Socialism has nothing against a person having their own personal property or personal projects, unless they interfere with the community/environment. It is not supposed to perpetually suppress people to each other. What is known as "utopian anything" today, even capitalism, is referring to the statist/authoritarian societies that try to preserve a successful revolution by isolating themselves, have protectionist policies, and overly central planning. The problem is claiming that you have property rights over things that belong to no one or belong to the community. Profits are the rightful capital that belongs to everyone who labors, the labor movement is a community of people forced/attracted together by Capitalism. The profits are not supposed to go to a sole proprietor or a small minority reaping the benefits because they invoke their "property rights".

@Hamza-vr2si

2 жыл бұрын

I agree with profits being shared proportionally. However, your argument predicated socialism has no problems with 'personal property.' But they do, one of the core and idea of socialism is collectivism, not individualism. Whereby, the collective is regarded superior to individuals rights. as a result notion of collectivism suppresses individuality and diversity, hence lacking diversity of thoughts. Evident through the atrocious acts of the 20th century: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro resulted in 10s of millions of death.

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

Anytime you oppress the individual in favor of the collective then you always inevitably move towards tyranny.

@bludeuce3855

2 жыл бұрын

@@Hamza-vr2si and you cant overcome human nature cause Stalin and Mao tried that and that reuslted in millions dead

@DrCruel

2 жыл бұрын

@@Hamza-vr2si The real debate is about who gets to control what people create and earn. Free market libertarians believe the people who make wealth ought to own it and be able to decide what to do with it. Socialists clearly believe that someone else should make these decisions. Thus socialist thievery isn't a "mistake."

@DrCruel

2 жыл бұрын

@@bludeuce3855 Socialism is not about overcoming human nature. It's about overcoming human resistance. Socialists claim to own the labor of others in the name of the collective, then steal it for their own use. This is not about "being good" - it's the same arrangement that feudal lords imposed on peasants.

I like the idea of small towns that everybody knows each other and enjoys each others' company with gatherings eating meals, playing sports, as well as sharing thoughts and ideas about different ways of life. I like hearing about the differneces between living somewhere downtown where theres technology advancements compared to like cabins where you have to drive 30 minutes into town to buy groceries. I really enjoyed this :)

@MegaMongoose101

Жыл бұрын

Why do people assume that with socialism, this type of “small town” atmosphere won’t exist? They will surely exist but not as much as they do now. America is literally 80% suburbs 10% city and 10% nature. I can’t help but have the idea that people who say this come from cities themselves…just go on a vacation lol

@Azraiel213

Жыл бұрын

​​People probably think that because the primary spirit that prevails ​under socialism is not counitarian goodwill, but rather paranoia and fear,@@MegaMongoose101.

The funny thing about a lot of socialists here in the US is they can't even make it work at a small scale. My friend works in a company where almost everyone is a socialist. And there is constant drama around people not cleaning their dirty (communal) dishes in the (communal) sink/dishwasher. Same is true in my workplace (though we have a lot less socialists here), so I just bring my own dishes/mugs/silverware and keep them cleaned myself. I used capitalism to break apart form the socialist system they have going and my stuff is taken care of WAY better than any of the communal stuff, and I get to avoid all the drama and am much happier as a result. This is just like how my parents (who escaped to the US from the Soviet Union) describe it. If everything is communal and nothing is yours, everyone just sits around expecting someone else to do the work. I mean, it is HIS too, so if he has a problem with it he can fix it!

@freedom_aint_free

10 жыл бұрын

I think that putting it simply, all boils down to the so called "tragedy of commons": If a thing is of "everyone", e.g. public, paradoxically, it's the same of to be of "no one" because the very concept of ownership gets blurred in the situation of public goods, and if a thing is "free of charge" (indeed nothing is) everyone minimally interested in that thing has a huge incentive to use the thing till it collapse, worn out etc. And when the thing need maintenance, no one has the least incentive to repair the thing, because, after all, it's not of no one! Besides that, of course, every collectivist system only can minimally works based on huge coercion...

@xm377Moyocoyatzin

10 жыл бұрын

You are clearly confusing socialism with communism.

@RagingGoldenEagle

10 жыл бұрын

***** Communism and fascism are allegedly opposites, yet in practice they end up being exactly the same (Hitler's Germany vs Stalin's USSR, not much difference in how they were ran...). Gee, I wonder what socialism in practice would yield... Actually, weren't the Nazis the National Socialist German Worker's party and the USSR the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics? hmm... Let me guess, it will be different this time?

@freedom_aint_free

10 жыл бұрын

***** No, I'm not, it's why I used the expression "collectivist system", because of the striking similarities that they show; socialism is immoral and inefficient, communism is just plainly impossible to be achieved.

@xm377Moyocoyatzin

10 жыл бұрын

baianoise What is socialism then? We may be arguing over two completely different definitions of that word.

Is society just us cooperating for the sake of peaceful coexistence or cooperating for betterment of all involved? You drew a deep distinction there. It seems to be the core of your prespective on the purpose of society. I am not sure many people agreed on what they think is the core purpose of society. But it is now a burning question for me now.

@thefatbob3710

2 жыл бұрын

No a hierarchy is best workers drones don’t need many rights because well.. they just do there job higher ranking jobs like governors or managers would get more due to there higher positions. #technocracy

The human nature argument has been debunked a million times

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

Please explain.

