Q: What is very large, makes a lot of smoke and noise, takes down 20 liters of gas per hour, and cuts an apple into three pieces? A: The Soviet machine built to cut apples into four pieces.
@@chezz565 Bernie is literally advocating for the opposite bro.....And he wants to cut military spending to use the money for more important things.Isnt that a gd thing
@@mikemurray2027 if you're referring to my comment, I was not attempting to make a political point. It was just an observation, however I do not believe a point needs to be made against communism. What is bad about communism is obvious to any person who takes the time to think about it. For those lazy minded people who don't, I wish them well. Now get your ass to Mars!
@@Mickey-Knox Well, Mickey it's only obvious to those who believe all the nonsense they've been told about it! You say a point needs to be made, but you don't make it! You just say it is 'obvious'. But, really it isn't, not to me anyway.
its people like you that need to be hear by all these moronic socialist that keep thinking about how great the theory is, instead of seeing the effect its had on every place its been practiced on. Sorry to hear that Isaac.
@ Andrew Rosindell, Abraham Lincoln once said : "Don't believe everything that is on the internet" sarcasm off :-) While true, the quote was from William Boetcker not Abraham Lincoln. William Boetcker : “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”
I'm an Objectivist, and therefore a laissez-faire capitalist. I was stunned at the emptiness of Rosindell's (poorly read) speech. He had NO arguments at all. He simply kept repeating in different ways, "Socialism doesn't work." Do people no longer recognize what an argument is? I suppose they don't. I'm looking for something like: "Socialism is X, and X means Y, and Y is clearly impossible, therefore Socialism does not work." For instance, Ayn Rand's argument, "Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, government is the agency that wields physical force---it's guns, tanks, prisons, and tribunals---physical force can destroy, but it cannot produce, production requires the mind and the mind will not function under force, the guns of the police have a proper role when used to combat the force wielded by criminals, but it guns and prisons cannot create wealth." But the only thing Rosindell had was quotes from authorities and the droning re-statement of what he was to prove, as if saying it again with more fervor would show that it was true.
He speaks as though socialism alone has its totalitarian extremes. Pinochet in Chile and Batiste in Cuba both espoused capitalism and the free market (Pinochet shared good relations with Thatcher's government); both were brutal fascist dictators who tortured, murdered and exploited their people, probably worse than Fidel Castro. But mentioning these extremes is just pointless, as European democratic socialism/social democracy has no analogy to extreme forms of communism, just as most conservative parties aren't as brutal as Pinochet and Batiste. A bit of a cheap and predictable move to be honest.
You're confusing a socio-political system, socialism, with a purely economic system, the free market. Of course no one uses the word "capitalism" as Marx defined it, because capitalism as Marx defined it never existed or could exist.
Nor has free market capitalism ever existed as Adam Smith conceived it, but most scholars, regardless of their stance on Marxism/communism, have all basically concurred that Marx, as an economist, understood the mechanisms of capitalism excellently. www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/marx-was-right_b_4719324.html
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 Because thats not what the ideology is.Socialism is a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.Do u see equal pay or gov control anywhere in there🤦♂️.It is an ideology which is the next step from capitalism.
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 U wouldnt need to use force because all businesses would be worker coops.U only need to pass laws protecting the labour theory of value and the workers share.In marxist theory,the next step would be communism.Communism is a stateless,classless,moneyless system.So u wouldnt need to force anyone when everything is free or is bought using a replacement of money.
What about Thomas Sankara in Africa? During his time as leader he introduced the following reforms: eschewed all foreign aid; nationalised all land and mineral wealth; introduced land reform; ensured food self-sufficiency; introduced a nationwide literacy campaign; ensured the construction of 350 schools and the development of village based dispensaries; vaccinated 2.5 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles; planted over 10 million trees; introduced a road and rail construction programme; and outlawed female genital mutilation, forced marriages, and polygamy. Unfortunately the forces of repression conspired against him. He was assassinated by Blaise Compaore who took over as leader and reversed many of his policies
@@heliotropezzz333 "Rogue" is not the adjective I would have used... There is Social Democracy and Socialism (and never the twain shall meet). What was under debate was Socialism, not Social Democracy. Socialism, by it's very nature, is not (and cannot be) democratic, as democracy allows dissension... but socialism does not.
@@douglasherron7534 I'm probably thinking of Social Democracies then, but they are informed by socialist ideas like public ownership of certain services, regulation of capitalism to avoid excesses, and a fairer distribution of income.
@@heliotropezzz333 "a fairer distribution of income" - really. What is "fair"? Who decides what "fair" means? We have had public ownership of certain services in the UK - it wasn't very successful (i.e. British Rail and British Leyland). I'm not saying that unfettered capitalism is the way to go either, but I have read Orwell's "Animal Farm" and lived in a former Soviet Socialist Republic... The former was a very good illustration of the workings of the latter.
Men of England, wherefore plough For the lords who lay ye low? Wherefore weave with toil and care The rich robes your tyrants wear? Wherefore feed and clothe and save From the cradle to the grave Those ungrateful drones who would Drain your sweat-nay, drink your blood? Wherefore, Bees of England, forge Many a weapon, chain, and scourge, That these stingless drones may spoil The forced produce of your toil? Have ye leisure, comfort, calm, Shelter, food, love’s gentle balm? Or what is it ye buy so dear With your pain and with your fear? The seed ye sow, another reaps; The wealth ye find, another keeps; The robes ye weave, another wears; The arms ye forge, another bears. Sow seed-but let no tyrant reap: Find wealth-let no imposter heap: Weave robes-let not the idle wear: Forge arms-in your defence to bear. Shrink to your cellars, holes, and cells- In hall ye deck another dwells. Why shake the chains ye wrought? Ye see The steel ye tempered glance on ye. With plough and spade and hoe and loom Trace your grave and build your tomb And weave your winding-sheet-till fair England be your Sepulchre.
It's called respect. They were having a debate, where all arguments are considered. It's not politicians shouting in a pub and punching others, if that's what you're up to.
Thatcher was the worst thing that ever happened to Britain, the first thing she did on being appointed Education Secretary was stop the school milk causing loss of income to dairies but also depriving poor children their only real food.
Actually she saved Britain. Britain was in the middle of a crisis that people like you do not understand. You complain about milk money when Britain was on the brink of bankruptcy. And it is ironic that the socialist labour government then tried to Bankrupt the UK and they almost done it with strikes. Do you not understand the the strikes almost bankrupted the UK. She did not deprive the children of anything she done what the UK was economic capable of doing.
'Bailouts' is a Leftist concept, as it falls under subsidization in exchange for influence. At true Capitalist society would not have wasted tax-payer money on failed business.
(Links about it below my text) Under the Clinton administration's revisitation of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, created by the democrats as far as I know of, the banks were forced into lending money to those who could not afford to pay back, or they would be legally prosecuted by the state (with media bad publicity following with the usual mantra of capitalists being mean to poor people, what would probably result in their bankrupcies as government law suits can extend for decades and people would start retrieving their money from the banks due to the bad publicity this would cause). When the banks complained that they would lose either ways, the Clinton administration promised to bail them out if the poor could not pay for their loans.(democrats are openly left Hillary, Clinton's wife has publically announced to be a proud fabian, for istance) The Clinton administration went even one step further and allowed them to create money, as the banksters tried to explain nto the government that if they lend all their money to all who apply for loans, they would have none to guarantee their investments (the real bread of a bank, small clients as me or you are just a safety net, the "bona fidei" they can use to negotiate while investing some variable percentage in several different applications) So this is why americans have a sizeable mess on their hands today, and also why banks can allow themselves to give the bail out money as workers bonus, as they will just receive another bailout anyway. www.ffiec.gov/cra/ www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
Why even call it capitalism at all? When the state decides everything, even forbidding children from selling lemonade at their porch without a permit that takes up to 6 monthes, you have some form of socialism. Capitalism is dead on the US. Long live socialism. Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? I am not discussing that, I am merely pointing out that calling what they have on the US today any form of capitalism (when it is not, far from it) is a joke.
The point about government spending is completely void as the party he represents backed the spending to the penny. The Conservatives already stated they would have spent the same. I am not a socialist but this is an truly incoherent argument. Secondly comparing the policies of communists nations to socialists leaning governments is also flawed if you have even a basic understanding of economics and history.
Agree. Many countries practice socialism in one way or another [police], whether that's political or economics is up for debate. This doesn't mean that they are primarily socialist. Democracy and monarchy are more likely the main forms of government. There are capitalist countries which are just as terrible as "communist" or "socialist" countries. "In total, Saudi authorities executed 184 people, up 23% from the year before, with a plurality of the killings in punishment for drug-related offenses. The majority of those who were killed - all via beheading - were foreign nationals. Death sentences can be handed out for a wide variety of nonviolent offenses in Saudi Arabia, "including apostasy, sorcery, and adultery," the US State Department noted in a 2019 assessment of the country's human rights record. Those cases are rare, however; more frequently, especially last year, are executions of politically active religious minorities. Of the 88 Saudi citizens who were put to death last year, a disproportionate number were members of the country's repressed Shia Muslim minority. Indeed, of the 37 people executed on April 23, all but five were Shiites." Most people would probably agree that Saudi Arabia is a country which practices capitalism. And, the USSR, admitted by Lenin around 1918, was state capitalism. It could have changed as new rulers gained power, but it's unlikely. History even labels the time under Stalin as being a totalitarian dictatorship, before and after it was a socialist state [whatever that means].
