PPU Debate - Capitalism vs. Socialism
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 25 มิ.ย. 2024
- THE GLOBAL PANDEMIC AND THE VARIED RESPONSES among nations to the global economic crisis it sparked has served to intensify debates over economic self-governance. While the right argues that market economies proved resilient to the shocks dealt them, and indeed should be even freer to innovate in the face of new challenges, the left points to unprecedented government interventions that not only prevented economic collapse but even helped ease poverty. In this context, Rand Institute board member and radio host YARON BROOK and Marxian economist RICHARD WOLFF debate the merits and perils of capitalism and socialism as models for our economic future.
Presented by the Andrea Mitchell Center and the Penn Political Union. Co-sponsored by Penn Government and Politics Association, Penn Justice Democrats, Penn for Liberty, and University of Pennsylvania College Republicans.
Criticizing socialism for being unrealistic and then advocating for an imaginary capitalism which has never been tried is pretty strange
Are there people in US who believe that US is a Socialist, and not Capitalist?
Do they also believe Lucifer as their savior and Jesus as their manipulator?
They can't just admit that capitalism is a rentier capitalist class extracting wealth from the labor of others through private control of trade and industry, their whole job is to try to promote it and to promote it they have to lie to people and obscure class relations under capitalism, because everything else they try just makes them sound like fascists.
@@AnotherChampagneSocialist because it fucking isn’t and your idiotic “extracting wealth from labor” LTV bullshit was refuted over a century ago.
Image advocating for landing a man on the moon... before it had ever been tried.
And then declining to the point where you can't even land a probe without it falling over.
This format really does a disservice to a discussion like this which requires more in-depth analysis of historical development than can be explained in 60-120 seconds.
Specially when Dr. Brooks comments require direct response, as he spouts a lot of nonsense, such as in private healthcare. It is the private sector that drives up the price. Government isn’t even allowed to negotiate drug prices, while taxpayer fund the r&d for drugs in the first place. Format is trash but Dr brooks isn’t an honest actor.
@@davidl5119 wrong! It is not the private sector driving up the price but the government. Government is not "negotiating" anything. You're talking about price controls and strong arming, which creates shortages. R&D is not solely funded by the government either. You're talking out of your ass. The dishonest one is you. You haven't spent two minutes researching this.
@@davidl5119 None of what Dr Brook was saying is nonsense. You should read his books if you want to understand him better. Though maybe start with Ayn Rand's books first, as they are the basis for his ideas
@@kdemetter it’s been too long since I listened to his nonsense here but the fact that you understand that his comes from ayn rand it’s even worse. Libertarianism has got to be the most ridiculous ideology in any society. Don’t mean to be harsh to you but this ideology is responsible for so much damage in our society.
@@davidl5119 no it is not. If it were ridiculous then form a real argument against it instead of just making things up.
Why ask questions if you don't have enough time to listen to the answers?
Exactly my thoughts. You should give a bit more free reign, we are here to hear these two debate not the questions. Some of these answers REQUIRE immediate rebuttal. I hate when debaters (libertarian guy) are not genuine, he blames others, states arguments that are demonstrably untrue. I wanna hear someone that will challenge my notions rather than make me roll my eyes and become “defensive” of what he is saying because he says so many lies.
I don't think people, especially indigenous peoples, feel they have freedom when capitalistic corporations 'freely' externalize the costs of their production onto people and the environment.
My indigenous family, what's left of it after 300 years of continued genocide, definitely aren't feeling all that free under US capitlaism.
US capitalists sure honored and protected the property rights of the Turtle Island's indigenous people. 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣🤣
I call your b.s. @@ExpatZ266
So those of us who work in a kitchen or say restaurant have the skills to multitask and do many different things all day long some days without a break, we'll never be considered management material?
You don't get to vote on what is done with the profits your company makes, you won't be able to vote on wage differences, etc etc.
Management of a restaurant yes. For sure
Almost all small buz restaurant owners even, flipped burgers at one point in life
@@LeftIsFascist citation needed
Prove to your boss that you can handle management. Maybe, it's your attitude when you come to work, shows the boss that you are not leadership material...ask yourself why you are not being looked over that position, don't just blame the boss.
This is a new trend I see, people claiming the current system “is not capitalism” . I agree it is not the Adam Smith capitalism it is the current iteration of capitalism. It is freedom for corporations from government but a insidious and stringent system of management and control inside these corporations.
It’s not as egregious as saying China socialism gave it its growth. What a shitty lie and an insult to the audience.
@@gazlives it’s on the same level of ridiculous claims
@@jvanleeuwenCdn please look up what socialism means.
It’s Techno Feudalism. That’s what Neo Liberal capitalism has morphed into. Digital Feudalism.
Yes this is called Keynesianism with bailouts, welfare state, lots of regulations and taxes. We have a very mixed economy.
Yaron sounds very much like a devil offering you something 😈
And who is Wolff? A screaming senile old man that has nothing to offer but the reassurances of his empty words?
@@DmitriCharlemenge so in return you pay with your soul or your family? 😢
This Yaron character is a professor??
His ignorance is on par with a Fox News viewer , thinking that the gains of American workers ( pitiful by comparison with social democracies ) are from altruistic employers and not from union activism of the past is astounding.
Actually that’s what Richard Wolf is literally.
I think these pro capitalist debaters talk about Capitalism that is correctly regulated and free from corruption but all too often that is not the case.
even if it was correctly regulated and free from corruption, we would still not tolerate that kind of tyrannical structure in the government as we do the workplace, as our forefathers who overthrew the kings did not tolerate it.
What you dont understand, is that corruption is inherent in human nature. What combats corruption is competition. Government is pure corruption - market corruption fluctuates.
@@kylewatson5133 Nonsense, (what you don't seem to understand is too long to list here) you're simply parroting dogma...what combats corruption is fair regulation and fair competition cannot exist without regulation.
@@ivandafoe5451 you're the one spamming commie dogma.
@Dan Jenkins James Adams and Yaron Brook are the type of fools you get when Corporate Fascism and Neoliberalism aren't far enough right. James actually thinks Anarchism and Capitalism can co exist.
Brook has no idea about the poor people. He constantly talks about wealth and size. Many Americans have settled in my country and cannot believe the work/play balance which workers fought for. Not stressing about health care. Not stressing about being sued. Workers rights. In fact all the socialist aspects of our country. They enjoy family time. Free healthy activities. And our shelves are still full. Wealth should not be judged by money alone but all aspects of life.
Yaron most definitely takes this into account. His arguments revolve around human well-being, not just income or monetary wealth. Therefore, purchasing power and access to infrastructure or technology is also a key component when analyzing the success of an economy. As it currently stands, capitalist nations (those with free markets and private property) have been able to provide for their citizens the best.
@@ooflajboo the USA is not even a full democracy. I am sick of the USA trying to control governments in other countries. Believe me it is not for democracy but because they are not dancing to the USA tune. They have something the USA wants. Please destroy your own country but leave the rest of the world to self govern. I can guarantee with out the USA interference the world would be a happier place.
@@ooflajboo Thats actually not true. All the Social Democracy Nordic Countries rank above us in well almost everything. Yes worker co ops, unions, and controlling Corporate Fascism with Regulations and taxes is a big part of their success.
@@johnadams2169 Agree buddy.
Agree buddy.
I'm in aw when listening to Mr Brook, I can only say he is completely disconnected from the current global situation. He lives in lala land. They could have found someone more knowledgeable. I was watching Mr Wolfe debate a child.
Nope, that would be Richard Wolff.
The phrase 'taking a knife to a gunfight' comes to mind, lol.
can u tell me how value is added to an economic system on a macro level just curious? most socalists pay very little attention to how to grow an economy or what leads to an economy shrinking. All yall can think about is its not fair.
@@stuckinthemud4352 bingo! They don't know what they're talking about.
@@ExPwner Creepy Joe Biden Whisper Anarcho Capitalism is rejected by any actual Anarchist. Capatilist are so lame they think they can steal Left Wing ideologies like Libertarians and Anarchism and throw Capitalism in there and no one will notice.