@georgemx4136

Жыл бұрын

In capitalism you work in exchange for the smallest amount of money that your boss can give you and it will continue to shrink because of the amount of power being gained by few of the largest companies, but in socialism you are paid the for the net value of work that you do, you are just compensated with money instead of the fruits of your labor, in capitalism the worker gets the worse deal. Also the answer available on google

@DCBChump

Жыл бұрын

@@georgemx4136 Absolutely wrong. Just because Google says it does not make it true.

@georgemx4136

Жыл бұрын

@@DCBChump what argument do you have my guy? Other than ur wrong and google wrong because im right

@anthonyesposito7

Жыл бұрын

The human nature argument towards capitalism is wrong because the first ever economic model, if you could call it that was one of primitive communism. Hunter gathers living in communal tribes, sharing basically everything, food, shelter, tools, in order to survive. It was only after the arrival revolution when surplus value really became a thing and certain people started to claim land for themselves and have others work for it. There is absolutely nothing normal about having a totalitarian workplace/economy. Not only that, capitalism should be thrown out just based on the illogical nature of the system alone. There is a sort of capitalist logic that runs/guides the system that have nothing to do with common sense thinking. They only begin to make sense once things like the profit motive are taken into consideration. But they are ultimately so flawed they should just be thrown out for a more sensible system. We can and should do better.

0:12 Jason Brennan 0:46 What do we do with human failure? 1:41 We want privacy. Private pursuits 2:17 Recognizing Multiple utopias (that sounds Libertarian to me) 3:04 *The Information Problem* (Price Controls mess things up. You don’t know what other people want more than the people themselves)

@seaeff6428

3 жыл бұрын

It’s an 8 minute video. I don’t think this too necessary.

Funny thing is mixed economies with strong safety nets, solid yet prudent regulations, strong anti-corruption laws, semi-planned markets in a democratic style government are the best. It just takes a lot of work, compromise and cooperation

@mrty5213

3 жыл бұрын

A lot of work and the exploitation of the global south.

@yamanosu9463

3 жыл бұрын

Who decides the degree of "semi-planned" and how does one keep it from graduating to primarily planned?

@taxslave5906

3 жыл бұрын

The current illusion of choice undemocratic governments that uphold corporatism is inherently unsustainable and not fit for purpose.

@ethan-gw1cz

3 жыл бұрын

@@taxslave5906 anarcho-capitalism? I am intrigued... can you explain what exactly that is to you

@taxslave5906

3 жыл бұрын

@@ethan-gw1cz, anarcho-capitalism is anarchy and capitalism. Murray Rothbard is essentially the founder of anarcho-capitalism.

The problem with the current market system (not at all capitalism) is that it allows the greedy to be greedy. To take it all for themselves and leave none for the rest. The worker's rights which were won in the 1930s are being destroyed by corporations for their own profits and for no one else. If you consider yourself in the lower or middle class only expect your income to go down, your mortgage to increase, and your social benefits to be slashed. But military/'defence' spending oh we can never lower those

@Eryna_

2 жыл бұрын

That's the issue with capitalism ladies, gentlemen, and others!

@byronsiamelis4507

2 жыл бұрын

​@@Eryna_ Correction; that's the issue with unfiltered capitalism. An economic system, whatever form it takes, without regulations and interventionism will always lead to immoral practices due to the nature of the human psyche. If you were to take the UK for example, due to government limitations big corporations cannot exploit it's workers, at least not in the traditional sense. However, in countries where the government is too weak to act, capitalism will be unfiltered as the government is unable to regulate the exploitation of the population by big corporate conglomorates the west controls. We can see this in countries such as Venezuela, where child labour runs rampant and most workers are underpaid. The true is also correct for the opposite, however. A nation with such a strong grasp on the economy that you tend to see in Communist and Socialist countries also lead to exploitation by capitalism. Although the nation has the power to act and stop this, the only outcome it can reasonably follow through with is either the allowance of exploitation or the total removal of globalist practices. To cut myself short before I start rambling, capitalism in itself is such a bad concept. It's human greed that violates it's basic form of globalisation and free trade between parties as it promotes that anyone can get wealthy, but humans see other humans as a stepping stone to achieve that goal, effectively stopping this "Anyone can become rich" ideology in its tracks. The same issue can be found in socialism; both do not work as intended due to human nature, although capitalism does allow greed to increase, to deny such things is pointless and untrue.

@AnthonyChinaski

2 жыл бұрын

@@byronsiamelis4507 “Unfiltered” Capitalism is….guess what? Capitalism! Yawn

@byronsiamelis4507

2 жыл бұрын

@@AnthonyChinaski Your point being?

@superdog797

Жыл бұрын

except that the facts are that incomes are increasing for lower and middle classes

Is it just me or did his depiction of socialism (baring in mind that socialism, despite also being left-wing, isn't communism) have a whiff of strawman about it?

@legalfictionnaturalfact3969

2 жыл бұрын

It IS communism.

@gh7319

2 жыл бұрын

@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 left-wing is a spectrum just like the right-wing, communism is generally regarded as towards the extreme end of the left. In all seriousness however I don't think it really matters when arguing this with Americans as the overwhelming majority of them know fuck about all when it comes to left-of-center politics or even the center for that matter) as both the Republican and Democrat parties are unambiguously right-wing, the only difference being that the Democrats tend to be a little more liberal-leaning on social policy but are otherwise very much right-wing.