Interesting that he chose to quote Abraham Lincoln. Here is a different quote from him: "Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Almost sounds textbook Marxist, right? Well, that's mainly because the two had some ties. They even corresponded, with Marx congratulating Lincoln for his accomplishments towards the abolition of slavery.
This is not something that is special to marx. It was current economic theory that Labour was the measure of value of which marx in then analysing adapted into his theory of profit extraction and surplus theft. However nearly all other economists agreed at the time. Adam Smith the first "modern" economist believed in labour's value determination to a large degree. But that does not imply agreeance with Marx. But now the theory of labour is now known to be incorrect objectively, so it is not really useful to quote any 18/19th century economists on labour value now
Also Marx was literally hired by the Republican party (Lincoln's party) newspaper to write for them, so it did have to do with Lincoln lking socialist ideas
@@_qw3rtyXxYz_ I mean thats fair, I did not cite anything. However I think it is fair of me to say the 'Theory of labour' is wrong. Or atleast that Marx's and his contemparies were wrong. In that we have made great progression on studies into value over the last 150 years or so. And I would say it is fair, that even with a focus on labour being the defining factor due to its uniqueness as offered by workers, it is not fair to treat modern labour and market value theories in the same scope as specifically marx. There are many new theories set-out by multiple different econmists, however it is unilaterially within academia that the direct belief in labour as it was in the 1800's is just wrong. I know I am not not citing anything, and thats totally not very useful, but I feel any source I give will be grounded in either left or right economics, which is not my goal of this commnent. Instead I was stating that nearly all economists for the last 50 years have stopped accepting the labour theory of value, atleast in its orignial sense, and especially with the predictions of wage suppression that was predicted.
In the 2010 General Election, Havering's Tory leaflet said 'Don't let Havering become like Barking & Dagenham'. In the 2015 G.E, Havering's Tory leaflet said 'Don't let Havering become like another inner-city'. In the 2017 G.E Havering's Tory leaflet said ' keep Romford special'. Andrew Rosindell has been Tory MP for Romford since 2001. He is not an 'absent MP' & he is not registered blind. So, has he been duplicitous with the voters, is his Party deceiving the voters or is it the case that a local MP has no influence or relevance whatsoever. The only other contradiction is that Mr Rosindell 'IS A SOCIALIST', because now Romford, completely & utterly resembles another inner city of London when it didn't 8-years ago.
@@conservativegrandpavaushyo4450 well the motion was defeated so the house believes it does. Check all the vids of the debate to see if you think they won or lost
I don't think Communism =/= Socialism in the same way that Capitalism =/= Fascism but I do agree, nonetheless, that, Communism and Socialism (and Marxism) certainly aren't the same thing and it's shameful to see people mixing these ideologies up.
True, no state attempting communism has yet made it passed Socialism, since it is supposed to be the transitionary state to prepare for the statelessness of communism.
@@stopmayhem937 Dear Stop Mayhem, Thank you for your thoughtful response to my comment. Even though it has been more than half a decade. Since It has been such a long time I have completely forgotten the context in which it was written. Would you be so kind as to describe, vividly yet briefly, the assumed meaning of my post in relation to the content here presented as well as your answer? If you so desire you are allowed to use a video format, though no longer than 7 minutes long. I will be eagerly awaiting your responses by Monday morning (Amsterdam time). Kind and loving regards, Yours truly P.s. i sincerely hope you are successful in stopping mayhem, at present the world seems to be engulfed in a nasty state of affairs and some order would be quite welcome.
Gonna say as an outsider what Margaret Thatcher ended was Keynesian economics, unfortunately she swung the pendulum completely to the otherside instead of finding the happy medium.
Keynesian economics does not propose anything about government ownership and collectivised ownership, that is socialism, though people claim otherwise, Keynesian economics calls for regulation and market buffering by the state not ownership.
I'd rather see a debate exploring what is the best proportion of socialism to private enterprise. Private enterprise must be curtailed of it's own excesses just as the state must be. No one should be allowed to repress anyone else or make money from the misery of others or bend the law to their own unfair advantage.
+perrin6 The problem with that is who decides if private industry is making money from the misery of others? In some cases, that's clear but what about setting up factories in poor countries? Some say they are exploiting. Are they? The people in those areas flock to those factory jobs because it's their best option. Want to force higher pay? Well, then no new factories move in. Are they better off working for low wages or are they better off not working at all? Look at China now. Factories are employing people at record rates & standards of living are coming up. They started out at wages & in conditions that pretty much anyone would consider exploitation. On the surface it sounds cruel but it's the depressed areas that attract business & eventually economic growth. I was a proponent of a balanced system when I was younger but, after some 17 years of working government & government contract jobs I see how terribly inefficient gov programs are. It sounds great to prevent exploitation but could we manage a developing area better than the free market? No doubt we could for some but if we slow economic growth by trying to manage it, have we improved things overall? If we manage things to avoid exploitation will that area be better off ten years later than if we had just let the free market run? If corruption is kept out, the free market is ruthlessly efficient. I would fear that someone coming in & trying to make sure everything is fair will do nothing but slow economic development & it's that economic development that ultimately leads to better conditions. In other words, I fear if we tried to make things better we would muck it up & long run we would do more harm than good. The intentions would be good but that doesn't mean the real life outcome would be good. Every socialist program ever implemented had good intentions but most fall short of intentions.
+Shananagans5 Absolutely! Well said. The same could be said of the minimum wage, if it is too high it actually prevents people from finding work, or causes workers to be laid off, thus keeping some people on benefits when they could be working and gaining experience which would allow them to rise to a higher level in the future.
Richard Wolff's suggestion is Cooperatives. He's written books about it. He's talked a lot about it in interviews you'll see here in TH-cam. It's a not silver bullet but definitely better than corporate dictatorship that are common today.
Those 3 people want socialism but live in a free country instead of living in a socialist one. Funny that they love all the benefits a free country gives them yet want to exchange it for something worse.
Terence Boyle Not always, it depends upon a nations intentions for being Socialist. Being a socialist alone does not imply that you believe in Communism, that's like calling a Tory a fascist.
Michael Purser Fascism is a socialist movement. It was developed by Mussolini and grew out of his socialist roots. In Britain the British Society of Fascists was headed by Oswald Mosley,a former labour MP.
Matthew S I can certainly see your point. I am looking at this from the academic perspective of history and politics. I suppose the model you're using is a combined spectrum where as I am looking at it as freedom being one spectrum and economics as another.
What he's not saying is: don't expect to succeed as an individual on a level playing field. There is no level playing field as we the privileged with our mutual backscratching and sharp elbows monopolise the power and wealth structures in society under a veneer of PR spin . You can succeed if you come from an unprivileged family but your efforts will be very much with the cards stacked against you. Social mobility is going into reverse now, and the gap between rich and poor has widened and is continuing to widen, and we the conservatives will do nothing to stop that trend.
Socialism/Communism has not failed because its never been tried. Do not confuse state run capitalism with genuine common ownership. Let us all help to speed the day when this wonderful earth and its rich resources are held in common for the benefit of all humanity.Fraternally yours for the abolition of the wages system.
+majorMcpharter You sir, are one of the very few people to "GET IT" regarding what has been practiced globally. USSR: State capitalism CHINA: State capitalism any many many more. A workers never owned a bolt nor ran so much as matchstick factory in most cases of supposed "socialism" For the odd couple of small country's that did try, (see Chile) their democratic governments were deposed in the 70`s with western money financing the ambition of a dictator (general Pinochet) in return fo free market capitalisms installation in the country by way of "thanks" to the west, all watched over (and later supported by) the loving eyes or Ronal Reagan, Thatcher, and Milton Friedman. This was repeated time and again, different actors, same story. One large country got the balance right for the most part. Germany.
+majorMcpharter Niether has capitalism been fully tried . But i know what id prefer , the freedom to choose rather than the right to wait for something . state capitalism is still central planning and it failed .
Why not have both of best worlds. Capitalist foundation with socialism at its core. The Modrogon Corporation employes 88,000 people from all over the world. Heres some of what they do: 1) No board of directors\CEO`s etc. Workers decide what to produce, where to produce, and what to do with the profits. 2) Workers hire, and fire if need be, their own bosses. 3) No employee earns more than 8x the lowest paid. The result over their 60yr existence has meant all workers have become middle class to varying degree`s. 4) All workers own a part of the company and earn a decent twice yearly bonus dependent on how well the company does as a whole. 5) No worker does the same task for more than 2 hours before rotation. They believe its bad for your mental health. The result has been happier multi skilled workers. 6) in the 2008 collapse Mondrogon fired exactly: 0 Zero employee`s, they just mothballed unprofitable parts and moved workers internally to profit making divisions until recovery. 7) they have their own university, free for workers, their family, and the locals. 8) To name 2 of their clients, Google and Microsoft, who use Mondrogon research and Development labs & scientists. Its called a worker co-op. It has democratic socialism at its heart and a capitalist purpose. It is our future should we wish to take it. Democracy is socialism. And If we organized companies of all types as Modrogon does, not only would we all benefit jointly, we can all take strain better and no one need be destroyed by a downturn ever again. To put it simply, its a cure for Capitalism. But it will only happen if we are able to force control from the 1% to the people. Hence, Bernie 2016.