Capitalism is so good that in order to defend it one needs to spend all the time denying that capitalism is capitalism.
You authoritarians seek to blame the sins of the authoritarian machine's creation of cronyism and anti-free-markets on freedom (capitalism) to make excuses to perpetuate authoritarianism.
@@theanti-authoritarianhippi3137 What is more authoritarian than capitalism? It requires you to bow to your boss and accept the working conditions and wages offered, or starve. Get a critique on capitalism, else you are just following what the bourgeois is demanding of you (which is your exploitation). The only one free under capitalism is the capitalist, and those who own the means of production are capitalist.
@@aarondartt I reject your authoritarian Marxist definition of voluntary-friendly minarchy as "capitalist." A simple test of which ideology and system has the moral high ground is one that does NOT extort and impose on any peaceful voluntarist group's freewill exercise of (dis)association to self-determine. This allows leftists to try to get success from a communist regime AT LONG LAST on a voluntary basis ONLY. Likewise, minarchist voluntaryists would live separately in a society voluntarily based on their free market libertarian nationalist principles, whose government would be strictly limited to 1 - 3% of GDP to pre-empt parasitic growth of government. The only government affording this freedom and flexibility is a "capitalist" minarchy, a morally superior republic of liberty that would not prohibit a group seeking a communist/socialist existence like S&M, provided that it was explicitly consensual.
The problem is that the only socialism that has ever existed never reciprocates the same respect to minarchists to consensually coalesce to form theirs not to be raped and extorted by socialist regimes. Only minarchist propertarian voluntarists, therefore, have the moral high ground because they recognize the moral imperative of respecting the rightfully justified liberty to (dis)associate to self-determine neither to be raped and extorted nor to rape and extort. Socialism/communism without exception has established itself as organized theft and extortionist rape under the thinly veiled guise of "equality" among other deceptively subversive rabble-rousing lies.
All you did was beg the question
@@aarondartt what is more authoritarian than capitalism? Every other alternative. No, you don't have to bow to any boss under capitalism. Work for yourself, bum. You aren't exploited under capitalism. Read Bohm Bawerk.
The problem of debate capitalists is that the debate has to be taken on their own ground. Marxism is never really discussed. All the definitions of capitalism is taken to be the version they use. All the ambiguous terms works in their favor
Sounds like every socialist
@@codyprescher1857 Sounds like you still think socialism is when the government does stuff
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 Yeah, but communism is obviously when mud pies.
Fuck Marxism
@@samueljefferson3430 * ends marxism
the delusion of the guy that talks so much about individual freedom is laughable for poor people, whose existences are marked by total deprivation. This is no freedom. The first and basic freedom is freedom from material necessities, then you can think about projects and dreams
You authoritarians seek to blame the sins of the anti-voluntaryist totalitarian machine's creation of cronyism and anti-free-markets on freedom (capitalism) to make excuses to perpetuate authoritarianism.
Freedom is not material security.
@@ExPwner agree and what’s ironic is that the poor are the ones missing out because of the handouts. The poor are the ones that cannot get jobs because of the handouts and safety nets.
These “material neccessities” dont just come out of nowhere somebody has to create it and provide it. Where is it coming from? And why cant you put yourself in a position to afford them? Why is it other peoples responsibilty to provide for you.
@@mrDeathtrooper In capitalism unemployment has never been solved. In fact employers need unemployment so they can keep wages low. So therefore in this system we don't give everyone the chance to have a job and then we add insult to injury.
Why can't we live in a system that gurantees everyone a secure, stable job with acceptable working conditions and without overworking them to complete exhaustion?
Unemployment is a systemic issue and blaming individuals doesn't just solve anything it is absolutely cruel to be deprived of a job and then be shunned by the rest of society or people who want you to starve to death since you're "stealing" their tax dollars.
This is a horrible debate format. The flow is killed by the QA in the middle of the discussion. Opening statements > Open discussion with 3-5 min responses > QA at the end would have been better. Yaron still killed it though.
I would like to live in Portugal. The wine in itself and people. Now to find they have the economic system I would choose. Gives me something to think about to move to.
Wolff needs to update a little on it. We still have the socialist party in charge but the collation stopped. And we’re in a “political crisis”. The communist party and the Left block party withhold their votes on the state budget. The president dissolved the government and set up new elections for January.
But yea... the wine, the food, the bakeries... the tap water. Good quality, low price.
@@evandrolima1724 entre muitas coisas que admirei qdo estive (1989)em Portugal : era comum que o dono do restaurante ou de uma loja qualquer atender aos clientes , sua filha ou filho estarem ali trabalhando . No Brasil isso é incomum , a não ser no interior do país . Era tratada com muito carinho e atenção . Tenho muitas saudades do seu país ! Estejas bem .
Just as a midget will never considered NBA material.
I just visited recently first time, and was shocked how people were so happy, positive, laid back, insert positive word - they definitely had a more communal view of life
I didn't know they had this type of govt
This explains some of it
Amazing place
Not perfect by any means, but amazing
This comment section feels like a cult with Yaron as the cult leader.
nothing to do with a cult yaron is right wolf is wrong which way is the traffic going to cuba venezuela north korea etc etc or away from cuba venezuela north korea etc etc of anyone is a cult it is communist countries that are a cult and you as an individual cannot leave like yaron said you can get your own people who want to join you to form your own communes in a capitalist country why do these socialists want to force everybody else to join key word is force nobody is stopping you from being a communist in a semi capitalist country but i cannot be a capitalist in a communist country they will arrest you
also we do not have capitalism this is a mixed economy
When one side is so embarrassingly and rabidly wrong you’re going to have some consistency in the opposition, doesn’t make it a cult.
It’s not a cult-like reaction to say Wolf is a degenerate for deflecting for CCP genocide, or a moron for thinking free markets caused WW2…
@@cbskwkdnslwhanznamdm2849 How is he wrong though? Maybe you just don't like what you hear?
Well, the TH-cam comment section is free to the whole world, so it can't be a cult.
I just wish we could watch the debates "Slavery vs Feudalism" and "Feudalism vs Capitalism". Seeing most of the commentators defend the existing order they would be on the side of slavery or feudalism had they lived in those times.
Given how different capitalism is from Feudalism and slavery your assumption is completely baseless. Given how socialism has played out in real life out side of your ambiguous fantasies, the socialists would be defending feudalism.
@TheShadowblade capitalism has never existed?!! So it’s just like communism. It’s theoretical. It’s “utopian”.
Feudalism is government control, government ownership. The king grants land to the nobles, the nobles allow the peasants to work on there lands in exchange for ownership of small plots and a portion of the food produced. There was no competition, no freedom of innovation, it was state control and promoted violence because in order for the nobles to get richer they had to conquer new lands to gain ownership over more land. With zero innovation. Your argument is baseless. Socialism and communism is more like feudalism rather than capitalism. Capitalism is just what happens when people are left alone to freely exchange goods and services as shown by the massive increase in wealth after the creation of America.
@@johncox823 So we reached "the end of history" haven't 't we? No need to improve ourselves anymore? The system is working perfectly? That's the same opinion the slaveowners and feudal lords had. Everything is perfect on our planet, no wars, no hunger, no poverty, no exploitations, ecological degradation, everyone is free to pursue the best version of themselves..? Found the perfect system so we are set for all eternity.?
But the late stage capitalism proves just the opposite: it feeds on wars and exploitation, it requires poverty and divisions as a feature to control the workforce, it depends on environmental degradation to maximize profit, it cannibalizes the commons and won't give back anything to the society unless it can extract rent from it, it stifles innovation by monopolies gobbling up startups and by suppressing the application of new ideas in order to protect the old investments, it destroys competition by gobbling up small and medium enterprises and by creating monopolies, it has taken over the government and manipulates the democratic process.... Capitalism has survived by now only by extracting the resources from the global South and by destroying the Earth..... Is this a feasible system to lead us into future?
@@crackbandicoot2254 You don't know wtf you're talking about. Socialism is the workers controlling the means of production through things like worker co-ops (yeah because stuff like unions having more power is totally ambiguous, truly a mystery for the ages) which is a method that has literally never controlled even half of a country's economy. Meanwhile your definition AKA "when the goverment does stuff" is totally not ambigious at all...