@legalfictionnaturalfact3969

2 жыл бұрын

@@gh7319 you're missing the point. everyone who still bothers with a party system is a sucker. no one has the authority to tell others what to do or to use mob rule to vote things in when all majority rule does is marginalize the minority. looks like this case, an american knows knows more than you. and you getting catty like a karen at me reveals that your position is weak. just a free pointer. you're welcome.

@gh7319

2 жыл бұрын

@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 in other words you're an Anarcho-Capitalist then, which shows you've got A LOT to learn as you've swallowed many of the lies peddled by capitalism. When arguing against governments/politics there's always the pessimistic argument put forward that democracy can be "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner". You probably have argued that you want "less government" despite the fact that most pro-socialists want less government than pro-capitalist countries currently have, "less government" in most right-wing circles (other than "libertarians"/anarcho-capitalists) REALLY meaning no government legislation on market forces. This theory that was rightly predicted by Marx under it's own devices to funnel wealth into an increasingly smaller MINORITY as we can clearly see during this pandemic where increasing numbers of people are becoming poor whilst the rich thrive and are able to easily weather the downturn in spending, showing that the market isn't at all dictated by the majority customers spending but by the constant shifting of wealth and shares amongst the already rich. You've probably also swallowed the lie that the likes of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk and Bill Gates "earned" their wealth through hard work and shouldn't be taxed on it, in which case you should read up on the real back stories of these people who were born into families who already had, at least, above average wealth and have exploited and underpaid their staff to keep themselves on top. Trickle-down economics really does amount to the rich pissing down the necks of the poor and telling them it's raining. Maybe you'll come with the argument against universal/"socialised" healthcare, where you argue that the private healthcare is the best system because, apparently, it's a "beaurcract, not a doctor" who signs off on whether or not you get treated for a potentially life-threatening condition, despite the fact that in reality under universal healthcare it really IS the doctor you saw that gets the final decision as this system REALLY IS created to prioritize LIFE OVER PROFIT, whereas under private healthcare the doctor ONLY gets the final say if they rejected you to your face because the privately employed doctor is under pressure form his for-profit management to meet a quota for rejections in order to maintain company profits, and is even incentivised by pay bonuses for doing so, and if they approve you then it's referred to an unseen company pen-pusher, whom you will never meet nor talk to, to really have the final say. If you've read this far then congratulations, you're actually honest and want to know more, otherwise you're dishonest and lying to yourself to preserve your preferred delusion, I'll easily be able to tell based on your response, assuming you've even the balls to give one.

@gh7319

2 жыл бұрын

@@legalfictionnaturalfact3969 I almost forgot too, as a rebuttal to your point about bias against minority, most likely rich ones, the un-earned (which make up the overwhelming majority of the super-rich) are the only real minority that socialists protest, a minority which is OPTIONAL and easy to reject by simply giving away that unearned wealth, whereas the right (not specifically capitalism but pro-capitalist have a nasty habit of protesting against minorities of RACE, SEXUALITY and GENDER, the funny thing being that being rich IS a choice whereas the minority groups I mentioned are NOT optional and this CANNOT reject this identity. So in other words the true left are more accepting than the right ever even could be.

the funny thing is,if businesses wanted a free market we would have one.business have an intrinsic desire not to have a free market,even workers have a intrinsic desire not to have a free market.there is a lot of nuanced arguments against capitalism which this guy is probably flinging out the window,since reason tv looks like a lassie fair site.

@JL-vm3tl

3 жыл бұрын

Free markets are bad for business! Just ask internet providers.

@legalfictionnaturalfact3969

2 жыл бұрын

Businesses don't want things. Individuals do. So individuals who are CEOs of big Corporations because their daddy is someone important love socialism. See, your taxes go to them and their taxes go back to them too. Cool trick right. Just a regular old self-employed workers definitely prefer capitalism. The honest people just want to work and keep the spoils of our labor to trade as we wish. But the government, socialist by Nature, puts a gun to our heads and tells us to pay up a portion of our incomes. And stealing is wrong.

thats one hell of a intro and outro music

the idea that markets are efficient is based on people making rational buying decisions.people dont always do that.so these price signals are not all balancing and productive etc.

A business that is his... But Run by the collective.

@vasileiosxenodochidis1585

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, why? Isn't it great to take advantage of the work of others....?

@rohaanmuzaffar3187

3 жыл бұрын

but you provided jobs to so many people? the money is for the value you provide

@tanimation7289

3 жыл бұрын

@@vasileiosxenodochidis1585 You can't win without someone loosing.

@tanimation7289

3 жыл бұрын

@@rohaanmuzaffar3187 That is true but many will argue that those jobs will just tarn into slave labor with little pay. I'm not trying to make a argument I just know that a lot of people will fight tooth and nail screaming on how bad the job system is.

@joshtaton8986

3 жыл бұрын

Without his idea and risk. No one under him makes money... no jobs created. No liberal socialist communist people to take more than what they are worth from Him. Debate me?

Can someone give me examples how those private means of improving opportunitys on a social scale look like?

@JNM578

3 жыл бұрын

Amazon is a big example. THe connection between producers and consumers enabled by amazon and the massive economies of scale have made the products a lotttt cheap.

@luistirado6305

3 жыл бұрын

@@JNM578 but are the inequalities that are created justifiable?

@ayushagrawal8095

3 жыл бұрын

@@JNM578 what about the working conditions at Amazon !?

@flibbergibberstein

2 жыл бұрын

@@ayushagrawal8095 What were those workers doing before Amazon?

PUDUDUDUDU-PAPA!