Luciano G and yet the mondragon is a catholic institution, Also capitalism is the mode of Private voluntary EXCHANGE, it means that people are free to assemble in different kinds of organization. In socialism YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE VOLUNTARY COOPERATION BECAUSE IT STRESSES STATE OWNERSHIP.
His argument was weak because he did not use the economic calculation argument, which is by far the strongest argument against socialism and pretty much proves that capitalism always works better than socialism.
He didn't admire for everything he did; he said he admired him for overthrowing the communist regime and providing assistance in the Falklands war. It is really no different to admiring Winston Churchill for WWII, despite the fact that he was a racist who took part in overthrowing the democratically elected Iranian government and the gassing of Kurds, just to name a couple of the many bad things he did.
"Socialism Does NOT Work" It works for those who need it like the NHS. Imagine being in the position of not having a job. How would you feed yourself without socialism? Imagine in that position needing medication and medical care. How would you get your health care without socialism? National Rail used to be British Rail and it was affordable for everyone to use. Today a private business now runs it and the price of tickets increases year after year. The postal service used to be public but that too has been handed over to private business so we can expect the price of a stamp in the future to be in the pounds rather then the pence. After all private business exists to make a profit. Socialism works for those who are in most need. The rich and better off don't like socialism because it means giving people something for nothing and that goes against their core belief. How else have they got to their positions without thinking this way? The public seem so turned on by the idea of making everything private that they simply don't understand the future they are creating for this country. The very same people will be complaining at the price increases of gas, electricity and train tickets. Yet they don't seem to understand that they are the ones who created this situation by making these industries private instead of leaving it under our control.
In a recent General Election, Havering's Tory leaflet said 'Don't let Havering become like Barking & Dagenham'. In the last G.E, Havering's Tory leaflet said 'Don't let Havering become like an inner city'. MR Andrew Rosindell has been Tory MP for Romford since 2001. He is not an 'Absent MP' & he is not registered blind. So, why does Romford now resemble an inner city when it didn't 8-years ago?
"You can't help the poor by destroying the rich". You can't make an argument with absolute extremes such as that and expected to be taken seriously because you except a lot of people to actually believe that, no one wants for rich people to get "destroyed", but they accumulated so much wealth which most didn't even actually made any significant enough effort to deserve it, what they did is that they took advantage of competition then used what they earned to expand, and the perpetuity quality of capitalism did the rest for them for the most part, it's not really all that hard to think of doing. There is no good reason to use as an argument for any person to hold a very big amount of money over an x amount of time if what they do mostly benefits themselves especially if their main target is to just continue doing that rather than everyone around them well enough, slowly accumulating all the money from others, it's literally stealing in a way that is simply not being criminalized because the consequences of wealth accumulation and it's focused goal is not understood that is thing along in a closed system where the amount of currency is limited and if more is put inflation is created further perpetuating the issue. It's like a monopoly.
He understands things in far too simplistic terms. If there was no socialism in this country, I'd probably have died during my own birth, and even if I hadn't, I would never have been able to go to school.
blibberblib There are hundreds of thousands of people in capitalists countries who were born without social healthcare and went through at least 13 years of education under a demographic/republic, capitalists economy AND lived. Your argument is absolutely baseless.
qetoun Im sure there were, the national health system ruins healthcare. This is why so many people go to places like the United States for care when they have terminal illnesses. Though they have to actually pay for their care, they will at least receive the absolute best care available to them.
It took privste property & initiative, not government dictatorship for life to escape the oceans, live in the trees, get back down from the trees, build massive flats for other people to live in.
I've heard that Europeans has a better understanding of Socialism than Americans. Apparently not true for this dude... This dude doesn't even provide anything logical. For the benefit of this dude, the organizer of this debate should define Socialism first. All participants should read Marx's books to have a productive debate.
MrReco12 Thatcher did not take over a health economy she took over one that was controlled by communist trade unions that tried their best to destroy Britain so they could have socialism. Thatcher saved Britain from the end of a cliff. you complain about unemployment when Britain was in face of absolute failure. These unions absolutely destroyed British industry. There is a reason why there was a recovery in the 1990s and Labour destroyed that recovery with massive increases in expenditure.
More Fascistic drivel...Thatcher increased unemployment from 5.6% to 11.9% and doubled poverty.....ah facts.....the enemy of the Right. "communist Unions"....reminds me of Thatcher's mentor Adolf Hitler ranting about "Marxists trade unions" in Mein kampf...open a history book you ignorant bufoon!
I am reading this 6 years later. Well said Andrew Rosindell MP. Please do not show any respect to JC at all. No friend of HM as you can see here when he claps a communist during your introduction and smiles.
HM is losing her grip on the reigns of power she once had tight control over. A new breed of monarchy are raising their privileged heads now. What will they do next? or more to the point, what will the public do next?
Rosindell takes Jamaica as an example because he’s spent two weeks there on a tax payer-funded holiday as part of an All Party Parliamentary Group. Two weeks relaxing on a Caribbean beach courtesy of the tax payer.
Socialism doesn't work? He wants to visit Sweden some time which as had a socialist government for decades, result - Sweden is the nation with the highest standard of living in the world, full pensions for its citizens, excellent education and healthcare, low crime and poverty. Perhaps this Rosindell should go over to scandinavia some time and sort these swedes out!
You're forgetting that Sweden is riding off of nearly a century of free market capitalism. Just look at their tax rates and regulations up until he 1950s and the relative size of the private sector compared with the public sector until that point. Coupled with their low immigration rates and a largely homogeneous society at the time, they were able to accumulate a significant amount of wealth for a very generous socialist services today...but these "reserves" so to speak will run out soon and its starting already.
well our reserves are running out as well, so what. They've enjoyed decades as a country that actually "looks after the people" who voted successive swedish governments in power. They've had full pensions, excellent healthcare and state education and that's what you get with a decent socialist government. Loads of nations reserves are running out the thing is, our government since the time of thatcher have been about privatising our rail,water and gas and selling off all our manufacturing industries, shutting down our natural resources (coal) all for short term profit for wealthy individuals and now its all coming home to roost because this country is producing nothing. We generate no money because we don't make anything anymore. Result, state pensions are becoming thing of the past, the NHS now depends on private funding a lot of the time, the railway service as been dilapidated for decades since it came in private ownership, rising unemployment during the 80's resulted in a marked rise in crime and violence as well as the drug culture whcih before was only a thing for the rich and famous found it's way in working class neighbourhoods by people driven to despair with the lack of any decent prospect in jobs or standard of living, and it's all in the name of extreme Capitilism, the most unsustainable form of running a country long term.
Storm Hawk 1. They've had all those nice things up to this point. They won`t for long. The shrinking private sector simply won`t be able to support it and a bloated public sector at the same time. 2. What reserves are you talking about? There are no reserves. I was referring to the general wealth of the country in its businesses, people's savings, etc. There is no official reserve lol. It's just the wealth they've been able to generate and accumulate through capitalism. 3. NHS depends on private funding - proof of socialism's failure. 4. Railway service is inefficient. People don't use it. Things that aren't used should fall out of service. You would rather keep a useless things afloat by taxpayer money? What a waste! 5. We haven't had real capitalism in a long time. You must be blaming corporatism, which is the right thing to do.
My father in law was the Director General of a massive steel plant. His brother was a Professor in Physics at the University in Moscow. His other brother was the Soviet Representative in the UN Peace Keeping Force. My wife and brother in law were students in the same factory school alongside the sons and daughters of ordinary workers. They both have to do work as ordinary workers for two years before they were allowed to go to the University, where sons and daughters of the ordinary workers could go straight. My wife had worked as a cleaner in a hospital before she was allowed to be a student in the Medical School of the Moscow State University. My brother in law had to work as a metal worker before he was allowed to a student of the Baumann University Engineering school in Moscow. This was Socialism in the USSR. It had worked very well with free education, free medical supports, free housing, free electricity, free holidays before it was destroyed by anti-socialist Yeltsin and his cronies.
If there was no "socialism", but instead a FREE MARKET system (not corporatism) health services would be a lot cheaper and people would be a lot more cautious about their savings and spending.
" If there was no socialism" How would this make health services cheaper, ? Socialism is something that cannot just be stopped...acts of kindness, caring about family and friends, caring about the community, the country, and the world is socialism...the list goes on.