Capitalism is a fuedalism that exists within a undemocratic and therefore TYRRANICAL workplace, cope.
Also, might wanna check out how many people starve in a world with enough food for 150% of the population (and despite of that we throw out a third of every new supply) and how many die from preventable diseases and lack of clean water each year, what are the poorest countries and which have the most sweatshops - pssst! It's all 100% not even debatably capitalism's fault!
Your response: "nah socialism is actually when Venezuela is 70% privately owned, trust me bro"
The Middle East deflection when the question is about Chinese genocide is truly deplorable.
Wolff thinks governments killing people abroad is capitalism 😂
it is a sad fact that we cannot expect an israeli to be objective about the middle east
@@chivasbarca Capitalism is responsible for what the American government does abroad as well as domestically.
He was under the assumption that the pretending to be concerned for human rights included human beings in general, he didn’t realize it was a selective outrage based on ideological hostility.
@@chivasbarca Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and all other weapons manufacturers got so much richer and lobbied HARD to stay out there. Yes, it is capitalism fucking dumbshit.
This format is totally mess!
One minutes seems so inadequate for answering the question. The effects on China query was not really answered by Dr Wolff. Although I do love his retort to Dr. Brooks answer I would have love to hear his answer to that question.
Thanks for the debate! This was an interesting format. I'm still trying to decide if I like it or not, but thanks again!
The appeal and debate skill of Yaron's opponent is obvious, particularly effective among those for whom Capitalism is the unknown ideal. Yaron's views are radical to this audience, and I hope they rise to the occasion to question their own socialist education.
.
Let's go back to our point of departure: the contested issues of freedom and rights, hence sovereignty, insofar as it's to be valued. Do they inhere in persons of flesh and blood or … in abstract constructions like corporations, or capital, or states? In the past century the idea that such entities have special rights, over and above persons, has been strongly advocated. The most prominent examples are Bolshevism, fascism, and private corporatism… Two of these systems have collapsed. The third is alive and flourishing under the banner TINA-There Is No Alternative to the emerging system of state corporate mercantilism disguised with various mantras like globalization and free trade.
"Keeping in mind that capitalism, because of the “ism,” is ideological in form, it means most basically an ingrained preference for capital over the other elements of production. That is, it means an imbedded preference for (or commitment to) capital over land and labor. Considered as a system, capitalism is the establishment of that preference by the exercise of government power. To put it into more precise economic terms, it is the forced transformation of some greater or lesser portion of the wealth of a people into capital. In political terms, it is the legalization and institutionalization of a preference for capital." -. Clarence Carson
Sadly, despite national identity, American libertarians rarely care about, or have any use for, any more individual independence than is demanded by the labor market, and the less the better. Individualists opposed capitalism as a system of privilege, exploitation, accumulation without limit, theft, abuse, and wage slavery, all supported by the coercive authority of the state. Students of the principles of classical political economy - the ideas of Smith, Ricardo, and Mill, et al. - the Individualists contended that the full realization of those principles and ideas meant an economic paradigm very different from capitalism, which they viewed as the successor of feudalism and mercantilism as a political, rather than economic creature. “Laissez-faire,” they said, had been improperly and spuriously leveraged for the defense of a system of injustices that in fact had nothing to do with legitimate free markets. Capitalists, the idle rich, were only able to profit from the labors of the industrious because they were protected by unfair advantages, embodied in law, that allowed them to escape the natural outcomes and pressures of genuine, full-fledged competition.
According to my version of a balanced society, a big government, whether state or private, breaks down the natural goodness of people. When a body of governance tells its people that what they have produced does not belong to them - the implicit message in any form of income taxation or speculative profiteering - those people go on the defensive, becoming unwilling to share any of what they have earned. A porportionately sized government, though, that does not presume to be the cradle-to-grave caretaker for humanity, smartly rewards its citizens for their charitable work and taxes only for what it needs. The rest it leaves to the people to use for their own selfish or unselfish purposes. In a truly free society, the net result will be unselfishness.
"That the State originated in aggression [has been] proved. If it now pretends to exist for purposes of defence, it is because the advance of sociology has made such a pretence necessary to its preservation. Mistaking this pretence for reality, many good men enlist in the work of the State. But the fact remains that the State exists mainly to do the will of capital and secure it all the privileges that it demands, and I cannot see that the combination of capitalists who employ lobbyists to buy legislators deserve any milder title than conspirators, or that the term conspiracy inaccurately expresses the nature of their machine, the State." - Benjamin Tucker
m.dailykos.com/stories/2014/8/5/1319243/-The-Comical-History-of-Capitalism-the-word
@TheShadowblade Point is; Capitalism is state-sanctioned preference to capital.
'Capitalism' historically refers to a particular mode of production within a market economy, wherein the caput (Latin for 'head') or Führer of a company owns the means of production and ultimately controls it. The word 'capitalist' was initially used to describe land owners and merchants under the highly centralized mercantile system of 17th century Europe.
Early models of free markets trace their roots to the work of Adam Smith and the theories of classical economics, which consisted of proposals for cooperative enterprises operating in a free-market economy. The aim of such proposals was to eliminate exploitation by allowing individuals to receive the full product of their labor while removing the market-distorting effects of concentrating ownership and wealth in the hands of a small class of private owners.
Classical economists, who opposed mercantilism, never referred to themselves as 'capitalists', or to their proposed system of economics as 'capitalism'; and their idea of the labor theory of value would greatly influence early socialism.
According to the famous classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, the "capitalist mode of production" was undesirable, and should be replaced with economic democracy and worker ownership. These concepts were shared by libertarian socialists, including individualists who advocated for free markets (Benjamin Tucker, William B. Greene etc.). Possibly the first thinker to use 'capitalism' in a positive way to refer to classical economics was Hartley Withers, in his book "The Case for Capitalism" 1920, wherein he fantasized about a world wherein every worker would own the capital that they used; much like how his individualist and libertarian socialist predecessors had envisioned. He even spoke highly of the co-operative movement; which just so happens to be the historic root of both socialism and individualist anarchism (Robert Owen, Josiah Warren, Pierre Proudhon).
Liberty demands three tenets; risks, responsibilities and rewards, most people who mean liberty, actually mean safety, convenience and comfort. If we are not being taught how to grow our own food, take care of our families and ourselves without the need for huge government, banks and corporations. We are not being educated....we are being indoctrinated to rely on the system.
I advocate three guiding principles;
1. We must seek to become owners of productive capital.
2. We must derive value from the long-term use of capital, rather than the exchange of capital.
3. We must manage capital actively and directly.
"Americans are a nation of industrial share croppers who work for somebody else and no other source of income. If a man owns something that will produce a second income, he'll be a better customer for the things that American industry produces...
The [expanded ownership] revolution makes two assumptions about the good society. One is that its most important value is freedom…. Never in history has universal suffrage been built on a sound economic foundation…. Secondly, it is assumed that leisure is essential to a civilized definition of affluence…. [T]he totalitarian work state…has no place for whole men, only ‘human resources’ and servile functionaries..." - Louis Kelso
kelsoinstitute.org/louiskelso/literary-legacy/why-i-invented-the-esop-lbo/
Mr Joseph and Mr shadow blade are you both capitalist
Wolff is a voice of truth is these dark days of neoliberalism, while those who still defend the capitalist status quo know their days are numbered. Their program has been in force not only for the past 400 years, but over the last 40 in America has led to spectacular failure. Now the only alternative to those still seeking a conservative economic identity is libertarianism, which is often just bald Republican ideology without the restraints. Just as the latter has utterly collapsed, neither will the former fare much better. The growing support for public welfare policies (which in the technical sense are also socialist ones) among the youth shows this.
When I look for work I look for the best possible pay for my work, not for the work where I can express my individuality. I express my individuality when I return from work😊!
Did he really blame WW1 and WW2 on free markets? What a degenerate.
Didn't you know that WW2 was just a Fanta and Volkswagen marketing campaign?
