The only true measure of the worth of any idea is the difference between its theory and practice. Socialism promises peace, prosperity, and progress, but produces only war, poverty, and repression. While similar criticisms may be truthfully made of capitalism, the crucial difference is that socialism cannot work without systematic repression of social, economic, and political freedom. Socialism is never anything more than a Trojan horse for tyranny.
@@antonioreid534 What he should be saying is American capitalism makes all those promises and does exactly what he claims socialist do but see he is a smart intellectual and so he constructs a theory with two contradictions first on the independence of capital from government and then on the need of capital to be independent of government. If capital had no need for government than why would they have constructed one and secondly if the can do without one why don't they.
Caviar was not the "product" of Soviet inventiveness or economic behavior. It's like saying roast lamb is the product of capitalism. Both are naturally occurring animal products. The AK47 is another matter all together.
A large part of the Brexit debate was caused because so many eastern Europeans (lived in socialist states) came to Britain because Socialism destroyed their countries economies.
"The Fasicst conception of life stresses the importance of the state, and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with that of the State." Wouldn't this imply that China is currently Fasicst?
sure. but fascism and communist are not mutually exclusive. The only difference is that fascism is clear about authoritarian leadership from the very start, whereby in communism it quickly evolves into authoritarianism only after they took over the political power.
The US is founded on Socialism to the extent of the Commerce Clause which states: “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” Here's the definition SOCIALISM: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole. The US is therefore founded on Socialism since the Elected Government (representing the people as a whole) Regulates Commerce. Now, there are varying degrees of Socialism. The US began with the most minimal and now it's fast approaching the far LEFT. And maybe one day "Regulators" will become "Owners" ....
That's a bad definition because it blurs the line between Socialism (wherein means of production are owned by the state) and Fascism (wherein production is simply regulated by the state). I suspect the original intent was neither -- but rather to prevent trade barriers between the federated units.
Liberal progressives are heavily enamored with the idea of group effort as a philosophy rather than as a tactic. Any task that can be conceived by an individual can be leveraged by group effort. They also pick heavily at what I regard as Ayn Rand's fatal flaw, her disdain of altruism. (progressives like to tar all of capitalist theory by surmising that capitalism is based on selfishness). I happen to agree with them that there's nothing wrong with altruism. But they combine these two positions into what has to be the greatest oxymoron ever conceived: Altruism-by-Proxy. This is why Socialism always fails.
Chloelivi Government has NO altruism. Only private individuals can do that. You can only do it with your own money or your own resources and of your own free will. Altruism entails self sacrifice. Government uses other people's money.
I wonder if this was bad English on Rand's part. "Altruism" refers to freely chosen individual action -- helping others without expectation of personal gain. Whereas she seems to be referring to (forced) government redistribution -- which is obviously the opposite. Either she misunderstood the term or she did not appreciate the fundamental difference which freedom makes to the equation.
The whole idea of delegating the good deeds is the giveaway of their true motives. This revelation should be thrown at them mercilessly in any debate, to show that it's all a sham, and attempt to avoid having to help others themselves. The whole goal of socialism is the exact opposite of equality and charity, and is really designed to do away with both. It's just a very clever bait and switch, that the selfish fall for at face value.
That's a fact... The Mercator projection version of the world map leads people to assume that Sweden is huge when it's actually fairly small, homogeneous and rather sparsely populated outside of a few largish cities. The only reason they can pay for the programs they have is State control of the oil industry...
Yeah, looking it up on wikipedia Sweden has 19k higher median wealth than Mississippi. Different than per capita income which according to google: "While Sweden's average household net-adjusted disposable income was calculated at $26,242 a year, more than the $2,000 above the OECD average" "Mississippi is the poorest state in the United States of America, with a per capita income of $20,670 (2012)." So seems he made an error there or is using some odd calculations. Maybe the above isn't apples to apples but it was just a quick google search after all.