@@Metronome._ Exactly. Scandinavian countries are all capitalist. As the president of Denmark said: "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
Late to the party on this one lol. Cousin from across the pond. If there is any further argument I would lend it is that the individual only has control over himself: his thoughts, actions, desires, and distastes. No other person may he control, only influence. Therefore, it is entirely in his nature to act in a manner of self interest, preservation, and control so that he may know happiness, fulfillment, and at the bare minimum, survival. The "collective" is never uniform because every man is different with different aspirations, so no true agreement of order and goals can be held. Thus, a unit of control must enforce uniformity, lest individuals are left to be individuals. Socialism must always resort to force in order to maintain its structure and identity as socialism. Force is most effective under the threat of long suffering or death.
The few examples given Zimbabwe and Jamaica, suggest this talk is primarily driven by neo-colonialist sentiments (itself an outdated term) under the guise of forwarding freemarket enterprise. Nations with greater stored wealth, purchasing power and production capability, in the face of weak or newly formed local authorities will inevitably find themselves unable to support all the inhabitants they have been tasked to rule-over (set by nationalistic lines that could only have been demarcated by powerful nations to begin with - by controlling instigators that helped draw battle-lines earlier on, based on even older schisms perhaps, byway of targeted inflammation of the populace that did often lead to violence). So that once the dust settled, those left out in the rain in these newly formed nations, became easy pickings for larger and older power networks, who need only pickup the tab and promise a livelihood to these communities to gain their full support and loyalty. Ideology is nothing more than a code for who's doing business with whom and on what level after all. Yet the two examples given do draw the topic back to the era of European colonialism and its reverberating effects still felt today. So that the rather irreverent if not rude question of "after you've plucked the natives from the trees, now what are you going to do with them" does come to mind? Win them over, or lose out to them? Giving them a pie with too small a plate or vice versa, is just one out of a million ways that things could be sabotaged from the starting mark. Just saying
Socialism is based upon all being of equal value & worth. Take from the rich to give to the poor. Socialism is next to communism. Communist will value a Doctor the same as a road sweeper and aim to pay them the same under the guise of, while the Doctor was studying at medical school taking free education the road sweeper is working and paying tax to help fund the Doctors free social education. Which makes sense of coarse. However this principle only works if you close your borders and stop the Doctors running away to another country for greater salary potential. Which is what the USSR & China have done. If you want to be a Liberal and part of the EU you have freedom of movement which is going to help make socialism fail due to the above limitations.
Socialism could work and we undoubtedly desperately need more fairness across society but that doesn't negate the need for personal responsibility. If only socialists would acknowledge that we all have a duty to contribute as well as benefit, THEN it could work but they only ever talk about entitlement and that is fiscally irresponsible.
charity n society should work in helping poor and needy but given the sheer stupidity of communist n socialist it will never work because Its nothing but a mob which dictates and makes others slaves.. Sadly these empty ideas only prowl on the simple hardworking people and then exploit them.
@Иван Распутин Well we NEVER hear anyone say that. I guess that's a failure of democracy, where no representative wants to become unpopular and lose voter support.
You need to grab a dictionary and read the definitions of socialism and capitalism. What you have state equals to saying: "how about religious atheism?" What you may try to make reference in the second sentence is to a welfare state democracy, which its economic model is free market (aka nordic countries).
Lincoln actually was excusing his own refusal to really morally condemn slavery to the degree of prosecuting it's crimes AS crimes, and instead to champion both incrementalism & preservation of the white ruling class of the former Confederacy. Lincoln evidently thought that "slave owners" could become good citizens. Well, we didn't think that about Nazis. It wasn't until after Lincoln is assassinated that slavery is actually ended by a true constitutional amendment. And the franchise shifts to black voters for nearly a generation. Whether that was the best solution, who knows, but it certainly shows that Lincoln was going easy on rapists, kidnappers & torturers, and that his party was ready to do much more. Thatcher "the greatest Prime Minister" ever. ?!? This guy is pretty out there. He neatly sidesteps all of the Scandanavian equitable programs which certainly are & were socialist in nature.
We could look at history and the Lincoln's actual writings and speeches and understand that he was undeniably anti-slavery and was for his entire life speaking often of the evil and immorality of the institution. On the other hand, we could be like Cr Hu here and just make stuff up, pulling absurdities out of our asses and them commenting on TH-cam.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 88 | คู่เอก "ป้อมเพชร vs อัสลามจอน"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1ZqTVVbMgbo/mqdefault.jpg)
Q: What is very large, makes a lot of smoke and noise, takes down 20 liters of gas per hour, and cuts an apple into three pieces?
A: The Soviet machine built to cut apples into four pieces.
this joke was used in the Chernobyl HBO series haha.
I will remember this joke. I will pass it to others.
Don't get it
The expression on Corbyns Face in all these "Socialism does Not work" - Videos is worth more to me than a million Dollar.
I wish Bernie Sanders would be sat there with him, that would be worth a lot to see that gits face.
Frowning usually indicates someone is thinking about what is being said, not criticising it.
@@chezz565 bernie is such a nice guy
Operater 1919 they are until they rob from the poor to give to the rich.
@@chezz565 Bernie is literally advocating for the opposite bro.....And he wants to cut military spending to use the money for more important things.Isnt that a gd thing
Why does the Communist Party leader look like the psychiatrist from the original Total Recall?
Now swallow it
Both weak fat fucks
Not a very telling political point...but I'm sure it's the best you can manage, so well done you.
@@mikemurray2027 if you're referring to my comment, I was not attempting to make a political point. It was just an observation, however I do not believe a point needs to be made against communism. What is bad about communism is obvious to any person who takes the time to think about it. For those lazy minded people who don't, I wish them well. Now get your ass to Mars!
@@Mickey-Knox Well, Mickey it's only obvious to those who believe all the nonsense they've been told about it!
You say a point needs to be made, but you don't make it! You just say it is 'obvious'. But, really it isn't, not to me anyway.
What socialism did to Jamaica is unforgiveable.. I lived there for 3 years and never have I seen more talent go to waste..
its people like you that need to be hear by all these moronic socialist that keep thinking about how great the theory is, instead of seeing the effect its had on every place its been practiced on. Sorry to hear that Isaac.
Socialism is quite great
@Dumisani Nkosi i am serious.As a socialist, it is quite great
@@dorkman135 the theory is quite great
What capitalism has done to the world is excuseable! Fascism in the work places andlow wages. Capitalism has to die!
Is it not weird you can tell the Socialists from the non-socialists in a debate by having the common courtesy not to interrupt.
@ Andrew Rosindell, Abraham Lincoln once said : "Don't believe everything that is on the internet" sarcasm off :-) While true, the quote was from William Boetcker not Abraham Lincoln.
William Boetcker : “You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred. You cannot establish security on borrowed money. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”
the only presenter from the proposition that actually dealt with the motion at hand.I actually found the arguments to be quite sharp
I'm an Objectivist, and therefore a laissez-faire capitalist. I was stunned at the emptiness of Rosindell's (poorly read) speech. He had NO arguments at all. He simply kept repeating in different ways, "Socialism doesn't work." Do people no longer recognize what an argument is? I suppose they don't. I'm looking for something like: "Socialism is X, and X means Y, and Y is clearly impossible, therefore Socialism does not work." For instance, Ayn Rand's argument, "Socialism is government ownership of the means of production, government is the agency that wields physical force---it's guns, tanks, prisons, and tribunals---physical force can destroy, but it cannot produce, production requires the mind and the mind will not function under force, the guns of the police have a proper role when used to combat the force wielded by criminals, but it guns and prisons cannot create wealth."
But the only thing Rosindell had was quotes from authorities and the droning re-statement of what he was to prove, as if saying it again with more fervor would show that it was true.
Oh and like "privatisation" works for anyone except the greedy few.
He speaks as though socialism alone has its totalitarian extremes. Pinochet in Chile and Batiste in Cuba both espoused capitalism and the free market (Pinochet shared good relations with Thatcher's government); both were brutal fascist dictators who tortured, murdered and exploited their people, probably worse than Fidel Castro. But mentioning these extremes is just pointless, as European democratic socialism/social democracy has no analogy to extreme forms of communism, just as most conservative parties aren't as brutal as Pinochet and Batiste. A bit of a cheap and predictable move to be honest.
You're confusing a socio-political system, socialism, with a purely economic system, the free market. Of course no one uses the word "capitalism" as Marx defined it, because capitalism as Marx defined it never existed or could exist.
Nor has free market capitalism ever existed as Adam Smith conceived it, but most scholars, regardless of their stance on Marxism/communism, have all basically concurred that Marx, as an economist, understood the mechanisms of capitalism excellently. www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-mcelwee/marx-was-right_b_4719324.html
Did anyone else notice he said New Labour was not Socialist, then went on to say it was, before blaming it for the economic crisis
Yeah, that was hilarious.
He never said it wasn't? Regardless it's not something that could negate his ideas and points.
Rosindell’s speech is waffle. There’s very little (if anything) in the way of reasoned argument.
that lincoln quote is awesome
Except Lincoln didn't make that speech
It amuses me that, because of the fact he mentions Thatcher, nobody in the comment section seems to talk much of anything else.
