usually bigger than 300 or so people. This means that they pre-selected for people who would live frugal lives, which, paradoxically in some cases led these communities to become successful business firms in the capitalist American economy. The communities, once they accepted someone for membership, claimed as a right, the permanent ownership of all that person's property, save their physical body, should the person decide to leave. It seems to me that these are great examples of functioning socialist societies that lasted in some cases about a hundred years or so--about the outer limits of how long most businesses last. Why modern socialists do not look to these examples for inspiration is mysterious to me, other than the probability that they are ignorant of it and/or are inclined to authoritarianism and state slavery that would prevent people from exiting the society they wish to build.
His ideological point is that you shouldn't be allowed to pay someone for a service?
Matt atWork I demand an equitable piece of that bootyhole
No, his point is that a person deserves the fruits of their labour. Under capitalism, owners take the fruits of the workers labour, sell it and only give the worker a fraction of said wealth. The owner also gets to decide what gets made, how it gets made, where it gets made and the price it is sold at. If you believe in democracy for deciding on a government, why not the workplace?
@@jojomojojones the owner provides the capital , the infrastructure , the resources for the functioning of the industry , no one gets employment without any capital incentives from the owner , furthermore most of the "fruits of the Labour" has been produced by the investment of the employer in capital intensive technology b, for which the worker pays nothing , furthermore he must if necessary even reskill his own employees at his own cost , to say that the labourer is the unquestionable owner of his own produce is to be ignorant of all the efforts of the owner and other means of production , ie land , capital And organisation and the impact capital has on the production of output , I have nothing against a workers cooperations or individuals who pool resources and provide reasonable checks and balances on wealth accumulation Like the modragon cooperation but to impose those on any business model privately owned is not democratisation but rather theft from the owner.
@@phoenixlegend2921 You miss the point entirely. The owner/employee model is immoral, it’s just a softer kind of slavery and creates a class divide. Just like everyone owns a piece of the nation in democratic countries, everyone should own a piece of their workplace.
@@jojomojojones are you insane how is that owner employer model immoral , because it produces inequality , do you wanna be equal to everyone why should everyone own a piece of the production , how is this idealistic bullshit possible
Haha that first guy: We didn't steal your word, we just redistributed it to people who needed it more!
1:04:44 - Holy shit, that escalated quickly.
If your trying to maximize revenue per worker, what happens to the workers that aren't super productive?
In capitalism, they less productive workers get paid less, aren’t promoted as often, and may get fired. In socialism, unproductive workers are allowed to become complacent in their position.
They can just to not work. If you wanna drink, you can drink. If you wanna become great scientist, you can become it. It's socialist logic. Freedom of action!
I was a capitalist before watching this debate, im even a stronger capitalist now. The path and vision of socialist is the thing of nightmares
lol, how do you think condom companies make condoms
Same. All these talking points socialists have are weaker than I expected
No economy is one or the other, they are called mixed market economies. See my post.
The idea everyone is equal is absurd, except as it relates to how the law is imposed. Individuals are all quite different, come from different cultures, have different abilities and interests. As soon as you "level the field" rather than ensuring a level playing field, you abuse those who excel to the misuse by those who do not. If you want to keep what you produce, then found a business. It's that easy, socialists; you can live the life you want in a free country, including sharing as much as you see fit with others.
Any socialist who is willing to prove matters will simply start a commune of like-minded do-gooders who fail to understand economics and capitalism and then live the life they dream. The idea their happiness only comes from government coercion is sufficient to prove they have no real argument outside of force and tyranny.
Socialists believe there's perfection and that it is the goal. Capitalism+libertarianism knows that perfection is an unattainable ideal that changes meaning over time and with new information, and thus some must die for others to live, like in nature itself.
Socialism is effectively Christianity, a system that only makes sense in a zero-sum world where nearly everyone is poor.
+Home Wall -- Except that in Christianity, it is said that one should give willingly and from the heart, not out of obligation, and also mentions nothing about pushing it off onto the government through coercive taxation. ;)
Capitalist produced wine & cheese available after the debate...ha!
The proletariat made it with their Labour
@@DracoPerfection they were employed and paid to make that by capitalists
@@lukathomson3369 voluntarily
Bhaskar contradicts himself and doesn't even see the contradiction. He makes sweeping statements criticizing capitalism, that are much more prevalent in socialist countries. Free market societies enable regular people to enjoy luxuries previously afforded only to the rich. In socialist countries there is no incentive to innovate beyond government mandate which is extremely ineffective. It blurs the lines of the true value of different resources leading to massive waste. If you want democracy the free market enables democracy more than any other system by enabling voluntary cooperation between individuals and companies. The argument against private ownership is just pathetic. Business owners face many threats and the incentive for them is to provide a service that people choose to participate with. Consumers see it as providing them value. Socialism prevents an individual from bringing innovation to their fellow man by removing any incentive to do so.