@@justifiably_stupid4998 LOL
You obviously don’t look too deeply into history or finance. It was WWI reparations, demanded in gold by US bankers, that war-supplies debt drove Europeans to squeeze Germany straight into the crushing Wiemer inflation and Hitler … th-cam.com/video/5xR02tPQBTM/w-d-xo.html
@@jonathanedwardgibson because when you have crushing debt it’s inevitable that you become Nazis.
And war reparations were invented by capitalists. Never existed before.
And the French government demanding reparations for destroying their country was just good ole free market.
You obviously don’t know how to think about facts. Just plug and play for your narrative games.
This is the Richard Wolff big lie. He blames everything bad on capitalism. It's also why he wrongly claimed that downturns were "capitalism crashing" when they weren't. They were caused by the CENTRAL BANK which is a communist idea.
Great debate.
But what’s with the crowd shot?
Wolf's revisionist history isn't surprising. Statists have been doing it for as long as I can remember. Yaron's truths are more convincing to me.
Hell yeah!
Number of deaths undere communism? Those are numbers fabricated by the Nazi germany propaganda.
GDP and economic indices of the Soviet Union? Those are from the Soviets themselves - of course those are correct. :-D
Communist gennocide in Cambodia? - United States fabrications
Yep, the claims about history are just egregious lies from Richard Wolff. Blaming WWI on capitalism, claiming that capitalists never raised wages or lowered hours without being forced to do so...outright falsehoods.
@@ExPwner Nothing false about. It just contradicts your beliefs and you are too scared to find out how capitalists pumped the wars. And just like any other believer the only strategy you have is deny deny deny ... 😂. That is why he is professor and you are not
@@ExPwner Capitalism has been a major factor in the wars and colonial empires of the west since the Age of Exploration. Combine that with racism. You won't be able to make a convincing argument otherwise in serious intellectual discourse, which is why all the defenders of capitalism silo themselves in bully pulpits and don't seriously argue against their opponents. That is one reason, and only one of many, why socialist policies are becoming more popular among the youth - because they have lived through a generation of predatory capitalism without the social welfare protections that the boomers did (and falsely equate with the largess of capitalism when the history of the early 1900's proves otherwise).
lol
"If you lose your job in ohio just pack up your family and move to Arkansas" aka freedom.
"Children are no longer in the workforce because they're no longer productive"
What reality do you have to live in where freedom is only defined by your ability to spend earned wages on a wide variety of white bread.
Where is the Barry-Wehmiller example? They market themselves as a co-operative enterprise that survived the 2008 economic meltdown. This debate needs to look at systems in freefall and propose alternative systems or significant changes to failing systems. But that requires collaboration.
Richard Wolff kills it, like usual.
No, he lost hard on this one and again spewed the same lies and propaganda.
So many commenters here are so brainwashed by libertarian BS that they can't listen to him...they stick their fingers in their ears while they desperately repeat over and over "Freedom!...Freedom!...".
Yea kills my brain cells with his socialism.
Have a more mature moderator with initial thoughtful Qs, then students or folks there, and more time for all answers. Scratching the surface.
I agree. I did not like the way the debate was structure. It was disappointing.
Watched about 35 min b4 id had enough. The randroid guy was unknown to me but he loses big time, everything is "bizarre" and Wolf walks all over him, at least up to that point. Sadly a lot of really important points don't get expressed in a thing like this. The failure of identification and slurring of concepts was largely ignored by the ARI guy, and narrowly treated within the context of mainstream modern consensus Marxism that Wolff typically speaks from. The real opposition is between social systems that work and those that don't. The former survive and the latter go to the wall, that's just the way it is. After systems evolve and are operating then they are given names and taken as well understood things but that's generally not the case moment to moment as they develop and transition from one form to another.
With fundamental problems in the basic question, e.g. what is the actual question, it's not surprising you get a result like this.
The questions and answer towards the end just seems so tedious. And the short answer leaves something to be desired. Feels like a continuous rebuttal would have given people more context.
Thank you RD.W
we have socialism for the rich thats what yaron brook is talking about
@@jvanleeuwenCdn this I didn't watch until then. I couildnt stand how conflict driven this debate is and how rude/passionate yaron was in his message delivery haha
@@jvanleeuwenCdn because the fascists were socialists and you didn't have the facts to argue against it.
@@jvanleeuwenCdn "It's the end result of capitalism, given enough time, without enough government intervention, what you call socialism for the rich is an guaranteed outcome. The medium sized firms get larger swallow each other up and grow more powerful. They become monopolies generally"
No, that isn't the result of capitalism. You're talking out of your ass. Capitalism does not have a government.
@@jvanleeuwenCdn no, you stop lying. They are NOT capitalist countries but mixed economies as ALL reputable sources will state.
@@jvanleeuwenCdn Your comment is so simplified it makes it look like you are either ignorant or pushing an agenda. ”Given enough time, without enough government intervention… they become monopolies-” is just completely ignoring what makes the market and how monopolies and oligopolies are formed and why they form. Some markets like railways become monopolies because it is the most efficient way for the market to function. Others like the aviation and travel industry dont function like this, hence we have multiple airlines and travel agencies in constant competition with consistently lowering prices when adjusted for inflation. We dont see monopolization in most of the service industrt and we have seen extremely large corporations lose much of their market control because the market itself doesn’t support monopolies. Look at the fall of A&P for example. You do not back your argument up with any form of economic analysis. So I’ll ask you. Are you ignorant or is there perhaps another more deceitful reason for posting a comment of ”capitalism bad” with an example that is incorrect on most fields and you are unable to give reasoning as to why it happens on spesific markets and more importantly why is it bad that for example the railway industry is monopolized.
Also, NCAPs need I remind y’all When you make them work twice as hard for half as much, you own them, until a pandemic opens wounds, exposes grievances, and reminds them of their worth.
And once that erosion of control starts, it doesn't stop.
Merry Christmas. 🎄🎁
In the old days slaves were in chains today slaves are in debt!
First time ever heard someone saying thing like: "YOU WILL LET MAJORITY DECIDE YOUR FATE???!!!".
I mean what are we trying to do here? Are we debating to sit down and talk about how to make MAJORITY of humanity content and with faith with the system we create?
Its like him saying why would you LET MAJORITY OF HAPPY AND CONTENT citizens decide your fate??
I mean, is he saying that the MINORITY should do that because thats the opposite of what every previous system throughout history did and it is such a weak argument that I cant believe my ears.
This debate is not so organized. It is as chaotic as capitalism.
Yeah. Its so chaotic when you allow people to decide and pursue their own values.
Yaron Brook kicks ass
OMG Kirk Wilcox is here 😍
I conkirk
Holy shit yesss Kirk is here
The audience disagrees
I conkirk.
Nice Debate Dr. Wolff
This was cool..wish they could have a more in depth convo since I think I understand both speakers but too high level to really get down to reality and truth
What on earth does the French having smaller lives mean?
I think he means kill death ratio - they didn't take as many scalps in Vietnam as the US did
Small flats, small cars, small streets, small gardens, etc ...
Less ambitious, less opportunities, less wealthy, more miserable.
@@jvanleeuwenCdn Socialism keeps there lives small.
@@jvanleeuwenCdn Have you been to France? There houses are smaller, there cars are smaller.
This debate reminded me of the Marvis Frazier vs Mike Tyson fight. Richard Wolff was Mike Tyson and Yaron was Marvis Frazier
Yaron is just on another level.
Very true. Yaron is on much lower level than Richard D. Wolff
@Thomas Hägg Well, all Objectivists sound like broken records when socialists keep regurgitating the same stupid arguments.
of delusion
@@catcaves You’re 12 years old.
Is this like a right wing weirdo account why would you say that
1:40:26 - 1:40:33 that was a knockout punch!😂 pretty good
Democracy in marriage? In sex? I think Mr Wolff was talking about those directly affected in organized production should have a direct say in that production. And those in marriage and intimate relationships sure better have 'democracy' in those relationships, otherwise he's advocating for forced marriage, sex forced on people (and most likely forced on women in both cases) - an astonishing analogy!
Im sure the audience was equally disturbed to hear his sex life is not a democracy. WTF! Who says that!?