“You’re perfectly fine with the poor being poorer, so long as the rich are less rich”. -Margaret Thatcher
This is the perfect description of the belief and practice of Comrade de Blasio, mayor of NYC.
Nah we don like the poor being poorer also.And why u quoting margret tatcher,the last person anybody will quote.
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 Because thats not what the ideology is.Socialism is
a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.Do u see equal pay or gov control anywhere in there🤦♂️.It is an ideology which is the next step from capitalism.
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 no reply?
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 U wouldnt need to use force because all businesses would be worker coops.U only need to pass laws protecting the labour theory of value and the workers share.In marxist theory,the next step would be communism.Communism is a stateless,classless,moneyless system.So u wouldnt need to force anyone when everything is free or is bought using a replacement of money.
where can I find the results on the web site ?
i didn't know jamaica tried socialism
They didnt
Under Manley they tried Democratic Socialism
the american invaded the jamaicans, it wasn't socialism
What about Thomas Sankara in Africa? During his time as leader he introduced the following reforms: eschewed all foreign aid; nationalised all land and mineral wealth; introduced land reform; ensured food self-sufficiency; introduced a nationwide literacy campaign; ensured the construction of 350 schools and the development of village based dispensaries; vaccinated 2.5 million children against meningitis, yellow fever and measles; planted over 10 million trees; introduced a road and rail construction programme; and outlawed female genital mutilation, forced marriages, and polygamy. Unfortunately the forces of repression conspired against him. He was assassinated by Blaise Compaore who took over as leader and reversed many of his policies
What about Robert Mugabe...?
@@douglasherron7534 Yes, he was a rogue wasn't he? Socialism and democracy need to go together. It does not generally work with dictatorship.
@@heliotropezzz333 "Rogue" is not the adjective I would have used...
There is Social Democracy and Socialism (and never the twain shall meet). What was under debate was Socialism, not Social Democracy. Socialism, by it's very nature, is not (and cannot be) democratic, as democracy allows dissension... but socialism does not.
@@douglasherron7534 I'm probably thinking of Social Democracies then, but they are informed by socialist ideas like public ownership of certain services, regulation of capitalism to avoid excesses, and a fairer distribution of income.
@@heliotropezzz333 "a fairer distribution of income" - really. What is "fair"? Who decides what "fair" means?
We have had public ownership of certain services in the UK - it wasn't very successful (i.e. British Rail and British Leyland).
I'm not saying that unfettered capitalism is the way to go either, but I have read Orwell's "Animal Farm" and lived in a former Soviet Socialist Republic... The former was a very good illustration of the workings of the latter.
Men of England, wherefore plough
For the lords who lay ye low?
Wherefore weave with toil and care
The rich robes your tyrants wear?
Wherefore feed and clothe and save
From the cradle to the grave
Those ungrateful drones who would
Drain your sweat-nay, drink your blood?
Wherefore, Bees of England, forge
Many a weapon, chain, and scourge,
That these stingless drones may spoil
The forced produce of your toil?
Have ye leisure, comfort, calm,
Shelter, food, love’s gentle balm?
Or what is it ye buy so dear
With your pain and with your fear?
The seed ye sow, another reaps;
The wealth ye find, another keeps;
The robes ye weave, another wears;
The arms ye forge, another bears.
Sow seed-but let no tyrant reap:
Find wealth-let no imposter heap:
Weave robes-let not the idle wear:
Forge arms-in your defence to bear.
Shrink to your cellars, holes, and cells-
In hall ye deck another dwells.
Why shake the chains ye wrought? Ye see
The steel ye tempered glance on ye.
With plough and spade and hoe and loom
Trace your grave and build your tomb
And weave your winding-sheet-till fair
England be your Sepulchre.
All those applauding communism. 🤦🏾♀️
It's called respect. They were having a debate, where all arguments are considered. It's not politicians shouting in a pub and punching others, if that's what you're up to.
Khanh Dinh they showed him little.
Why is it bad that they are applauding communism.Tell me ur problems?thx.
@@Justme-fz1ng please educate yourself!
@@marioramos6790????.What are actually the prob.Pls educate me genius
Thatcher was the worst thing that ever happened to Britain, the first thing she did on being appointed Education Secretary was stop the school milk causing loss of income to dairies but also depriving poor children their only real food.
Actually she saved Britain.
Britain was in the middle of a crisis that people like you do not understand. You complain about milk money when Britain was on the brink of bankruptcy.
And it is ironic that the socialist labour government then tried to Bankrupt the UK and they almost done it with strikes.
Do you not understand the the strikes almost bankrupted the UK. She did not deprive the children of anything she done what the UK was economic capable of doing.
He has since changed his mind about Jeremy Corbin
And rightly so. Corbyn is an evil devious piece of work. God help us if he ever gets power.
clint power he won't!
He gave a lot of quotes and repetead so much that socialism is a failure but didn't really argument it
Why did the Banks have to be bailed out under Capitalism. What happened to the money from the sell off of the nations assets by the Capitalists.
'Bailouts' is a Leftist concept, as it falls under subsidization in exchange for influence. At true Capitalist society would not have wasted tax-payer money on failed business.
(Links about it below my text) Under the Clinton administration's revisitation of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, created by the democrats as far as I know of, the banks were forced into lending money to those who could not afford to pay back, or they would be legally prosecuted by the state (with media bad publicity following with the usual mantra of capitalists being mean to poor people, what would probably result in their bankrupcies as government law suits can extend for decades and people would start retrieving their money from the banks due to the bad publicity this would cause).
When the banks complained that they would lose either ways, the Clinton administration promised to bail them out if the poor could not pay for their loans.(democrats are openly left Hillary, Clinton's wife has publically announced to be a proud fabian, for istance)
The Clinton administration went even one step further and allowed them to create money, as the banksters tried to explain nto the government that if they lend all their money to all who apply for loans, they would have none to guarantee their investments (the real bread of a bank, small clients as me or you are just a safety net, the "bona fidei" they can use to negotiate while investing some variable percentage in several different applications)
So this is why americans have a sizeable mess on their hands today, and also why banks can allow themselves to give the bail out money as workers bonus, as they will just receive another bailout anyway.
www.ffiec.gov/cra/
www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
Yan Pagh Great info. As always it takes the State to open up the doors for the mass banking fraud.
qetoun Thank you. I try my best to be cnsistent. :)
Why even call it capitalism at all? When the state decides everything, even forbidding children from selling lemonade at their porch without a permit that takes up to 6 monthes, you have some form of socialism. Capitalism is dead on the US. Long live socialism.
Is it a good thing? Is it a bad thing? I am not discussing that, I am merely pointing out that calling what they have on the US today any form of capitalism (when it is not, far from it) is a joke.
The point about government spending is completely void as the party he represents backed the spending to the penny. The Conservatives already stated they would have spent the same.
I am not a socialist but this is an truly incoherent argument.
Secondly comparing the policies of communists nations to socialists leaning governments is also flawed if you have even a basic understanding of economics and history.
They would've spent the same... just on different things.
Agree. Many countries practice socialism in one way or another [police], whether that's political or economics is up for debate. This doesn't mean that they are primarily socialist. Democracy and monarchy are more likely the main forms of government. There are capitalist countries which are just as terrible as "communist" or "socialist" countries.
"In total, Saudi authorities executed 184 people, up 23% from the year before, with a plurality of the killings in punishment for drug-related offenses. The majority of those who were killed - all via beheading - were foreign nationals.
Death sentences can be handed out for a wide variety of nonviolent offenses in Saudi Arabia, "including apostasy, sorcery, and adultery," the US State Department noted in a 2019 assessment of the country's human rights record. Those cases are rare, however; more frequently, especially last year, are executions of politically active religious minorities.
Of the 88 Saudi citizens who were put to death last year, a disproportionate number were members of the country's repressed Shia Muslim minority. Indeed, of the 37 people executed on April 23, all but five were Shiites."
Most people would probably agree that Saudi Arabia is a country which practices capitalism.
And, the USSR, admitted by Lenin around 1918, was state capitalism. It could have changed as new rulers gained power, but it's unlikely. History even labels the time under Stalin as being a totalitarian dictatorship, before and after it was a socialist state [whatever that means].
the Churchill quote is "shock&awe" in a few words
Interesting that he chose to quote Abraham Lincoln. Here is a different quote from him: "Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." Almost sounds textbook Marxist, right? Well, that's mainly because the two had some ties. They even corresponded, with Marx congratulating Lincoln for his accomplishments towards the abolition of slavery.
This is not something that is special to marx. It was current economic theory that Labour was the measure of value of which marx in then analysing adapted into his theory of profit extraction and surplus theft. However nearly all other economists agreed at the time. Adam Smith the first "modern" economist believed in labour's value determination to a large degree. But that does not imply agreeance with Marx. But now the theory of labour is now known to be incorrect objectively, so it is not really useful to quote any 18/19th century economists on labour value now
Care to elaborate on how the theory of labor is "objectively" wrong, or are we supposed to take your word for granted?