Of course he contradicts himself. He's a blithering idiot.
Can anyone direct me to a work place like the one described by the audience member? I've never even heard of a employer anywhere in America who is offering such conditions. Teachers taking their whole class to the bathroom?! Where?
What LeBron deserves his pay? What about the janitors, equipment managers, ticket sellers, etc. LeBron is exploiting their labor right?
Perhaps, yes. I think professional athletes are payed too much. They're getting paid millions of dollars for just playing a game... they play it really good, don't get me wrong, but it's not like they're doing something actually productive to the needs of society - they aren't curing cancer, cleaning our environment, growing our food supply, teaching our children, rescuing people from certain death, serving on the frontlines, etc. They're playing a game. There's a lot of higher priorities of what that money could be going toward and/or who deserves it. In fact, yeah, it shows markets are a bad way of allocating wealth.
Usually, its the people who are getting paid really low that are doing the most important work for society - do you know how much mental health counselors and social workers get paid on average? Around $40k/yr. Police, probation, and corrections officers get paid like $30k. Psychiatric technicians (staff for mental institutions) are paid barely above the poverty line. Meanwhile Lindsey Lohan and Kanye West gets showered with millions for playing garbage pop music. I think it's totally fair to raise taxes on shitty celebrities and redistribute that wealth so other people can get paid better for what they contribute to society.
@@zrexx4832 and do you apply the same personal views to your preferred celebs, musicians, and or athletes? Or just the ones that you think are garbage? Also the reason those people make millions is because of every ass they put in a seat, every pair of shoes they sell, every album they sell, every DVD, every event they do. And as it turns out tebs and or hundreds of thousands of fans across the country that buy the CD, the tickets, the jerseys the shoes etc, bring in substantially more than patients pay for med care, or that the insurance companies pay for patients at a specific clinic hospital etc. They definitely bring in more revenue than the govt is willing to pay doctors for subsidized care.... What I'm curious about is whether you would hold yourself to the same standards you're so willing to subject others to. If you made millions would you only keep what was necessary to live on? Would you want 70,80,90% of your income taken from you? If you had the talent of a pro athlete would you turn down a contract to play based on it's lack of benefit to the overall well being of society? By that same logic I'm assuming artists would be of the same useless category you place celebs in and athletes so should they be taxed extremely high and or defunded all together? What about writers?
Minimum government intervention, I like
Interesting that people keep bringing up all of the wonderful things Democratic Socialism has already done. And I would say in return “look at the cost.”
The last 100 years, starting with the catalyst that was The Great Depression, we have been slowly implementing more and more socialist policies and programs. Welfare, roads, schools, social security and on and on the list goes.
And I say “look at the god damned debt.” Between the war machine and socialist policies, our credit is nearly destroyed. Wages have stagnated for over 50 years while inflation climbs. Guess where that comes from? Borrowing money at faster and faster rates than you can hope to pay it back. The government has been so utterly terrible at managing money for so long now that even everyday citizens think its normal. The debt culture has infested every level of our infrastructure and hardly anyone even questions it anymore.
Do you know why redistribution of wealth never fixes anything? Because that is like treating someone’s cold while ignoring they have Stage 4 Lymphoma. Redistribution means nothing as long as everyone thinks it is normal for both Grandma and the government to be upside down with the bank. Redistribution just shuts the populace up for a while as the government carries on with its terrible planning.
The arguments everyone is having is utter nonsense. I agree that socialist programs can give the appearance of having a net positive on society. But I reject outright any of them were ever a great plan for long term success in any way. Remember that large scale issues are the same as small scale issues. Stealing from your future or your neighbor to eat now has never been a smart endeavor for individuals and it ripples into an uncontrollable cancer when done at a governmental level.
Whenever you think of systems, just take it down to the individual level in order to understand their merit. If you steal from your own future, you are creating a larger issue than the one you currently have. But still not as bad as If you steal from a neighbor, you are creating a drastically larger issue than the one you currently have.
Debt is theft of future. War is theft of neighbors. And we engage in both of these things greatly in America.
The bill will eventually come due. Fucking brace yourselves. Imagine what happens if you are an individual and you decide to just keep getting more and more credit cards to cover your already overdrawn house of cards. Imagine the financial ruin that would come of it. Causing you to basically have a life of guaranteed servitude to the banks. So greatly Crushed by the interest that you could never even gather a few hundred dollars to go get another Certification to further your career. You are stuck at your job and paying interest indefinitely unless you quit entirely by opting out with bankruptcy or suicide. And now imagine this is what your government is doing on a massive scale and technically with your support as you voted for it to happen.