"Socialism works only in 2 places. In heaven where they don't need it, and in hell where they already have it." --Ronald Reagan

@karozans

7 жыл бұрын

+Vict0r1984 . How can you have freedom when everything is controlled by the government? How can you care about the "long-term survival of mankind" when you are spending trillions of dollars today that future generations will have to pay off? Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty during the Great Expansion than any other time in the history of the world before or since.

@Vict0r1984

7 жыл бұрын

@Coming Home: EXACTLY! That's Stalinism for you! You also can't have freedom when all of the economy (and politics via lobbying) is controlled by hierarchical hereditary institutions ruled by an all-powerful elite (big shareholders). That's capitalism for you! You know when you do have freedom? When economic enterprises are collectively owned by their employees and there are no corporations to hijack the democratic process or one-party states to impose their rule.That, my friend, is socialism, and more people on the right would be aware of this as well if they had ever read 2 pages of Marx or Bakunin!

@72442conv

5 жыл бұрын

The evil corporations. Did you know that people actually own those corporations? In socialist countries employees do not own the enterprises. The enterprises are owned by the state. Now I am sure that you believe that a politician is a lot better boss, than a CEO, because, well, ahhh, because we all know politicians are angels put on earth by god himself and that they will treat us like gods little children that we are... And yes I have read Marx and Engels, easy read as they are both idiots and everywhere where their ideas have been tried to be FULLY implemented, they have failed catastrophically, will millions dead in their wake. And yes I already know that the issue is not the system but the people running it...

@alexanderthegreat1356

5 жыл бұрын

Karozans Ronald Reagan was a spastic whose trickle down economic policies had a disastrous effect on the US population (working class in particular but also fucked the middle class)

@karozans

4 жыл бұрын

@Marco Yeah, that's not true at all.

How can a Philosophy Professor have this incorrect a perception of socialism?

@RussellNelson

5 жыл бұрын

It's not incorrect, that's how.

@liberval9425

5 жыл бұрын

Does the Marxist professor he wrote the book with have an incorrect view of socialism also?

A well meaning person who leaves out more than he includes in his critique of socialism and promotion of capitalism. I'll mention only a few: capitalism must have continual growth in production and consumption for it to survive. How does this square with a finite planet? We have had capitalism in the U.S. for over 175 years, most unfettered in the last 30 years, and the disparity in wealth and political power is greater than at any other time in U. S. history, with the possible exception of the "Gilded Age." How will more of same produce different results? There is no mention of "citizens" in his critique (on this video, I have not read the book). He mentions "consumers." Capitalism wants consumers and not active, engaged citizens. For example, corporations misrepresent data which contradicts their profit motive, eg. tobacco consumption, climate change. If not outright lying, this obfuscation reduces citizens' ability to adequately address these threats. Socialism does not require a dictator, in fact promotes the opposite, ie grassroots economic and political democracy. So the mention of an all-wise dictator is a straw man argument. There is more but I think you get the picture.

@josephgainza1539

9 жыл бұрын

surrealnumber Do you always behave so boorishly when someone says something you don't like? I thought it was us socialists, according to Brennan, who are not nice people.

@josephgainza1539

9 жыл бұрын

surrealnumber So you are taking my words about capitalism personally? Interesting. I think A. Braddock, below, says it well. Socialists vary in their ideas of government. I believe that you cannot have socialism without real, participatory democracy, not the ersatz democracy we have in this, the most capitalist of states. Despite what Professor Brennan seems to think, I do not expect people to be perfect, none of us are or ever will be, I expect people to cooperate for their mutual benefit; that is a basic principle of socialism. Please don't take my words personally, I do not know you and have no desire to treat you disrespectfully.

@josephgainza1539

9 жыл бұрын

surrealnumber There is a lot here to respond to and i have to leave in a few minutes. So I will respond to only one thing you say: "socialism is a government forcing people to act in accordance with whatever demands however decided within said system" All governments make laws and, to greater or lesser degrees, enforce them. That is not an attribute solely of socialist governments. The question is how do the laws get made, who influences what goes into laws? Presently, in the U.S., it is generally agreed that "average" citizens have little power to influence legislation, that corporations and the very rich have tremendous influence in what the law says. It is when citizens organize in large numbers and work tirelessly for years that some legislation which benefits the common good, rather than a special wealthy interest, is passed. This does not happen often, and it is happening less than before. Capitalism creates "winners" and losers" in the market place. The winners get rich and acquire much political influence. The laws reflect their interests. I assume you are referring to the Federal Reserve when you say government has been setting interest rates. Fed policy invariably favors and promotes the interests of the owning class, the very rich. So I might agree with you that the Fed. is a problem for democracy and freedom. I ave to go; I would appreciate hearing your response.

@RussellNelson

5 жыл бұрын

"capitalism must have continual growth in production and consumption for it to survive". Nonsense. Who told you that? They were wrong. "How does this square with a finite planet? " Value is perceived. A finite planet is perfectly compatible with infinite value. If I have a red rock and you have a white rock, and we trade, we are both better-off, but nothing has been consumed.

Peter Kropoptkin made a pretty good argument for “yeah but we are not good enough for socialism” he argues that if we really are not good enough for socialism, if we are actually all this greedy things, then are we really good enough for capitalism? Idk I thought it was pretty cool tbh

@tanimation7289

3 жыл бұрын

I heard some one say (I can't remember who) that Socialism can't work because humans like to own things.