Also Marx was literally hired by the Republican party (Lincoln's party) newspaper to write for them, so it did have to do with Lincoln lking socialist ideas
@@_qw3rtyXxYz_ I mean thats fair, I did not cite anything. However I think it is fair of me to say the 'Theory of labour' is wrong. Or atleast that Marx's and his contemparies were wrong. In that we have made great progression on studies into value over the last 150 years or so. And I would say it is fair, that even with a focus on labour being the defining factor due to its uniqueness as offered by workers, it is not fair to treat modern labour and market value theories in the same scope as specifically marx. There are many new theories set-out by multiple different econmists, however it is unilaterially within academia that the direct belief in labour as it was in the 1800's is just wrong. I know I am not not citing anything, and thats totally not very useful, but I feel any source I give will be grounded in either left or right economics, which is not my goal of this commnent. Instead I was stating that nearly all economists for the last 50 years have stopped accepting the labour theory of value, atleast in its orignial sense, and especially with the predictions of wage suppression that was predicted.
In the 2010 General Election, Havering's Tory leaflet said 'Don't let Havering become like Barking & Dagenham'. In the 2015 G.E, Havering's Tory leaflet said 'Don't let Havering become like another inner-city'. In the 2017 G.E Havering's Tory leaflet said ' keep Romford special'. Andrew Rosindell has been Tory MP for Romford since 2001. He is not an 'absent MP' & he is not registered blind. So, has he been duplicitous with the voters, is his Party deceiving the voters or is it the case that a local MP has no influence or relevance whatsoever. The only other contradiction is that Mr Rosindell 'IS A SOCIALIST', because now Romford, completely & utterly resembles another inner city of London when it didn't 8-years ago.
who won?
@Reuben Thomasson no it does not
@@conservativegrandpavaushyo4450 they’re saying that the debate was won by the people arguing that socialism DOES WORK. Not that it does or it doesn’t
@@robloxmaverick77 socialism does not work
@@conservativegrandpavaushyo4450 well the motion was defeated so the house believes it does. Check all the vids of the debate to see if you think they won or lost
One thing people Communism =/= Socialism. Much like how Capitalism=/=Fascism
I don't think Communism =/= Socialism in the same way that Capitalism =/= Fascism but I do agree, nonetheless, that, Communism and Socialism (and Marxism) certainly aren't the same thing and it's shameful to see people mixing these ideologies up.
Socialism isn't Communism, that's true, but it's a transitional phase to get there. A no no in all sense.
True, no state attempting communism has yet made it passed Socialism, since it is supposed to be the transitionary state to prepare for the statelessness of communism.
you can reach anything with hard work as much as you can fix anything with ducktape, if not you have not used enough ducktape
You can't reach anything with hard work in a socialist state. Everyone is treated equally.
@@stopmayhem937 Dear Stop Mayhem,
Thank you for your thoughtful response to my comment. Even though it has been more than half a decade. Since It has been such a long time I have completely forgotten the context in which it was written.
Would you be so kind as to describe, vividly yet briefly, the assumed meaning of my post in relation to the content here presented as well as your answer? If you so desire you are allowed to use a video format, though no longer than 7 minutes long.
I will be eagerly awaiting your responses by Monday morning (Amsterdam time).
Kind and loving regards,
Yours truly
P.s. i sincerely hope you are successful in stopping mayhem, at present the world seems to be engulfed in a nasty state of affairs and some order would be quite welcome.
Gonna say as an outsider what Margaret Thatcher ended was Keynesian economics, unfortunately she swung the pendulum completely to the otherside instead of finding the happy medium.
Agreed
Keynesian economics does not propose anything about government ownership and collectivised ownership, that is socialism, though people claim otherwise, Keynesian economics calls for regulation and market buffering by the state not ownership.
I'd rather see a debate exploring what is the best proportion of socialism to private enterprise. Private enterprise must be curtailed of it's own excesses just as the state must be. No one should be allowed to repress anyone else or make money from the misery of others or bend the law to their own unfair advantage.
+perrin6 The problem with that is who decides if private industry is making money from the misery of others?
In some cases, that's clear but what about setting up factories in poor countries? Some say they are exploiting. Are they? The people in those areas flock to those factory jobs because it's their best option.
Want to force higher pay? Well, then no new factories move in. Are they better off working for low wages or are they better off not working at all?
Look at China now. Factories are employing people at record rates & standards of living are coming up. They started out at wages & in conditions that pretty much anyone would consider exploitation. On the surface it sounds cruel but it's the depressed areas that attract business & eventually economic growth.
I was a proponent of a balanced system when I was younger but, after some 17 years of working government & government contract jobs I see how terribly inefficient gov programs are.
It sounds great to prevent exploitation but could we manage a developing area better than the free market? No doubt we could for some but if we slow economic growth by trying to manage it, have we improved things overall? If we manage things to avoid exploitation will that area be better off ten years later than if we had just let the free market run? If corruption is kept out, the free market is ruthlessly efficient. I would fear that someone coming in & trying to make sure everything is fair will do nothing but slow economic development & it's that economic development that ultimately leads to better conditions. In other words, I fear if we tried to make things better we would muck it up & long run we would do more harm than good. The intentions would be good but that doesn't mean the real life outcome would be good.
Every socialist program ever implemented had good intentions but most fall short of intentions.
+Shananagans5 Absolutely! Well said. The same could be said of the minimum wage, if it is too high it actually prevents people from finding work, or causes workers to be laid off, thus keeping some people on benefits when they could be working and gaining experience which would allow them to rise to a higher level in the future.
Richard Wolff's suggestion is Cooperatives. He's written books about it. He's talked a lot about it in interviews you'll see here in TH-cam. It's a not silver bullet but definitely better than corporate dictatorship that are common today.
Those 3 people want socialism but live in a free country instead of living in a socialist one. Funny that they love all the benefits a free country gives them yet want to exchange it for something worse.
The guy's talking about communism, not socialism.
Terence Boyle Not always, it depends upon a nations intentions for being Socialist. Being a socialist alone does not imply that you believe in Communism, that's like calling a Tory a fascist.
Michael Purser Fascism is a socialist movement. It was developed by Mussolini and grew out of his socialist roots. In Britain the British Society of Fascists was headed by Oswald Mosley,a former labour MP.
Finbarr O'Keeffe Fascism is extreme right wing.
Matthew S I can certainly see your point. I am looking at this from the academic perspective of history and politics. I suppose the model you're using is a combined spectrum where as I am looking at it as freedom being one spectrum and economics as another.
Economically fascism is left wing too.
What he's not saying is: don't expect to succeed as an individual on a level playing field. There is no level playing field as we the privileged with our mutual backscratching and sharp elbows monopolise the power and wealth structures in society under a veneer of PR spin . You can succeed if you come from an unprivileged family but your efforts will be very much with the cards stacked against you. Social mobility is going into reverse now, and the gap between rich and poor has widened and is continuing to widen, and we the conservatives will do nothing to stop that trend.
It’s not only socialism that has a sinister side eh Rosindell!?🤔
"We have here the leader of the British Communist Party, Robert Griffiths, sitting over here." "Mr. Griffiths...who won the FA Cup in 1978?"
Socialism/Communism has not failed because its never been tried. Do not confuse state run capitalism with genuine common ownership.
Let us all help to speed the day when this wonderful earth and its rich resources are held in common for the benefit of all humanity.Fraternally yours for the abolition of the wages system.
+majorMcpharter You sir, are one of the very few people to "GET IT" regarding what has been practiced globally.
USSR: State capitalism
CHINA: State capitalism
any many many more.
A workers never owned a bolt nor ran so much as matchstick factory in most cases of supposed "socialism"
For the odd couple of small country's that did try, (see Chile) their democratic governments were deposed in the 70`s with western money financing the ambition of a dictator (general Pinochet) in return fo free market capitalisms installation in the country by way of "thanks" to the west, all watched over (and later supported by) the loving eyes or Ronal Reagan, Thatcher, and Milton Friedman. This was repeated time and again, different actors, same story.
One large country got the balance right for the most part. Germany.
You're an idiot, socialism cannot be tested because it's a system built upon a myth. A myth that humans are devoid of personal desire.
+majorMcpharter Niether has capitalism been fully tried .
But i know what id prefer , the freedom to choose rather than the right to wait for something .
state capitalism is still central planning and it failed .
Why not have both of best worlds. Capitalist foundation with socialism at its core.
The Modrogon Corporation employes 88,000 people from all over the world. Heres some of what they do:
1) No board of directors\CEO`s etc. Workers decide what to produce, where to produce, and what to do with the profits.
2) Workers hire, and fire if need be, their own bosses.
3) No employee earns more than 8x the lowest paid. The result over their 60yr existence has meant all workers have become middle class to varying degree`s.
4) All workers own a part of the company and earn a decent twice yearly bonus dependent on how well the company does as a whole.
5) No worker does the same task for more than 2 hours before rotation. They believe its bad for your mental health. The result has been happier multi skilled workers.
6) in the 2008 collapse Mondrogon fired exactly: 0 Zero employee`s, they just mothballed unprofitable parts and moved workers internally to profit making divisions until recovery.
7) they have their own university, free for workers, their family, and the locals.