Joe Lima We need to contact him I guess and point this out because it's embarrassingly wrong. I forget if he said per capita GDP or income now and I assume per capita income (PCI) is after tax so it's much lower than the 60k GDP figure, again far higher than Mississippi no doubt.
Moscow is a beautiful city, that was a cheap shot and it clearly shows the speakers's bias. Dr. DiLorenzo's lectures about the constitution for example are incredible but not this one, he doesn't explain what socialism is, only what it is not. I'll pass for this one.
Everyone ignores the balance achieved in 30s Central Europe: socialism(not communism) looking after individuals AND the Nation. Like a family looks after each other, not everyone fending for themselves. If u say govt should have no role in enterprise, then they should have no role in anything at all. There is a balance between individual production and the head of the Nation creating the means by which the individual can flourish without being impeded by other people’s individual idiocy. Hence- balance, like Nature. It is not ONE thing, whether capitalism or communism that will allow human Nations and Races to live to their full potential
??? there was no 'balance' in central europe in the 1930's. Germany was heavily divided and poor. there was the rise of fascism in many states. Czechoslovakia was doing great, but was invaded by Germany in 1938. Czechoslovakia was not socialist and rejected the Marxist ideas. In fact, there were no socialist countries, only National-Socialists (Nazi), Communists and Social-Democrats.
I'm a student at Grove City College. We do it right here and learn how to intellectually annihilate Socialists.
The only true measure of the worth of any idea is the difference between its theory and practice. Socialism promises peace, prosperity, and progress, but produces only war, poverty, and repression. While similar criticisms may be truthfully made of capitalism, the crucial difference is that socialism cannot work without systematic repression of social, economic, and political freedom. Socialism is never anything more than a Trojan horse for tyranny.
You are saying that as the United States has bombed more countries than any other in human history.
@@antonioreid534 What he should be saying is American capitalism makes all those promises and does exactly what he claims socialist do but see he is a smart intellectual and so he constructs a theory with two contradictions first on the independence of capital from government and then on the need of capital to be independent of government. If capital had no need for government than why would they have constructed one and secondly if the can do without one why don't they.
"Fascism should more be called corporatism for it is the merging of corporate and state power." ~ Benito Mussolini
Yes, and this is exactly why the term fell into disuse. The practice of Fascism became the universal norm.
Source? This quote is disputed to have ever been said.
Can't get enough of Tom. Amazing.
I would correct you, only on one fact... The soviet economy produced 2 items which were incredibly marketable ...
Caviar ... And the ak47 :p
Caviar was not the "product" of Soviet inventiveness or economic behavior. It's like saying roast lamb is the product of capitalism. Both are naturally occurring animal products. The AK47 is another matter all together.
A large part of the Brexit debate was caused because so many eastern Europeans (lived in socialist states) came to Britain because Socialism destroyed their countries economies.
Great speech boiling it down to the situation here in Europe (& increasingly over where you live)
"The Fasicst conception of life stresses the importance of the state, and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with that of the State."
Wouldn't this imply that China is currently Fasicst?
sure. but fascism and communist are not mutually exclusive. The only difference is that fascism is clear about authoritarian leadership from the very start, whereby in communism it quickly evolves into authoritarianism only after they took over the political power.
The US is founded on Socialism to the extent of the Commerce Clause which states:
“to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”
Here's the definition
SOCIALISM:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
The US is therefore founded on Socialism since the Elected Government (representing the people as a whole) Regulates Commerce. Now, there are varying degrees of Socialism. The US began with the most minimal and now it's fast approaching the far LEFT. And maybe one day "Regulators" will become "Owners"
....
That's a bad definition because it blurs the line between Socialism (wherein means of production are owned by the state) and Fascism (wherein production is simply regulated by the state). I suspect the original intent was neither -- but rather to prevent trade barriers between the federated units.
Liberal progressives are heavily enamored with the idea of group effort as a philosophy rather than as a tactic. Any task that can be conceived by an individual can be leveraged by group effort.