They do get a say. They can accept or reject the offer. They can make a counter offer. They can offer their advice. And no, we don't want democracy but consent. What kind of idiotic line of thinking made you equate democracy with consent? The forced marriage is the result of a democratic vote!
@@mbailey5784 people who are smart enough to prefer consent over mob rule.
@@jvanleeuwenCdn I'll say it. Socialism does violate individual consent and freedom. No, that is not an argument for socialism.
Yes, you should be able to pick. That is consent. Not democracy. That's the point!
@@jvanleeuwenCdn "James, if you take away the democracy 97% of the people have no say in anything. "
False. If you take away democracy then individuals decide things for themselves, because people generally understand that government is illegitimate unless you try to force upon them the fallacy that "government is us" which it is not.
"They can't consent because they have nothing to choose. "
Again, false. The market provides plenty of choices. It is politics that leaves no choices.
"Imagine life as an game of monopoly, but you start the game with some retarded king or player owning all the properties from the start of the game."
Why? That isn't real life. In the real world most wealth is NOT inherited. The real world bears no resemblance to the game of monopoly. Life is not based on the roll of a dice. You don't have to stay at a hotel just because you happen to be there at some point in time. There is no monopoly over land. I could go on and on but this shouldn't have to be explained.
"To make things worse, the government keeps giving you money so you are forced to keep playing and give all the money to the retarded king. I don't want to live in an society or world like that."
This part I don't want either. What's your point? Democracy enables this. The market does not.
Yaron brook is incredibly dishonest
No, that was Richard Wolff.
@@ExPwner I think a well renowned professor knows more about the state of the economy than an ancap. At first I thought socialism and marxism was a relic but with what is happening today socialism is the only solution to get us out of the crisis we are in. Capitalism is becoming very authoritarian and dangerous as the economy tanks. The 20th century experiments for socialism became beurocratic and tyrannical because of capitalisms strength and pushing those countries into a corner. Now capitalism is become weaker and weaker and eventually will have to relly more on the state and people will rise up as a result. The free market is over. Libertarians are acting like the peasants before the french revolution being hysterical and in a panic that all they know is crumbling.
@@froopzoop5739 no, he doesn't and is not "well renowned." He's a liar and a hack. It's the flat Earth of economics. Socialism is not the solution to anything. it is the problem. Capitalism is not authoritarian, that's utter nonsense.
@@ExPwner it's becoming authoritarian and beurocratic are political system is bought by big companies. Congress and Parliament are in a panic because they can't regulate Facebook or amazon because they are too big and influential in are politics and economy. The state will either let the monopolies take over or they will have to be aggressive and whip them into shape and let the state controll them like china. That doesn't sound like a democracy or a free market.
Their is a third way, worker co ops and a transition to workers democracy.
@TheShadowblade big government was never around until the 90s and that is when everything started to unravel. The state has gotten stronger and beurocratic and this power and life support towards companies will not go away but intensify as corruption continues and the economy tanks. I'm terrified of big government too but capitalism no longer needs democracy now.
I would recommend looking up an event called "The great fear" because that is what those who are against socialism now are acting.
Dear professor Wolff I hope that you are doing well..and taking good care of yourself…your. Friend sarah
Colonization was free market? Dumb. Slavery was free market? Dumb. Freedom of contract and property rights equal capitalism. Shouldn’t be hard to see that those violate that, not to mention nazism does etc.
The word "privatization" was born to describe Hitler's politics, just to say. Fascism is historically capitalists using state to maintain the status quo, when the working class is up to raise. Communism was the declared enemy of Hitler's view. Freedom of contract? Yes, like the freedom for poor childrens to work 12 hours a day in fabrics. Or the freedom for Amazon employees to work 10 hours a day to make Bezos rich. The great freedom to do so or starve. Seeing this comments I just think we're definitely fucked up
@@theanalyticsyntheticdichot4404
You clearly make a big mistake confusing economic system and political system: fascism is not democracy, but it's still capitalism. There's private property of the means of production, there's search for profit, there's a division between employers and employees; than the state was very powerful too, but that does mean there's no capitalism? So capitalism isn't really anywhere.
The point I make aren't just some "secondary point" of socialism, are the pure core of it. There's no way statalism=socialism. Remember Hayek and Mises friendly praising fascist regimes as Mussolini's. Is this a case?
Are you saying than that Marx suppress individual freedom? In a "socialist" way (I yet pointed out how much ridiculous this socialism=nazism argument is) Hitler should have reunited people? Wtf? "Uniting the superior race" is socialism? Fighting for free healthcare is like nazism? Nordic countries are a bunch of nazists? And I should not be serious?
@@theanalyticsyntheticdichot4404
Many erroneous sillogism in this comment, but let's begin by the top: no, capitalism isn't necessarily constructed over a constitutional republic, that kind of capitalism is just a form; it may happen in a monarchy,in a dictatorship, doesn't matter, because it's not that the principal point: the main points (that have been over the history) are:
1)a private property of the means of production;
2)a search for profit as the main point of economy;
3) a use of subordinate work to increase the starting capital;
The laissez-faire, in his pure form, doesn't even exist, because to maintain the market the capitalists will always need the government: to protect private property, to not allow worker insurrection, to put forcefully workers to work (as in fascism). So, you're definition is just arbitrary, you take the part for all.
Second point(very serious mistake, yet pointed out in the comment before): Hitler wanted a kind of welfare state (just for a part of the population, remember) so.... welfare is nazism? I mean, just because Hitler was vegan, doesn't mean that vegan are Nazists. We have welfare state in most of the world countries, and it's really funny to hear that is "something near to the Nazis": Italy, France, Nordic countries, just to say some, have the most efficient sanitary sector in the world.
So, let's just pass over "nazi welfare" part: socialist are near to the Nazis ideology? Omg, so near they're the first ones been killed, and they're the basically only ones to fight openly against nazists and fascists! (I remember you the Matteotti murder by Mussolini) While the most of the libertarian and capitalists openly supported (until the war) both regimes!
But let's continue this fun socialist-nazi theory. You say: "yes,ok, they were differently economically, but in some way they were similar in... philosophy". 1) Economic part is not a secondary point; socialism is really differentiated, but some point are the same and are the basic: none of them was respected in Nazi Germany (look comment before). 2) They're "socially" similar? Omg, were is the part of the superior race, the imperialism, the vital space, the purification of the world(main points in Nazism) in any socialist theory? I think I missed something big if there's somewhere. 3) Nazists declared themselves "socialists", but that's a well known tactic to present yourself in favour of the people, to use "the leftist language", to obtain success; the same language is now used in many European countries from the far populist right wing parties to present themselves as "for the people"; but a geraric system, like capitalism( state capitalism or republican doesn't matter) isn't for the people. Remember: the north Korea is officially "a republic". 4) You have to discern what Hitler said from what he's done; in fact, he privatized most of all the precedent governments of the Weimar Republic. So... I forgot something?
@@theanalyticsyntheticdichot4404 Ok, so you're pointing out that Marx gave a definition of capitalism and that capitalism is what you're saying: but that's just a total your personal interpretation. You're right when you say that there were syntoms of capitalism since the Ancient Greeks, and that there was private property under feudalism; in fact a more accurate definition and study of the phenomenon doesn't make the term clear and defined as you make: the raise of capitalism is a gradual process, it's made over the figure of the merchant, it's a transformation that brings the burgoisee to take the place of the nobility. Yes,there were geraric system in feudalism, doesn't mean that the search for profit was the ruling point of economy. If you'll read any history of economy manual (I'll suggest you the Gobbio's one) you'll find out a way different and bigger definition of yours.
But let's point out your weakest point: private property isn't the core of capitalism? It's just a feature? What do you mean, that it's secondary? Can you point me a capitalist society without private property, thanks? I like to learn new things.
Well, you say: "Capitalism is the protection of individual rights and freedom." So it was Roman empire, Greeks society, Nazism, Fascism. Everybody have their own ideas of freedom: yours, for example, are the right to exploit the work of the workers with the possession of the means of production.