8) To name 2 of their clients, Google and Microsoft, who use Mondrogon research and Development labs & scientists.
Its called a worker co-op. It has democratic socialism at its heart and a capitalist purpose. It is our future should we wish to take it.
Democracy is socialism. And If we organized companies of all types as Modrogon does, not only would we all benefit jointly, we can all take strain better and no one need be destroyed by a downturn ever again.
To put it simply, its a cure for Capitalism. But it will only happen if we are able to force control from the 1% to the people.
Hence, Bernie 2016.
Luciano G and yet the mondragon is a catholic institution, Also capitalism is the mode of Private voluntary EXCHANGE, it means that people are free to assemble in different kinds of organization. In socialism YOU AREN'T ALLOWED TO HAVE VOLUNTARY COOPERATION BECAUSE IT STRESSES STATE OWNERSHIP.
His argument was weak because he did not use the economic calculation argument, which is by far the strongest argument against socialism and pretty much proves that capitalism always works better than socialism.
Well this speaker is a fascist who backs Pinochet.
Firstly, he's not a fascist, he's a conservative, secondly, what have his views on Pinochet got to do with the debate?
Darius1295
He pretends to be against totalitarianism but he openly backs fascist dictators...simple!
He didn't admire for everything he did; he said he admired him for overthrowing the communist regime and providing assistance in the Falklands war. It is really no different to admiring Winston Churchill for WWII, despite the fact that he was a racist who took part in overthrowing the democratically elected Iranian government and the gassing of Kurds, just to name a couple of the many bad things he did.
To compare churchill with a murderer like Pinochet is rather silly......Pinochet was a fascist dictator.
"Socialism Does NOT Work"
It works for those who need it like the NHS. Imagine being in the position of not having a job. How would you feed yourself without socialism? Imagine in that position needing medication and medical care. How would you get your health care without socialism?
National Rail used to be British Rail and it was affordable for everyone to use. Today a private business now runs it and the price of tickets increases year after year. The postal service used to be public but that too has been handed over to private business so we can expect the price of a stamp in the future to be in the pounds rather then the pence. After all private business exists to make a profit.
Socialism works for those who are in most need. The rich and better off don't like socialism because it means giving people something for nothing and that goes against their core belief. How else have they got to their positions without thinking this way? The public seem so turned on by the idea of making everything private that they simply don't understand the future they are creating for this country. The very same people will be complaining at the price increases of gas, electricity and train tickets. Yet they don't seem to understand that they are the ones who created this situation by making these industries private instead of leaving it under our control.
Woah there, let Jeremy Corbyn do all the speaking for you!
It’s all fun and games until Scott Morrison denounces the Socialists
That someone would willingly advocate for Socialism demonstrates blatant ignorance, indoctrination or corruption.
In a recent General Election, Havering's Tory leaflet said 'Don't let Havering become like Barking & Dagenham'. In the last G.E, Havering's Tory leaflet said 'Don't let Havering become like an inner city'. MR Andrew Rosindell has been Tory MP for Romford since 2001. He is not an 'Absent MP' & he is not registered blind. So, why does Romford now resemble an inner city when it didn't 8-years ago?
"You can't help the poor by destroying the rich".
You can't make an argument with absolute extremes such as that and expected to be taken seriously because you except a lot of people to actually believe that, no one wants for rich people to get "destroyed", but they accumulated so much wealth which most didn't even actually made any significant enough effort to deserve it, what they did is that they took advantage of competition then used what they earned to expand, and the perpetuity quality of capitalism did the rest for them for the most part, it's not really all that hard to think of doing.
There is no good reason to use as an argument for any person to hold a very big amount of money over an x amount of time if what they do mostly benefits themselves especially if their main target is to just continue doing that rather than everyone around them well enough, slowly accumulating all the money from others, it's literally stealing in a way that is simply not being criminalized because the consequences of wealth accumulation and it's focused goal is not understood that is thing along in a closed system where the amount of currency is limited and if more is put inflation is created further perpetuating the issue.
It's like a monopoly.
After all of that, forcing people to "pay their share" still doesn't work
What was the final result? I went through all eight of the videos, but there was no result.
+dharma6662013 i think its up to the audience
3:41 fake news...lincoln never said that...boetcker did
No one cares dude
@@makindeaj2243 considering it's a debate I feel like some people might mind about someone lying in it
Neither does Capitalism that's why a mix of both works
Brazil is being crushed by socialism/Communism, please dont fall for the ones who say its a good ideology. By the way, I live there
Thank you.
He understands things in far too simplistic terms. If there was no socialism in this country, I'd probably have died during my own birth, and even if I hadn't, I would never have been able to go to school.
blibberblib There are hundreds of thousands of people in capitalists countries who were born without social healthcare and went through at least 13 years of education under a demographic/republic, capitalists economy AND lived. Your argument is absolutely baseless.
blibberblib believe it or not there were good clean and fair hospitals before the NHS.
qetoun Im sure there were, the national health system ruins healthcare. This is why so many people go to places like the United States for care when they have terminal illnesses. Though they have to actually pay for their care, they will at least receive the absolute best care available to them.
qetoun But many people could not afford health treatment and because of costs they often did not get treatment until it was too late to save them
tucstwo What do you mean lived? Have you compared life expectancy rates under both systems?
thanks for the point of view and the video
Corbin didn't have the balls to clap from the start, leaderless.
Jeremy Corbyn and integrity...The two are diametrically opposed.
That was pretty decent.
It took privste property & initiative, not government dictatorship for life to escape the oceans, live in the trees, get back down from the trees, build massive flats for other people to live in.
I've heard that Europeans has a better understanding of Socialism than Americans. Apparently not true for this dude... This dude doesn't even provide anything logical.
For the benefit of this dude, the organizer of this debate should define Socialism first.
All participants should read Marx's books to have a productive debate.
Evil freedom killing ideology. That's that.
Rowena Ravenclaw!? In the front row!?
thatcher was great, but not britain's greatest.
I think he was just winding up the lefties.
Thatcher increased unemployment from 5.3% to 11.9%....a shocking disaster.....she also plagiarized Mussolini and Hitler's idea of privatization.
In Modern times she most certainly was.
MrReco12
Thatcher did not take over a health economy she took over one that was controlled by communist trade unions that tried their best to destroy Britain so they could have socialism.
Thatcher saved Britain from the end of a cliff. you complain about unemployment when Britain was in face of absolute failure.
These unions absolutely destroyed British industry. There is a reason why there was a recovery in the 1990s and Labour destroyed that recovery with massive increases in expenditure.
More Fascistic drivel...Thatcher increased unemployment from 5.6% to 11.9% and doubled poverty.....ah facts.....the enemy of the Right.
"communist Unions"....reminds me of Thatcher's mentor Adolf Hitler ranting about "Marxists trade unions" in Mein kampf...open a history book you ignorant bufoon!
I am reading this 6 years later. Well said Andrew Rosindell MP. Please do not show any respect to JC at all. No friend of HM as you can see here when he claps a communist during your introduction and smiles.
HM is losing her grip on the reigns of power she once had tight control over. A new breed of monarchy are raising their privileged heads now. What will they do next? or more to the point, what will the public do next?
congratulation on a very lame introduction!
Rosindell takes Jamaica as an example because he’s spent two weeks there on a tax payer-funded holiday as part of an All Party Parliamentary Group. Two weeks relaxing on a Caribbean beach courtesy of the tax payer.
And now he's accused of rape?
@@covidenslavement8918 ?
@@spartybrearly7221 someone just told me he's the Tory MP accused of r a p e
@@covidenslavement8918 Interesting you should say that because Guido Fawkes is hinting the same thing 🤔
@@spartybrearly7221 I see , the person that informed me worked it out from his age and when he was elected . Haven't checked it myself yet.
Socialism doesn't work? He wants to visit Sweden some time which as had a socialist government for decades, result - Sweden is the nation with the highest standard of living in the world, full pensions for its citizens, excellent education and healthcare, low crime and poverty. Perhaps this Rosindell should go over to scandinavia some time and sort these swedes out!
Someone doesn't understand what socialism is.
Some socialist public policies != socialist country.
RO2player
come on, its not a black and white issue. They have many socialist style policies and yes that makes them very socialist leaning.
You're forgetting that Sweden is riding off of nearly a century of free market capitalism. Just look at their tax rates and regulations up until he 1950s and the relative size of the private sector compared with the public sector until that point. Coupled with their low immigration rates and a largely homogeneous society at the time, they were able to accumulate a significant amount of wealth for a very generous socialist services today...but these "reserves" so to speak will run out soon and its starting already.
well our reserves are running out as well, so what. They've enjoyed decades as a country that actually "looks after the people" who voted successive swedish governments in power. They've had full pensions, excellent healthcare and state education and that's what you get with a decent socialist government. Loads of nations reserves are running out the thing is, our government since the time of thatcher have been about privatising our rail,water and gas and selling off all our manufacturing industries, shutting down our natural resources (coal) all for short term profit for wealthy individuals and now its all coming home to roost because this country is producing nothing. We generate no money because we don't make anything anymore. Result, state pensions are becoming thing of the past, the NHS now depends on private funding a lot of the time, the railway service as been dilapidated for decades since it came in private ownership, rising unemployment during the 80's resulted in a marked rise in crime and violence as well as the drug culture whcih before was only a thing for the rich and famous found it's way in working class neighbourhoods by people driven to despair with the lack of any decent prospect in jobs or standard of living, and it's all in the name of extreme Capitilism, the most unsustainable form of running a country long term.