@tomio8072

3 жыл бұрын

@@tanimation7289 to quote marx “Communism deprives no one of the power to appropriate products in society; it merely removes the power to subjugate the labour of others through this appropriation” So in communist society, the things we use to create stuff in society would be free for anyone to use, meaning you would be welcome to own stuff, this is often called personal property, but when it comes to property which creates stuff in society that people need access to, and this property requires more than one person to operate, like factories, these would be owned and maintained by the community at large.

@josephcro2138

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomio8072 can't you understand how utopian and unrealistic that idea is? Socialism I get, it can be implemented, at least thru force, but how does one implement communism? Use force to implement it and you immediately made it not communist. It seems that the mere idea is paradox in itself

@josephcro2138

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomio8072 also one thing, it seems communism lost its footing when blank slate theory was disproven. People are not born equal, biologically speaking. Some are naturally more smarter, hardworking, industrious and would accumulate more wealth in their lifetime in comparison to someone who is a slacker, not that smart and lazy. Seems like you need force to make everyone equal, if you can't make the second person create more, you can make the first person create less, thereby making them equal, but it would be totalitarian, and again, would defeat purpose of communism, and we are getting back to the same paradox

@spicymeatballs2thespicening

3 жыл бұрын

@@tomio8072 lol marx pfp checks out

What an idiot. Free market isn't necessarily capitalism. Capitalism is basically a system of private property. The point he made about how socialism is flawed in that it can't determine the true market value may be true. However, we see market failure throughout a quasi free market as ours. Joseph Stiglitz has done extensive research on this. The credit meltdown was a result of market failure.

@MilwaukeeF40C

10 жыл бұрын

The "credit meltdown" was stimulated by socialist or crony-capitalist economic policies, such as those implemented by government programs and targeted tax incentives or federal interest rate manipulation that encouraged people to take credit in an attempt to "grow the economy" by increasing home ownership.

@jdon6484

9 жыл бұрын

It's the most important tennet of capitalism and is what the system is based off of, and capitalism has flaws of it's own. The only thing about Capitalism is you don't collapse after 70 years (USSR), don't slowly convert to capitalism (China), and don't have to censor your whole country to make them feel like their system works (North Korea).

@jani0077

7 жыл бұрын

the reason capitalism is the only real working economy model is that is acknowledges human failure. Others are just a fake mirage of a perfect society, and that capitalism understands the needs and greeds.

Socialists and Capitalists actually agree on the most important idea - that is to make people's lives better. The difference is that Socialists think they know how to accomplish this and yet fail, while Capitalists admit no one can know and yet succeed.

@robzrob

10 жыл бұрын

Well put.

@Redmond17

9 жыл бұрын

Kinda reminds me of that essay, "I, Pencil."

@Regtic

9 жыл бұрын

Billy Wardlaw Capitalists believe that people can pursue their own interests and that this is actually what is best for everyone. Socialists believe that this drives conflict within society and that it is inherently unstable and destructive. They believe that people should work together towards the wellbeing of society and that this is what benefits the individual. You make capitalism sound like a halfthought I had during my time on the shitter. "welp no one knows, fuck it let people just do whatever and hope for the best"

@Vorpal_Wit

9 жыл бұрын

Regtic Slight clarification: Capitalists KNOW that people pursue their own interests, while Socialists WISH people were selfless. Luckily for all of us, as the modern world will attest to, it is usually in people's self-interest to service the self-interest of others to advance their own - that's what creates markets and builds stable societies.

@Regtic

9 жыл бұрын

Billy Wardlaw Well socialism is a system where satisfying one's self interest is the result of satisfying everyone's needs. Your conception of your own self interest is shaped by your cultural conditions. In a society where you grow up in a commune, you don't see other individuals as selfish individuals trying to further their own ends, they are your comrades. This type of relationship is ultimately in the self interest of the individual. It's the same logic as in any society. You give up certain things in order to enter into a society. It would serve my self interest to just take what property you have and claim it as my own, but doing that would break the social contract and I would subject myself to the same sort of violence that I subjected unto you. The enlightened individual relinquishes the pursuit of his immediate self interest for a greater long term benefit that benefits himself and society as a whole. The enlightened individual who understands the difference between what he has been told he needs and what he actually needs relinquishes his endless pursuit of material wealth in exchange for a more meaningful, virtuous life where everyone's needs are met.

Having lived in a Socialist country for half my childhood, and lived in the U.S. for the other half, I've experienced firsthand why Capitalism is better than Socialism.

@sammybojoe

8 жыл бұрын

You're right. It was a milder form of socialism. Something more akin to what you'd find in Denmark. And I hated it, yet was glad I was spared from socialism in its purest form. When I moved to capitalist America, all that changed and I discovered a truly prosperous economy. Unfortunate, however, how America's current administration seems interested in restricting individual success.

@paullap88

8 жыл бұрын

+Samuel Southard The irony is that many/most Socialists don't consider your country of origin socialist and, in like manner, many radical capitalists don't regard the US as truly capitalist. I agree with the former sentiment but not the latter.

@paullap88

8 жыл бұрын

"Those who like socialism deserve to see for a day how is really life in such a despotic nation under a tyrannt like mao or stalin...." The only relation between socialism and the despotic nations you've listed is that of contradiction.

@mrgoldfish7452

6 жыл бұрын

Why is that?