Now you're saying that I misunderstood Laissez-faire: but that's not true, I have pointed out that since a government has to exist, it will always regulate even in some minimal way the economy, what can you do,and what you can't. It will never exist some free market without a state control: can I produce car that damage critically environment, even if they're cheaper? Can I built here as I want, as it's convenient for the economy? What, you're saying no? You're interfering with economy?
The point that you make on your comments to assimilate Nazi and socialism is state intervention=socialism.(And yes, you've assimilated Nazism and socialism, welfare and Nazism, read your first comment) So all the world is socialist and near to nazism...ok.
OMG welfare leads to Nazism? A point from Ayn Rand institute, the most nearest philosophy to groups of declared fascist and Neonazis? The hypocrite Ayn Rand, the one who said that if she wasn't able to pay for her cures, she would have just die, and than made use of the socialize sanity?
Is clear that you don't know about the rise of fascism, the persecution and suppression of socialists and communist, the support to great industries, what history are you talking about? Just teach me, I'm not joking, really post history books that link welfare to raise of fascism please.
I'll finally point out how you contradict yourself in just three short sentences: the last ones.
Bye!
@@theanalyticsyntheticdichot4404 Conflating essence with core.... but that's you that have introduced the philosophical meaning of essence,while I was always talking about the core, the nuclear part; philosophy has his own terms, you have to know when they're used and in which context.
Second step: you're still illiterate about the meaning of capitalism, you have your own idea, go read some dictionary again, some textbook (but I'm sure you know you're wrong) and come here again.
You've made association between socialism and fascism, while any historian would laugh at that; you said welfare----> lead to fascism, that's at least comic; you brought here Ayn Rand Institution quotes, followers of the most conservative right wing philosopher of modern times. But anyway, you still have to link me sources of why:
-Wellfare lead to fascism;
-Fascist was "someway similar" to socialists;
-Nazi ideals were "someway" linkable to socialism, because "they socialize men";
-The definition of capitalism is the one you make (want one of mine? I said you: Gobbio's books or banally, Wikipedia);
You even don't know that the definition of capitalism is ambiguous, and some economist in fact suppone that it doesn't even exist (Boldrin's theory for example); there's even a debate about, but the fact is that you simply don't know. Roman empire have private property, but that wasn't the begging of capitalism (more or less accepted): the begging is more or less indicated with the Spanish Galleons, but "philosophically" the change was when "some people began to think of the world as great big market": you know, markets becoming ruling point of the world, burgoise taking power, millions of worker to make some privilege rich. Fascism was not still raised at Marx time, how could have he possibly spoken about? But historically is Mussolini suppressing workers movement, sustaining big industries, making interests of the ruling class (that in fact substained the regime) and you're talking about welfare state--->nazism? Go read about history of fascism and come back here, and answer to the points thanks.
Yaron is weird
Yeah, there's something obviously wrong with that individual. Definitely not the sharpest tool in the shed
If you have any understanding about economy what so ever, Richard Wolff sounds 100% completely unhinged. He proclaims to care about people not even understanding that his "caring" would hurt them in the long run, even though economics says that explicitly.
If you agree with Richard Wolff you are actually against the poor and for the very rich. A cursory study of economics would teach you this. So what Richard Wolff is actually arguing for is himself and let the poor starve because that is what he is actually for.
You demonstrate mankind is not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one.
Like how Yaron took G-men money for Covid relief so Randian writers can explain to Americans why their being paid too much.
Wow! Can you please explain further. And yes, I have a degree in economics. I would love to hear why you believe caring about poor people hurts them in the long run.
Audience was unmoved by the speakers. No participation.🧐
The moderator should have split that audience into two sides of the rooms.
Presenters should have debated one main question; Should we support a war with China, for example.
The room split in half should vote on the presenter’s arguments, those who voted against their own side move to the other side, a majority is counted.
Debate the next question the same way and so on.
The way this debate is formatted amounts to a battle of ideas and a passive audience is too stressful.
1:01:00 WOW!
Prof. Wolff crushing it again.
Brain cells. Nothing he said here was valid. Just more nonsense throughout
Unfortunately his opponents don’t seem to be very serious. I don’t think Mr Brooks here is terribly educated on these matters unfortunately. I would love for Wolff to actually get challenged by a some right winger that is really knowledgeable, I just haven’t seen it yet.
@@yugioh395
It's not a real debate, he's not analyzing examples of the actual structures of socialist models in practice, nor is he doing the same for capitalism. It's merely an argument of opinion and philosophy here. This is nowhere near structural analysis such as in Marx's 'Capital'
Workers should recognize themselves as workers. As long as they think of themselves as businessmen who just were not lucky enough they will be easely manipulated by all kinds of rich bloodsuckers. And this man, Brook, is telling lies.
Bottom up economics is the true answer, the more we ensure those at the bottom have what they need to live, the more we look after the working class, the more money flows through the system, those at the top will still be there, but not at the cost of everything else.
That is capitalism
@@ExPwner I didn't suggest it wasn't a form of capitalism, but bottom up economics takes care of those struggling in society, lifts the burden on the state, makes sure the working class can work to live and not live to work, and those on top still make money, just not as much.
The current top down economics only benefits the wealthy.
@@TheMrReee agree with what you said there for sure. Mutual aid would be preferable to the state.
4:00
Why tf is Brook getting the last word 90% of the time??
Because he's better.
Because the biased "moderator" isn't moderate.
The moderator as per baron was left leaning@@ivandafoe5451
Because he's right and Wolff is a liar.
@@ExPwner Nah, there were so many times where Wolff could've easily pushed back on Brook's absurd claims but he rarely got the chance to because they'd move on to a different topic.
Yaron made a great case. Your life is yours. It doesn't belong to the group.
@JAB Initials on what principle should the individual be sacrificed for the collective? Is there anytime where the rights of the individual supersede the desires of the group?
@@weatoria On what principle should the survival of the collective be sacrificed for the individual? If you believe you have right to sacrifice the interest of the collectives for your interests, then it is only fair for other individuals to sacrifice your interest for theirs or for the sake of the collective
@@vikitu4793 Bodily autonomy. People should own themselves and the fruits of their labors.
When you say "sacrifice the interest of the collectives", what does that mean? Does that mean if the society determines my organs should go to save 5 other people and maybe I disagree, would I be sacrificing the interest of the collective?
@JAB Initials You should always put reason before emotion, though.
@@weatoria "Bodily autonomy", that only works in movies, it is an illusion. Humans who tried that are not here, they were eaten by lions already. You can never have it, try all you want. Humans are SOCIAL creatures, since you are born you depend on the society for your survival. Whoever tells you otherwise might be stealing somethjng from you 😂
"Sacrificing the interest of the collective" means exactly what you mean by "sacrificing the interests if the individual". Every side has interest, sometimes they conflict. It can't be always your individual interest come first, nor can it be otherwise. Humans have always negotiated a balance. You are trying to tip that balance to always be in your favour. You can never achieve it, they will muder you the monent you do 😂. I am not joking, history is full of examples for you.
If you are lucky, you can work with others in your collective to build the kind of collective you want to live in. If you sudenly find yourself in a collective that wants to eat your organs, then you are basically f**ked, nothing you can do other than try to run if you can. Ask the African Americans filling up your prison system they will tell you how f**ked up it is to be born is such a collective as the United States of America.
One more thing, RW confuses Marxism with Democracy with a big D.
doesn’t intellectual property and patents only exist because of governmental power
The prc has only grown because they’ve allowed elements of capitalism. We have gone down because we’ve introduced elements of socialism and government control.
35:15 "we don't have democracy in marriage" - Yaron Brook
hehe that was kinda funny
@Pawwel Mussial false dichotomy.
@Pawwel Mussial which is not a democracy. That is individual consent, which is Yaron’s point. Otherwise two people could force it upon a third without the consent of the third. Democracy does not care about consent. It is rule by majority. We do not have democracy in marriage because we use consent instead. The argument is that democracy is trash and can and should be replaced by consent everywhere.
I suggest then that the marriage won't last long or at least be a happy one!
@Pawwel Mussial Democracy is the mob bullying the minority. It's collectivist tribal primitivism.