Storm Hawk 1. They've had all those nice things up to this point. They won`t for long. The shrinking private sector simply won`t be able to support it and a bloated public sector at the same time.
2. What reserves are you talking about? There are no reserves. I was referring to the general wealth of the country in its businesses, people's savings, etc. There is no official reserve lol. It's just the wealth they've been able to generate and accumulate through capitalism.
3. NHS depends on private funding - proof of socialism's failure.
4. Railway service is inefficient. People don't use it. Things that aren't used should fall out of service. You would rather keep a useless things afloat by taxpayer money? What a waste!
5. We haven't had real capitalism in a long time. You must be blaming corporatism, which is the right thing to do.
Ferthur? Grammar check in the description.
มาดูนายกในอนาคต
A Labour party as a center ground party.
If you don't have the respect to toast the queen then you shouldn't get an introduction
When have you ever done a day’s work?😂
My father in law was the Director General of a massive steel plant. His brother was a Professor in Physics at the University in Moscow. His other brother was the Soviet Representative in the UN Peace Keeping Force.
My wife and brother in law were students in the same factory school alongside the sons and daughters of ordinary workers.
They both have to do work as ordinary workers for two years before they were allowed to go to the University, where sons and daughters of the ordinary workers could go straight. My wife had worked as a cleaner in a hospital before she was allowed to be a student in the Medical School of the Moscow State University. My brother in law had to work as a metal worker before he was allowed to a student of the Baumann University Engineering school in Moscow.
This was Socialism in the USSR. It had worked very well with free education, free medical supports, free housing, free electricity, free holidays before it was destroyed by anti-socialist Yeltsin and his cronies.
If there was no "socialism", but instead a FREE MARKET system (not corporatism) health services would be a lot cheaper and people would be a lot more cautious about their savings and spending.
" If there was no socialism" How would this make health services cheaper, ? Socialism is something that cannot just be stopped...acts of kindness, caring about family and friends, caring about the community, the country, and the world is socialism...the list goes on.
Will Andrew Rosindell be charged?🤔
Who else have you met on your taxpayer-funded holidays? It’s not just former Prime Ministers of Jamaica is it Andrew!?
They should make Bernie sit along side Corbyn.
Oh, as long as you freely admit all Capitalism's troubles, Rosindell.
China.
Well...it might work. It just never has.
The nordics? lmao
@@Metronome._ Exactly. Scandinavian countries are all capitalist. As the president of Denmark said: "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."
Rosindell might like to look at the current budget deficit, national debt and massive borrowing under his party’s administration.
What are they funding?
does anyone know how the halls of Oxford University were built and with whos money?
Mostly the church and private donors.
Clearly not by the privileged socialists attending Oxford and never had to risk their life for sovereignty and freedom
Never mind Rosindell, you’ll get free bed and board in the slammer. HM Prison service do some decent grub!
Late to the party on this one lol. Cousin from across the pond. If there is any further argument I would lend it is that the individual only has control over himself: his thoughts, actions, desires, and distastes. No other person may he control, only influence. Therefore, it is entirely in his nature to act in a manner of self interest, preservation, and control so that he may know happiness, fulfillment, and at the bare minimum, survival. The "collective" is never uniform because every man is different with different aspirations, so no true agreement of order and goals can be held. Thus, a unit of control must enforce uniformity, lest individuals are left to be individuals. Socialism must always resort to force in order to maintain its structure and identity as socialism. Force is most effective under the threat of long suffering or death.
I’m not sure Jamaica’s current problems can be completely attributed to socialism🤔
Good luck from China!
+Michelle C Hopefully you haven't been killed off by the communist party in China for making this comment.
+Michelle C China has only been developed by western corporatist money... your communist system is the shame of the world.
Hopefully you haven't been killed off by the Queen in 21 Century for making this comment.
I love these videos but the quote from Lincoln "you can't help the pool" is an error apparently he never said this.
I’m not sure Mugabe or his regime could have been accurately described as ‘socialist’ in anyway🤔
He made no argument
This sounds like a GCSE English Speaking Exam. Would barely scrape a merit.
The few examples given Zimbabwe and Jamaica, suggest this talk is primarily driven by neo-colonialist sentiments (itself an outdated term) under the guise of forwarding freemarket enterprise. Nations with greater stored wealth, purchasing power and production capability, in the face of weak or newly formed local authorities will inevitably find themselves unable to support all the inhabitants they have been tasked to rule-over (set by nationalistic lines that could only have been demarcated by powerful nations to begin with - by controlling instigators that helped draw battle-lines earlier on, based on even older schisms perhaps, byway of targeted inflammation of the populace that did often lead to violence). So that once the dust settled, those left out in the rain in these newly formed nations, became easy pickings for larger and older power networks, who need only pickup the tab and promise a livelihood to these communities to gain their full support and loyalty. Ideology is nothing more than a code for who's doing business with whom and on what level after all. Yet the two examples given do draw the topic back to the era of European colonialism and its reverberating effects still felt today. So that the rather irreverent if not rude question of "after you've plucked the natives from the trees, now what are you going to do with them" does come to mind? Win them over, or lose out to them? Giving them a pie with too small a plate or vice versa, is just one out of a million ways that things could be sabotaged from the starting mark. Just saying
Jeremy Corbyn is too stuck in ideologically
Dude i dont need an 11 minute video on what i already know the answer to.
fidel castro wrote FDR for ten dollars
if i didnt the 10 id become communist too
Agreed.
The whole debate link:
th-cam.com/video/ryeHIY8uBnQ/w-d-xo.html
Socialism works just fine. These upper class knobs have less money than me but I am a socialist ie someone who cares about people.
Socialism is based upon all being of equal value & worth. Take from the rich to give to the poor. Socialism is next to communism. Communist will value a Doctor the same as a road sweeper and aim to pay them the same under the guise of, while the Doctor was studying at medical school taking free education the road sweeper is working and paying tax to help fund the Doctors free social education. Which makes sense of coarse. However this principle only works if you close your borders and stop the Doctors running away to another country for greater salary potential. Which is what the USSR & China have done. If you want to be a Liberal and part of the EU you have freedom of movement which is going to help make socialism fail due to the above limitations.
Rosindell doesn’t present a proper argument.
"Culture of dependency vs culture of self reliance". Nothing more to be said.
Where are the pro socialist side? All the videos I see is how bad socialism, did they get anyone from the other side? Got a link?
Socialism could work and we undoubtedly desperately need more fairness across society but that doesn't negate the need for personal responsibility. If only socialists would acknowledge that we all have a duty to contribute as well as benefit, THEN it could work but they only ever talk about entitlement and that is fiscally irresponsible.
charity n society should work in helping poor and needy but given the sheer stupidity of communist n socialist it will never work because Its nothing but a mob which dictates and makes others slaves.. Sadly these empty ideas only prowl on the simple hardworking people and then exploit them.
@Иван Распутин Well we NEVER hear anyone say that. I guess that's a failure of democracy, where no representative wants to become unpopular and lose voter support.
all the pro soc failed so badly
yeah it do
How About Socialist Capitalism? Cause We Got Socialized Democracies
You need to grab a dictionary and read the definitions of socialism and capitalism. What you have state equals to saying: "how about religious atheism?"
What you may try to make reference in the second sentence is to a welfare state democracy, which its economic model is free market (aka nordic countries).
Lincoln actually was excusing his own refusal to really morally condemn slavery to the degree of prosecuting it's crimes AS crimes, and instead to champion both incrementalism & preservation of the white ruling class of the former Confederacy. Lincoln evidently thought that "slave owners" could become good citizens. Well, we didn't think that about Nazis.
It wasn't until after Lincoln is assassinated that slavery is actually ended by a true constitutional amendment. And the franchise shifts to black voters for nearly a generation. Whether that was the best solution, who knows, but it certainly shows that Lincoln was going easy on rapists, kidnappers & torturers, and that his party was ready to do much more.
Thatcher "the greatest Prime Minister" ever. ?!? This guy is pretty out there. He neatly sidesteps all of the Scandanavian equitable programs which certainly are & were socialist in nature.
We could look at history and the Lincoln's actual writings and speeches and understand that he was undeniably anti-slavery and was for his entire life speaking often of the evil and immorality of the institution. On the other hand, we could be like Cr Hu here and just make stuff up, pulling absurdities out of our asses and them commenting on TH-cam.
crazy lincoln mean to his indian allies black kettle
marx liked him
It's absolutely true that Lincoln opposed slavery.
But he was, politically, far softer on its perpetrators than were his successors in office.
Just because that dweeb says it works doesn't mean it doesn't work.