@nelsonjanusson7278

6 жыл бұрын

you do know that denmark isnt socialist right ? and you do know that denmark also is one of the most prosporous countries in the world right? just fuck of with your bullshit

Doesn’t matter as long as it eliminates poverty oh wait

All of these peoplle saying socialism doesn't work becuse this or that meanwhile u ask anyone in Serbia who lived in Yugoslavia they say it was great and evryone was living hapy and modest.

@aleksandar122

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, Yugoslav socialism was successful under Tito. Everything went worse when Tito died. Nationalists took over which is the reason Yugoslavia collapsed.

@ethan-gw1cz

3 жыл бұрын

point being Yugoslavia collapsed after a few decades. Socialism is flawed because it assumes that people in power remain altruistic.

@matijatoskovic5666

3 жыл бұрын

@@ethan-gw1cz not necessarily socialism can be a democracy to,witch would eliminate that flaw by default and also you have to consider that there are always peoplle in power that will remain altruistic.

@ethan-gw1cz

3 жыл бұрын

@@matijatoskovic5666 "people in power" refers to people in power. it is not exclusive to any form of government on the spectrum. Socialism is entirely reliant on those in power to not be self serving. Unless you meant something else in which case I don't understand your context and need you to elaborate. A few people with a decent set of morals doesn't mean anything when the group think gets so big and corrosive to the very fabric of the party. Atleast in US politics, Good People don't run for office. Good people will always be seen as a threat. Good people will always be scrutinized and demonized to irrelevancy and pretty often bullied out of politics by their own party as well as the opposition. They are made an example of. Anyone who supported Bernie Sanders understands that to a degree. Not that I think Bernie Sanders was a "good person", but he definitely presents a threat.

@matijatoskovic5666

3 жыл бұрын

@@ethan-gw1cz "Socialism is entirely reliant on those in power to not be self serving"i would agree with you but like i sead there are ways around that problem,for example Sweeden and their "social democracy" witch is used to keep those people in power in check but even if the people don't have democracy that doesn't mean their socialist country is doomed to fail becuse as long as there is even one person in power at the top who only wants to serve those people and make their country great then it can work and in those condisions it can work realy well.

I only read the description - "We're not the Borg from Star Trek. We want to engage in private projects we do by ourselves and not with others," says Jason Brenna - and already there is a problem, actually two. [1] There are very few projects we are carry through on own and not without some degree of co-operation/sociability. [2] It's not only the Borg that co-operate. Human do too. (In fact, what the Borg do is more like obey the Borg Queen or an abstract set of principles, rather than freely co-operate.)

the only way socialism will work is when all people think the same.....when conflict isnt human nature

@kevcoolkev25

3 жыл бұрын

... or laziness

Who out there but the fringe is calling for pure Socialism? Any successful functioning society is a mix of socialism and capitalism. The debate comes not whether or not to adopt pure socialism ie communism, but where to draw the line between what functions the government can provide best vs what functions the capitalist market can provide best. Then comes the nuance of deciding on a case by case basis where to draw the line on particular functions. It seems folks like the tea party want to reduce government to one cop away from anarchy and let everyone duke it out. Sorry, but that vision of society does not appeal to me.

@Barskor1

6 жыл бұрын

Nope, they are ALL but Norway deep in debt and deficits and Norway only is ahead because of oil and that is TEMPORARY.

@phiksit

6 жыл бұрын

And the US isn't deep in debt and deficits? Republicons just added almost $2 TRILLION to the deficit with their little tax scam, which just proves that capitalism is socialism for the rich. NO ONE is advocating for a purely socialist agenda. Social democracies consistently have the happiest citizens.

I agree individual freedom

The real struggle is not socialism vs capitalism, or collectivism vs individualism. The real struggle is the belief in initiation of force vs voluntarism. Deep down do we really believe in initiating violence and force against others to get them to do what we want, or do we believe that only voluntary cooperation is morally just. Interaction based on voluntary cooperation is always good. Initiating violence and force to get our way is always evil. So, are you good or evil?

@bezlichnyy7675

10 жыл бұрын

I disagree with you. Here's why, the real struggle is collectivism against individualism. The collectivist through the majority vote in government impose or use force through taxes,regulation/legislation on the economy, imposed their personal beliefs through law e.g. no gay marriages most states, mandatory auto insurance most states, etc. Individual rights can be voted away by the majority, but the individual has no real recourse or protection against the will of society. An individual can protest, petition, boycott, and argue against the collective, but how seriously do they take it? The will of the majority is in power right now a.k.a tyranny of the majority. It is the maority that voted for presidents like Bush, Obama, and the like. The majority rules, which is in fact a collective.

@XCritonX

10 жыл бұрын

Bezlichnyy, what you are describing is the will of many people to initiate force against others to make them comply. In this case it happens to have a collectivist aspect, however ask yourself this: if the collective was not willing to use force (state violence) to get their way what would be the problem? Collectivism is not always bad. Voluntary collectivism and cooperation such as in a familly or company can be very beneficial. It only becomes a problem when violence and force are initiated into the mix.

@bezlichnyy7675

10 жыл бұрын

***** The collectivist having their way non-violently and no initiation of force. But how would the collectivists have their way through fraud and deception? Or moral and logical means based on evidence? Either way the individual doesn't have to be influenced or persuaded by the group especially if there is no benefit in doing so. Most of the time the individual should ignore the group and pursue their rational self-interest goals.

@XCritonX

10 жыл бұрын

An example of a voluntary, non-violent collective that also serves rational self interest better that being alone is a nuclear family. Decisions are made by generally rational means. Sometimes I even have to sacrifice my own interests to do what is best for my wife and child, however in the end it is always worth it because I love them and they love me in return. It works because its a very small collective and love is the main motivating factor for decisions.