@@ExPwner how is a third person involved in the marriage? Ur argument is interesting to think upon...but, how do you plan to replace a democratic political system with 'concent system'. How does that work in politics?
1:17:17 BAM!
Thank u Mr Wolf for ur wonderful EMPATH honesty on explaining the very difference between these 2 very different systems capitalism & socialism.. Question… ?? Why dont we split the western world in 2 capitalist & socialist systems with there current conditions & label every company a socialist or capitalist company of any type & there different conditions & let the ppl choose their own company they wish to work for.. Then the ppl can decide for themselves.. we’ll have our own system set up our own banks etc & then we’ll see who wants what & with whom they wish to work for etc. To these capitalists ur days are numbered ur wealth will decline our future generations will have everything we don’t have today. Then theses hard headed capitalist will have a reality check, when they are put in our situation, the majority who are suffering in the modern age etc…
We don't have democracy in sex? In most sexual relationship I've been in there's usually 2 voters and if the vote isn't a unanimous "yes" no sex can occur
so if it's a threesome 2 people can outvote the third one?
@@danielkraus5560 Vote most be unanimous!
@@clockwork8300 so it's not democratic, everyone present must consent and even then that consent can be withdrawn at any point
@@danielkraus5560 How's it not democratic?
@@clockwork8300 democratic usually means majority rule, extreme version would mean that majority can do whatever it wants, when all sides have to agree it's just freedom of association, you can do what you want even if it goes against majority
I LOVE paying 50% tax and not being able to get any medical help
This was a very interesting debate between two very knowledgable experts in their field. However, what I took away from this discussion is that socialism/communism had the unintended consequence resulting in the destruction of in democratic institutions, and individual free will - a proven fact in every Communist country. Cuba is a perfect example of the perverted system espoused by RW. . It is the collective model that poses the greatest threat to individual freedoms ins the US. Our Federal Constitution is wholly incompatible with a Communist/Socialist system. Our constitution is our last chance to preserving our freedoms. One more thing, its a cop out for RW not to be able to have even a lose definition of Marxism.
The content of the debate was excellent. The debate format was awful. The speakers were not given ample time to give full answers.
Yaron clearly won this debate Wolff completely revises history to make points.
yaron is deranged
Revises your mistaken view of history...is more likely the case.
@@ivandafoe5451 no, you and Wolff are wrong.
History? Tell me, according to your history, how did capitalism come to America? You know, back when there was over 100 million more natives living there.
This is a non-debate. Wolff uses verifiable facts throughout. Brook makes a string of assertions based on uninformed opinion.
Exactly. Brook led an emotional diatribe of logical fallacy. When he outed himself as a Randroid in the beginning I knew nothing he said was worth listening too. Wolff, as usual, is left to bring all integrity to the debate.
@@statistdestroyer Welll for people who live in an alternative reality it must be confusing when Wolff presented facts only apllicable to this one.
@@statistdestroyer It's fun to fantasise, but not it a debate. If you have anything relevant to this plane of existence, let me know. I won't be holding my breath, though.
@@statistdestroyer Except that instead of using facts you used your feelings and imagination. Guess it's still playtime, but I'm done playing make believe. Have fun with that active imagination of yours. Deuces.
Wolff didn't use facts. He lied.
I'm seeing the same 3 or 4 ancaps on almost every comment reply in this comment section. Are these bots or are they just people with no lives?
I am all for free market..but man..Wolff is killing this guy..
I know you ain’t free market lmaooooo
Markets have to be regulated or you have no market...so what exactly are you "all for" again?
In your delusional imagination. You authoritarians seek to blame the sins of the anti-voluntaryist totalitarian machine's creation of cronyism and anti-free-markets on freedom (capitalism) to make excuses to perpetuate authoritarianism.
LOL no he didn't.
@@ivandafoe5451 wrong!
Yaron is the GOAT! Capitalism is awesome!
What makes Capitalism awesome? It only functions if you could even call it that when there is inequality and unrest because Capitalism only serves a minority of people who are allowed to make decisions for millions of people. Trickled down economics from Capitalism is also a myth at least in this countries system because the rich never put anything into their communities since they hoard the money and put them into trust funds so it actually destroys the economy and the majority gets left to pick up the peices. Awesome as in incapable of lasting no longer than 250 years until there is a societal collapse.
@@aaronanderson4894 The moral justification of capitalism does not lie in the altruist claim that it represents the best way to achieve “the common good.” It is true that capitalism does-if that catch-phrase has any meaning-but this is merely a secondary consequence. The moral justification of capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.
@@aaronanderson4894 wrong. Get lost liar.
*nose laughs*
Wow, wow, wow.
The dose of socialism has to be moderate or limited since socialism in its purest form did not work both in USSR and PRC under current social and economic conditions. In my view, the USA is already a society of capitalism + socialism and China is a society of socialism + capitalism. BTW, there is also no capitalism in its purest form. It is debatable which system in a long run will work better i.e. capitalism-dominated (USA) or socialism-dominated (China).
when yaron speaks wolff looks pissed off
Wolf does it on purpose.
Even when he’s speaking he’s pissed.
Any video you watch of him.
Pissed
in fairness his nasal voice is unbeleivably irritating
I was in awe. Yaron is clearly brain dead. I really wonder what kind of life he must have lived, to be his age, and yet having learned nothing during his lifetime. I mean, he must have been invited here as a clown, no?
Realize he’s probably not espousing what he believes, but nonsense meant to obfuscate the issues. While I know a few people with an IQ > 115 who believe similar things, they are very few; however, there are _many_ who spread this BS for profit. I really don’t understand why they think it’s worth it.
Nah, Wolff is the brain dead one.
Why does he have a mask on?
Yaron is truly a Pro Capitalist person!.
He's authoritarian. 😂
Because the workplace is such a predominant aspect of people's life, such an extremely large part of people life and survival, to assert that democracy can not exist in the workplace is to assert that democracy can not exist at all.
People are getting too polarised into pathological camps. Respect for this kind of debate format is the cure. People just need to disconnect their egos from the ideas.
Its odd, that any debate would allow Brooks v. Wolfe. It's like allowing Tyson to fight a toddler for the heavyweight title
The problem w this kind of format, is that folks get away w all kinds of lies, fake statistics (as in without context), general statements that anyone would find themselves hard pressed to present facts to back up those claims.
The libertarian dude, gets away with saying that everything good is capitalism and everything bad is because of government (I’m at 30 min). He also states that wealth continues to grow and that the problem in our current system is too much redistribution. Too much redistribution?! Everything points to the contrary, we have two, 200 billionaires in a country where we have thousands homeless and an ungodly percentage (pre-pandemic) that couldn’t afford a $400 unexpected expense.
He also talks about group vs individual. Is this dude lost? Like, every employee you work for is it’s own kingdom, you have not the freedom not the individuality he wrongly spouts. In capitalism, the individual, gets swallowed by the whole. If you quit that job you have Amazon or Walmart as your most likely employers, they sure are known for allowing individuality. Smh.
^ this is nothing but lies. Yes there is too much redistribution and no, the $400 emergency is a lie. You are projecting.
@@davidl5119 right on, David. Glad to hear that the thin veil of capitalist running-dog ideology is so easily deconstructed. Like, OK Boomer Brooks!!
Total success by what standards it's the only democracy and it's only 150 years old and it's already a big ponzi scheme lol
Europeans move to US 3x more than vice versa
"Move", you mean launder their money in our housing markets, and then artifically inflating the prices for the inhabitants that reside here.
@@thejquinn no I mean move and build lives
1:43:20 BAM 2
45:44 jeez louise pappa cheese
I remember buying Wolffs Understanding Marxism book which turned out to be a pamphlet for $25. Greedy 😂
Greedy? Why don’t you pick up Kapital if you think you are more than a pamphlet.
Wolff sounds as angry and miserable as the dictators that he looks up to.
You sound as angry and miserable as the masters you are looking up to
Yawn.
@JAB Initials hopefully no one ever hires you if that's automatically the way you think about your boss. If you can't see the difference between an actual dictator, like Stalin or Hitler, and a boss at a job, then you don't have a firm grasp on logic.