Lunacy. Absolute lunacy. Capitalism vs Socialism? Pfft, don’t make me laugh. Anybody got a solution for the Stage 4 Lymphoma?No, you just want to pretend like this sheltered wonderful life we have lived in America will just keep going the way it always has. Meanwhile I literally worry about what struggles my grandchildren are guaranteed to go through due to all of our selfishness and ignorance. And by this I don’t mean financial inequality, I mean financial insolvency. Fuck inequality as a concern. How can you talk about inequality if you don’t even own any of the money you think you do. It all belongs to the FED. They can take it all with a 100% tax rate at any time they desire and really leave you and your economic theories perplexed. What a joke.
Great comment. But then the MMTs are saying we can carry sovereign debt in perpetuity. All we have to manage is inflation and unemployment!!!
THANK YOU Gene!
Capitalism IS NOT Crapistalism, Cronyism, or Corporatism!
That and child labor factories and austerity is just as much capitalism as you consider the USSR socialism. Interesting how the No True Scotsman fallacy only works one way. Here, the reality is, there is no "true" capitalism or "true" socialism. This world isn't a movie. It's a complex combination of both belief systems with a heavy emphasis on hierarchy and profit. Doesn't matter what you call yourself. If you support tyranny, austerity, imperialism, and/or authoritarianism, you're wrong. Plain and simple, throughout history humans became more and more liberated, and the liberation of wage slave will be the last emancipation.
But somehow capitalism always evolves into one of these other forms. It's just a flawed system.
@@kokokokow1760 all thanks to socialist interruptions in form of laws, one might argue. It’s a flawed system even in small doses.
If my boss tried to tell me to wear a diaper so I could be more productive, I'll quit and spread the word about their inhumane practices. Nobody should tolerate this!
So, you would work at Amazon? And that firm would certainly fail after such a shaming... right... right?
Where the hell in the US fo workers only get 3 minutes to go to the bathroom? Citation needed.
I was thinking that myself. I'd love to see some research on that.
I think there is a federal law in the US that mandates two 15 minute rest periods and one 1/2 hour lunch period per shift. If that's not enough time to take a piss then you should get a prostate exam.
The statistic she said I simply don't believe it. She said 20% of workers are under those conditions? Unbelievable.
@@nathans4305 lol
Amazon is the closest business I can think of. They are legally required to give you more time then that (40 minutes for a 10 hour shift) but if you want more breaks than that it may be 3 minutes
Naomi - best fun yet effective & good Spirited moderator that I've seen for some time! Great way to start this party by bringing in Dave to lighten the mood with some funny jokes! Good debate by these 2 gentleman.
An endless spinning of a neverneverland fairytale of guesses, predictions and utopian anti-reality by Sunakra. Terrifying character, to think people read and are taken in by The Jacobin.
"...land into the arms of a welfare state that will be able to take care of your necessities, get you, if your willing to go back into the competitive marketplace..." You just incentives laziness. What are you going to do with the able body people who don't want to have a job? Are you going to have a progressive system of discipline to correct there behavior? For instance, if they refuse to work you could send them to a camp where they could be reeducated. @57:02
woodchuck 00 *cough cough* enslavement *cough cough*
Did you know that re distributive policy can actually increase gdp more than austerity policies in a case by case basis as acknowledged by the IMF? Google it.
Slippery slope
The socialist equates voluntary employment with slavery. Socialism removes the voluntarism.
How can you fire someone that holds shares? Do you allow them to sell their shares or you just take it from them? If you let them to sell it, who is allowed to buy them? Their colleagues or the one whom will replace them? And if it's the latter will you let the company choose the new employee and let them buy it or put their shares on the market and let anyone bid for it?
The company would probably buy the shares back and sell them to an employee sometime in the future that would also have money from selling their shares at their previous employer. No one takes anything from anyone. It’s not rocket science
Even under business law in capitalist countries, companies can force stock buy backs either by small print or lobbied laws. And companies can also feign ignorance or technical difficulties when people are wanting their money or investments, etc, such as in that Robin Hood app situation.
When two people on a deserted island vote to cook and eat the third, they experice the precursor to social democracy and social democracy's ultimate end- brutality and savergy.
The redhead is super cute
Indeed. I would like to take her out for a slice of pizza.
Capitalism is making the world work
Dave smith is a comedian? Could've fooled me
thank you
I ALMOST feel bad for Sunkara. Totally out classed. His economic knowledge is lacking. But the lack of economic knowledge is a prerequisite for being a socialist.
1:06:00 "Do we not entertain you?" - LOL....most definitely! out of 5 stars, y'alls earned a solid 7!
So now we are in a pandemic and the economy is absolutely destroyed and people can’t afford to pay rent or food. Now which is best, capitalism or socialism? Pandemics will be a regular occurrence due to frequent environmental changes.
I did a survey at my shop. Workers unanimously voted to dump waste in the river and pocket the cost of disposal. Socialism!
Capitalism has never been about freedom and neither has socialism.
Care to elablorate?