@bezlichnyy7675

10 жыл бұрын

***** Your interest lie within your family, therefore it is not a sacrifice. You want to do so out of love which is a great value. Sacrifice means exchanging greater value for a lesser or no value at all.

I have yet to see one of these prager u type talk to an actual socialist and not a liberal

@promo242

3 жыл бұрын

But don't most actual socialists also think that actual socialism never existed? Who would be an actual socialist then according to them?

@leandrosanchez1212

3 жыл бұрын

@@promo242 An intellectual from the ccp would make for epic content.

@promo242

3 жыл бұрын

@@leandrosanchez1212 Like who? Name an actual person then. If you think China would let anyone actually talk freely with people from the west and not just spew CCP propaganda, you are mistaken. Whatever "intellectuals" in the CCP that can't speak freely, aren't intellectuals in any sense of the word. They're government pawns.

@leandrosanchez1212

3 жыл бұрын

@@promo242 There were debates between soviet and american intellectuals were there not? I don't see why this can't be the case again. Would be a lot more interesting than another rightwing dissection of a Twitter thread lol. Furthermore, if you can't get those on any breadtuber would be interesting people like vaush.

He says Socialism has no mechanism of feedback to regulate the economy. There's an assumption there that money, or some 'representation' of value has to replace actual value. That assumption is at the heart of what I see as the disconnect in Capitalist theory. A barter system trading value for value would be a far more accurate representation of true value, and would eliminate hording and artificial value represented by money.

@Barskor1

6 жыл бұрын

LOL! Doublespeak love it.

Trabalho manual precisa de boa premiação, pois não é divertido. Mas é a grande necessidade

We're due to lose ~46% of jobs to automation in the next 15 years. If you work for a co-op... ie: own the means of production, you get the same income for less work. If you work for a capitalist, you lose your job, your house, everything. You have no say in what happens to you. Personally, I can't see any way other than socialism (ie: the people who do the work (that's us) owning the means of production) for our market-economies to survive. Socialism is not "Unworkable in practice". Entities like Mondragon demonstrate this loud and clear. The 5 biggest co-ops in the UK contribute more tax than Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook, Google and Starbucks combined. Socialism is completely compatible with market-economies... people like this guy are arguing against the past... conflating statism with socialism. They are not the same thing.

@Barskor1

6 жыл бұрын

Two worker co-ops produce the same product or service but the public only buys enough to support one of them what do you think happens? You lose your job your house and everything. Mondragon gets preferential treatment from the Spanish government. Paying out more in taxes is not a measure of a successful company but a sign of a company who is bleeding out resources to no good end.

@nicktaylor5264

6 жыл бұрын

re: competition among worker co-ops Personally I would prefer our economic output to happen a result of a free market, than a command economy. There are exceptions to this of course (eg: pharma R&D), and personally I think we need a UBI (with attendant LVT / land-reform) to take the stress out of people's lives in this free-market context, regardless of whether it's co-ops or money-lender-owned businesses. That said. 46% of jobs going to automation is huge in comparison to "job-losses due to demand not meeting production". What's the current unemployment rate? Not great - but it's not anything close to 46%. ... re: Mondragon getting preferential treatment from Spanish government. a) Do you have citations for this, with comparisons to how much the Spanish Govt is subsidising private corporations? Is this (for example) anything like the $1.5 trillion USD that the US govt just gave to the richest corporations? Is it anything like the 10s of trillion in the corporate bailout in 2008? The on-going collosal subsidies to oil, weapons, privatised services etc etc? b) even if this were true... good. If they pay more tax and treat people more fairly, then the should be given preferential treatment. If they provide a structure such that society doesn't collapse in the face of job-losses due to automation, then we should be actively moving our economies to this form - which is UK Labour party policy btw. If a company changes hands (either by sale or bankruptcy), then the people that work there get first-refusal to buy and run it themselves back with a state loan carrying the same interest rates we gave to the banks. c) re: your take on tax : Oh please - grow up. Taxes are how we pay for shared infrastructure, and if corporations are using this infrastructure but not paying their share, they're robbing us. Robbing you.

@MUSTASCH1O

3 жыл бұрын

Automation should make goods cheaper to produce and reduce the workforce needed to create those goods, turning factory work into a smaller fraction of the economy like farming is today. This will free people up to pursue other ventures like providing services to the automated production e.g. software development, asset management, project management, maintenance, etc. With falling product prices more people will be able to pursue creative work, scientific work, etc. I'm not saying automation doesn't have it's risks, but it hasn't been proven yet that the "invisible hand" can't guide us through this new era in a way that benefits everyone one way or another.