@@rationalcapitalist You hope that no one hires him, and you hope he will suffer so much that he will have to change his mind about capitalism so that he can have a chance to employment and livelihood. That is how tyrannical you capitalists are, you think no different from masters of slaves, lords of sefs and kings of subjects. And yet some how paradoxically you claim to believe in freedom 😂
wolff sounds despondent, yet somehow still less whiny than that lisping nerd Yaron
Hey! Its the guy who justifies The Great Leap Forward! This boy wants to bitch about capitalists and capitalism and how that makes people worse off and like a slave, but putting people throw a woodchipper for his collectivistic hard on? Thats ofcourse morally justifiable.
This is terrible format. Why the hell does each speaker have only 5 minutes to speak at a time? The result of this format was:
- neither Brook nor Wolff were able to address what the other was saying deeply
- neither were able to make their points deeply
- the audience questions were barely answered.
What’s on Wolff’s head?
Yeah I thought I was seeing things. I thought I saw it move!
4 thingies.
perhaps some sort of skin cancer spot that was removed
Why is this even debated? This was answered in 1991
1939, 2008, 2020
@@fshhh all socialist failures. Want to try again?
@@fshhh So there was no government intervention?
“Why is Republicanism even debated? This was answered in 1804”
@@ryanmitchell5614 What happened in 1804?
Voting on a shape of an Iphone is totally possible. At the same time interchanging Engineering and Janitorial staff is of course ridiculous. But swapping leadership for a democracy seems feasible since leadership worth is derived from the subordinates following. And when you actually voted in a matter it makes no sense to fight that decision. And just like when you follow the CEO it is just acceptable the decision of the majority
The point isn't so much the intercharge of engineers and janitors, it's removing the barriers to entry which prevent janitors learning principles of engineering along with the relative comfort which mandates engineers don't have to maintain their workplaces. There's a cooperative clinic in India where the shift lead allocates work each day and it rotates between people hired to clean to nurses to doctors.
@@gamerknown I get that well rounded work shifting. But in discussion like this all that in the weeds explanation is definitely not tackled. Even Dr. Brooks say that something to the effects of what I said.
Probably just not yet used to the idea of the shifting roles even though I've heard discussion of Prof. Albert about this matter. Still unclear on how that whole thing is gonna function when you need skilled people like tech industry.
@@Kcoldraz If you're genuinely interested, check out the Lucas Plan documentary by Steve Sprung. Workers made a proposal to take over their industry and repurpose it from creating weaponry to solving technological problems, such as creating hybrid cars and energy efficient homes... In 1976. They'd combine practical skills from technicians and theoretical knowledge from engineers. Of course, that'd be less profitable for their masters and a huge threat to their method of administering things, so they were fired.
" since leadership worth is derived from the subordinates following."
No, it isn't.
I dont need to look at this long, if democratic companys can work, just start one and show us thats it. Make it work.
I loved Yaron
Richard has not told you not to be a capitalist or not to be as selfish as the society would allow you to be. He just showed you there are different ways to go about the same thing, and gave you an example of a company with 100,000 workers who are also owners, with better standards of living than your employees would ever dream
@@vikitu4793 nope. He is proposing to force all companies to be that immoral. It is in Yaron world where one would have a choice to try it or not. It’s been made clear in the debate. I wonder why there is a confusion
@@AbhilashKorraprolu No. He never told capitalists or companies what to do. He tells workers about an alternative that is a nightmare to the capitalist: you can be free and work for yourselves, own the profits of your labour.
Capitalist can continue to employ those who do not wish to be free. You are proposing everyone must be continue to be compelled to sell their labour to the capitalists even if they don't wish to, you are the immoral
@@AbhilashKorraprolu Richard doesn’t say it outright but its so obvious he would love for Govt to use the gun and force corporations into worker co ops lol
You will get nowhere without enthusiastic cooperation of your teams. Might look into the limits of money to motivate: see the moribund state of gaming and movies while decimating lives of people making them. Money is useful. It gathers large resources quickly and can be thrown at projects, but you can’t just keep adding ‘cogs’ to make functions faster, hence you need talent. Cafe or corporation, you need people participating, or your wasting money.
I’ve started and been in many tech companies. You have to accept THIER ownership, or they simply won;t work as hard as you expect, or would if your ego wasn’t too damn big to let anyone else in. As-if your all-wise and all-knowing as you ‘start out’ your business. For example.
Yaron masterfully debated wolf who just acted as an angry old man whom spoke upon his endless platitudes in order to regurgitate the same rhetoric his followers love to hear.
Yaron isn't capable of 'masterfully" doing anything other than evading taxes and misguiding gullible teenagers. He's a child/man devoid of any sense of adult responsibility.
You got it backwards, mate
@@ivandafoe5451 troll
@@knowledgeanddefense1054 nope he got it right
@@ExPwner Don't you have taxes to... commit fraud regarding them?
13:14 the paris commune was brutally put down by the french army it didn't have the chance to thrive
No democracy in sex? Is Yaron Brook advocate sex without consent in public? Wolff didn't mention sex when he is talking about democracy at work, Yaron came up with this idea on his own, he must truly believes such outrageous idea, and this man is the head of Ayn Rand Institute! This truly shows how despotic US has become.
He is not the head of Ayn Rand Institute, no there isn't democracy in sex, in a threesome 2 people cannot outvote the third one
@@danielkraus5560
I feel generous today for someone trying to defend non-consent sex.
The head of Ayn Rand Institute part is on his wiki, unless wiki is wrong.
The example you give is a tries to unprove universality with particularity: threesome do exist, yes, but not everyone agree with such practice in sex and marriage, so this example is inherently undemocratic. What you did is trying to tell me everyone is favor of non-consent sex by saying someone do enjoy this behavior, you are confusing universality with particularity.
Most human marriage and sex need consent from both party, that is democratic, every country on earth put that in their law.
@@user-qh8bk4gv8o is that what democratic means? When you are making a law you cannot legislate it unless every citizen agrees?
@@danielkraus5560 Is this a rhetorical question? Or you really don't understand the concept of democracy? I find it difficult to understand your point.
@Lite-Wing Gift Really? How much is your sex service ,dear? Is this an offering? Both marriage and business requires money to function, but that does not make marriage a business. This is an association logic fallacy.
Wolf wins
Nope, he lost hard on this one.
If you don't fact check Wolff he does sound appealing at times.
Here are the productivity figures for co-ops in all their variations worldwide: Their total
production in goods and services in 2018 was 3 trillion dollars, they employed 65 million
people, and required 1 billion consumers to support their existence. The rest is simple math
and you can not expand these numbers to a global population of 7.5 billion people
and make them work.
Why not?
@@falsum2701 The rest is simple math and you can not expand these numbers to
global population of 7.5 billion people and make them work.
But if you believe they can be expanded to do so, then feel to demonstrate
how this would work? It will be an interesting exercise for you, although your
instructor doesn't really deal with the math for this kind of thing. In fact he doesn't
seem to be aware that this is the math that applies to co-ops, and you would
think that he would know and share it since this is his economic solution and
by doing so it would provide legitimate support for the theory?
@@jgalt308 Just like George FitzHugh's statistics for slavery :)
@@gamerknown People hear what they want and believe what fits their circumstances.
This saves a lot of time and energy and requires zero effort in actually having to find
a solution...since they are not responsible. They are victims.
@@jgalt308 Yup, like all the complete idiots who starved to death when they could have just had some noodles in Mao's China
Richard Wolff is absolutely devoid of any interesting or original idea 🤣🤣🤣
It will be better for under capitalism. Tell that to the stores killed off by Amazon under their flatform and outside of it.
Economic fallacy.
Richard Wolf loves the free market, his Body Mass index shows it.
Oof, lol
I’d like to see how fit and mentally sharp you are at 79 years old.
If your into boxing. Go watch the Mike Tyson vs Marvis Frazier fight. Richard Wolf was Tyson.
Daniel Ruelas loves capitalism, his IQ shows it
@TheShadowblade If you watched the debate and didn't think Richard Wolf mopped the floor. You need to consult a team of doctors and get your brain checked