As a socialist that "comedian" was atrocious
Socialists make fun of ourselves much better. I mean, market regulation may not make the top ten problems in Africa right now. Imperialism however..
That comedian was a Libertarian not a socialist...
What Bhaskar is talking about at around 48:45 was called Employee Funds en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_funds . It was a unique way of achieving socialism, without revolution.
This guy has serious high BP from all the stresses of capitalism 😐
Gene knew he was getting destroyed. I just wish Sunkara had gone for the jugular a few times.
His comment about the regulations we place upon the employer-employee relationship was especially devastating.
Gene had absolutely stopped listening by that point though.
Well: Socialism vs Capitalism =/= Laziness vs Selfishness. Every political system is both.
Begins at 13:48
Saw someone complain about something they thought was cringey and stopped watching, so I just wanted to provide a point to let people get through that so that they don't give up on the video.
I haven't watched it yet. Was just doing my internet civic duty to(posting timestamp where the real content starts).
@Nuovoswiss Oh is that what Dane Cook was doing all along?
Dave Smith is one of the greats, glad Epstein took him under his wing.
said Obama was a socialist...it would've been funny if he said that tongue in cheek but he actually thinks he was...smh
Gene Epstein's part about how society wouldn't focus on minority requests. Capitalism focuses on everyone's needs because there are niche markets.
Man socialism has never sounded so terrible. And he's doing a great job.
Bhaskar appears to be advocating for worker owned cooperatives competing in a regulated market vs. private owned business with labor/workers. What's to stop a salaried/hourly worker from negotiating to receive their compensation in a predetermined valuation of ownership equity equivalent to the W2 cash/wages earned otherwise? Employee Stock Ownership Plans exist, or alternatively a worker could purchase shares of the company stock with 100% of their wages (if publicly traded) and "live off the dividends or distributed earnings." This is merely an accounting trick, and doesn't appear to fundamentally solve the problem Bhashar claims exists.
The division of labor would still exists and the value of that labor would still be subjective. Dangerous, difficult, and unpleasant tasks or responsibilities would still need to be preformed with reward/punishment determined by a third party (i.e. boss, customers, or shareholders).
I was thinking the same thing. I work for an ESOP. I still have to negotiate a wage. There's still a CEO. And as he admitted, hierarchies will naturally form either way. So the only difference between the two seems to be one side requiring the use of force to mandate a desired structure.
Bhaskar appears to have it all figured out, instead of force, he has a four step plan of disciplinary intervention to modify employee - I mean owner - productivity.
Instead of the capitalism vs. socialism debate, these types of conversations in 2018 should be focused on what should the role of the welfare state be and how best to administer those resources. Both limited government advocates and strong safety net proponents could come to a comprise with something like a negative income tax. A department of the government could be eliminated, with benefits being managed via IRS tax refunds/payments. This would reduce overhead costs, and allow for more money to be given directly to those in need. When these types of proposals are mentioned to Democratic Socialists - their heads explode.
This is infeasible. Few people are actually paid enough money to buy much stock off the market and very few employers would negotiate to give away shares in a company as payment because creating more shares would just dilute their value and investors would raise a hissy fit as capitalists are wont to do. Currency is a much more stable form of payment.
@@lozoft9 - Spot on, cash is king. It's immediately fungible and can be used to acquire the goods/service an individual deems optimal to their needs/wants. Yet there appears to be a tolerance for non cash payments in the form of employee sponsored health plans, employee sponsored retirement plans, and government sponsored retirement plans (i.e. social security). All these auto populated redirects of ones cash flows, eliminate choice and the ability to price shop the good/service. Most people would rebel against the idea of receiving payment in the form of vouchers at a predetermined grocery store or auto dealership - yet we are conditioned to tolerate it for other exchanges.
I can't believe this is still up to debate
Its because of government education these people that go to obediance camps and learn to love the government want a better world. And im not against that but understanding the true problem is the key. Socialism does nothing but destory economies as people dont produce good under authority and regulation
as a first generation Latino immigrant in the US, the intro speech from the socialist gentleman gave me goosebumps and triggered literal ptsd, im a war survivor. they all sound exactly the same, theyre fully convinced that their system will work and that they have a progressive idea. Truth is, it's an archaic idea and it never works because their premise on the assumption of what humans are and the nature of mankind is grossly ignorant. The scary part comes when their ideas fail because they had flawed presumptions and since they are also flawed prideful humans, they refuse to admit that they were wrong, so they blame groups of people and determine that if they can get rid of that particular group of people, by putting them in prison or even death, then their ideas will work, then when their ideas continue to fail, which they inevitably will, they proudfully oust the next "culpable" group of people. It's evil and worst of all, they are atheist so they have no fear in ultimate justice. Socialism is flat out EVIL!!
20% of workers have only 3 minutes a day to pee? Wearing diapers? What planet does she live on?