They also pick heavily at what I regard as Ayn Rand's fatal flaw, her disdain of altruism. (progressives like to tar all of capitalist theory by surmising that capitalism is based on selfishness). I happen to agree with them that there's nothing wrong with altruism.
But they combine these two positions into what has to be the greatest oxymoron ever conceived: Altruism-by-Proxy.
This is why Socialism always fails.
Chloelivi Government has NO altruism. Only private individuals can do that. You can only do it with your own money or your own resources and of your own free will. Altruism entails self sacrifice. Government uses other people's money.
I wonder if this was bad English on Rand's part. "Altruism" refers to freely chosen individual action -- helping others without expectation of personal gain. Whereas she seems to be referring to (forced) government redistribution -- which is obviously the opposite. Either she misunderstood the term or she did not appreciate the fundamental difference which freedom makes to the equation.
The whole idea of delegating the good deeds is the giveaway of their true motives. This revelation should be thrown at them mercilessly in any debate, to show that it's all a sham, and attempt to avoid having to help others themselves. The whole goal of socialism is the exact opposite of equality and charity, and is really designed to do away with both. It's just a very clever bait and switch, that the selfish fall for at face value.
@@Bluuplanet I think that's why he said "altruism by proxy" = altruism with other people's money.
Democratic Socialism appears to be an oxymoron.
Democracy incentivizes socialistic measures. It let's vices loose, envy is given free reign. Democracy is not compatible with private property.
Woo-woo!
*****
cool!
@Adam Staples - Yes. You're right on every point.
the Sweden per capita GDP
That's a fact... The Mercator projection version of the world map leads people to assume that Sweden is huge when it's actually fairly small, homogeneous and rather sparsely populated outside of a few largish cities. The only reason they can pay for the programs they have is State control of the oil industry...
Sounds like a flat out lie to me. I'm seeing they have a 60k USD GDB per capita. Did he say after taxes perhaps?
+Uruz2012 you're wrong. Sweden has no oil. That's Norway you're thinking of.
Yeah, looking it up on wikipedia Sweden has 19k higher median wealth than Mississippi.
Different than per capita income which according to google: "While Sweden's average household net-adjusted disposable income was calculated at $26,242 a year, more than the $2,000 above the OECD average"
"Mississippi is the poorest state in the United States of America, with a per capita income of $20,670 (2012)."
So seems he made an error there or is using some odd calculations. Maybe the above isn't apples to apples but it was just a quick google search after all.
Joe Lima We need to contact him I guess and point this out because it's embarrassingly wrong. I forget if he said per capita GDP or income now and I assume per capita income (PCI) is after tax so it's much lower than the 60k GDP figure, again far higher than Mississippi no doubt.
The age of Robin-Hood-Social-ism is past. Gone from History is the need to take from HAVES in order to give what was taken to HAVE-NOTS
12:50.
Bernie Sanders is an Eisenhower style Republican.
aaah. Brain candy
Moscow is a beautiful city, that was a cheap shot and it clearly shows the speakers's bias. Dr. DiLorenzo's lectures about the constitution for example are incredible but not this one, he doesn't explain what socialism is, only what it is not. I'll pass for this one.
Moscow was beautiful before socialism. Compare the dreary conformity of grey buildings around the colorful pre-20th century core.
Everyone ignores the balance achieved in 30s Central Europe: socialism(not communism) looking after individuals AND the Nation. Like a family looks after each other, not everyone fending for themselves. If u say govt should have no role in enterprise, then they should have no role in anything at all. There is a balance between individual production and the head of the Nation creating the means by which the individual can flourish without being impeded by other people’s individual idiocy. Hence- balance, like Nature. It is not ONE thing, whether capitalism or communism that will allow human Nations and Races to live to their full potential
??? there was no 'balance' in central europe in the 1930's. Germany was heavily divided and poor. there was the rise of fascism in many states. Czechoslovakia was doing great, but was invaded by Germany in 1938. Czechoslovakia was not socialist and rejected the Marxist ideas. In fact, there were no socialist countries, only National-Socialists (Nazi), Communists and Social-Democrats.