The "success" of Stalin - the man who used to boast that he conquered the United States "from the plow to the atomic bomb in just a generation" - compared to Gorbachev's failure shows that a socialist economy is unable to function with a minimum of efficiency without requiring a massive dose of political violence. In an attempt to reform a decadent regime, Gorbachev moved faster with the process of economic opening in the hope of removing the predictable resistance that the Soviet bureaucracy would create to economic reform measures, as thorough proof with the failed attempt. coup d'état in August 1991 - which ended up precipitating the final crisis of socialism and the dissolution of the USSR itself Its Chinese parallel - Deng Xiaoping - adopted a logic diametrically opposed to that of Gorbachev: it prioritized the achievement of economic prosperity (adopting in practice capitalism) precisely to delay any attempt at political opening, as was evident with the acceleration of the economy. reforms after the Tiananmen Square massacre. It is important to note that it was Karl Marx himself who, in his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, discerned the scenario in which the conditions for a social revolution process are formed, describing it as follows: 'At a certain stage in its development, the material productive forces of society contradict existing production relations or - which is only their legal expression - with the property relations in which they have been active until then. From the forms of development of the productive forces, these relations are transformed into fetters of them. So, it is a time of social revolution. ' (Reproduced according to MARX, K. Preface to the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, organized by Florestan Fernandes and published under the title K. Marx: Theory and historical process of the social revolution, In Marx & Engels, Great Social Scientists Collection, History, vol. 36. São Paulo: Ática, 1983. p. 232. Commemorative edition of the centenary of Karl Marx's death) By rejecting the pursuit of profit maximization as an instrument to stimulate innovation, socialist countries ended up condemning themselves to obsolescence. Thus, they lost the chance to incorporate the productivity gains made possible by technological progress. That is why the capitalist countries managed to provide a greater rise in the standard of living of their population, even without pursuing the egalitarian ideal. Therefore, until the “final crisis of socialism” (to paraphrase K. Marx's own definitions once again), it was only a matter of time. But religious fanatics do not give up on their faith, even against the indisputable proof of the facts, which completely refute it!

except people don't have equal opportunities

ATTN: Advocates of socialism in the US: I've recently inherited some land near the beautiful Sequoia National Forest in California, and I've just been approved by the state to start a tax-free socialist commune where all power, labor, and essential goods (food, clothing, shelter) will be shared equally. We will farm the land and responsibly use natural resources. No one will be exploited. Please let me know if you'd like to join. NOTE: This invitation is only for those who truly believe capitalism is inherently corrupt and that socialism is most ideal. Anyone who merely preaches socialism but is too cowardly and lazy to actually live it out while feeding into the capitalist system is not welcome. Cheers.

@cruzergo

2 жыл бұрын

You can invite Paul Cockshott or other socialist programmers to apply their knowledge on Socialist calculation. I hope your commune will be replicated across the world.

Hummans aren't greedy, maybe in America, but outside of America, most people know that life is more than wealth.

@hipposyrup5500

3 жыл бұрын

That's not true

@i.p.7687

3 жыл бұрын

@@hipposyrup5500 how do you know?

@hipposyrup5500

3 жыл бұрын

@@i.p.7687 I live in america, everyone agrees money is overrated. Some cultures don't view people on an individual level and you could see that as less greedy. But generally humans are caring people.

The Information Problem was first postulated by Hayek in one of his publications (I believe it was The Use of Knowledge in Society), give credit where it's due!

@jmcknight00

10 жыл бұрын

It's really an extension of the Economic Calculation Problem as put forward by Ludwig von Mises.

@alexw2689

10 жыл бұрын

jmcknight00 Haha really? I thought it was originated by Hayek. Either way, it's not this dude's idea lol

@martink9218

9 жыл бұрын

Master Yoda Yeah, Mises described this problem in his essay Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth (1920). Hayek was his student. But Hayek made it more famous since he got Nobel Prize (for work he did together with Mises - on economic boom and bust cycles, which people unfortunately disregarded as well).

Aged beautifully.

Some individuals just shouldn't write books. This is one of them.

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

Doesn't matter. I can't read anyway.

If humans were perfectly peaceful and cooperative, we wouldn't need socialism. That's the situation in which we would have pure anarchy and total freedom.

@georgecataloni4720

10 жыл бұрын

You're still a slave to reality.

@bezlichnyy7675

10 жыл бұрын

Anarchy leaves society vulnerable to the first threat of violence by someone seeking to take valuables without trading. Society needs a way to protect the innocent from the evil. A person will cooperate with another person when such cooperation benefits their survival.

@karozans

10 жыл бұрын

"Socialism works only in 2 places. In heaven where they don't need it, and in hell where they already have it." --Ronald Reagan

@JaySee5

10 жыл бұрын

Bezlichnyy Good job missing the point as well as not understanding anarchy.

@bezlichnyy7675

10 жыл бұрын

JaySee5 And specifically what point did I miss in my argument? How do you know I lack understanding in concept of anarchy? What proves my lack of understanding?

READ THE CENSORED BOOK (by Harvard Press) "THE BLACK BOOK OF CAPITALISM".

@Barskor1

6 жыл бұрын

Read the Propaganda book that does not acknowledge the role of government.

Eu acho que o problema da discórdia é estético E o fato de que a maioria das pessoas que gosta de pensar não gostaria de fazer trabalho manual

I really don’t understand why he says that socialism doesnt work on a large scale. There are a lot of examples in wich socialism has worked on a very large scale. (Vietnam, USSR, China). And why would the United States be so passionate about eliminating it, if it would not work anyway.

@arnefehm4926

3 жыл бұрын

yea, this channel is a capitalist propaganda outlet i think

@Sam-ti1qo

3 жыл бұрын

@@arnefehm4926 absolutely

@arnefehm4926

3 жыл бұрын

@@Sam-ti1qo i checked, they are funded by the fossil fuel industry, so of course they are advocating for a system that destroys the planet for profit en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_Foundation#Funding_and_partners

@Sam-ti1qo

3 жыл бұрын

@@arnefehm4926 Why am i not surprised lmao

@arnefehm4926

3 жыл бұрын

@@Sam-ti1qo libertarians are either: payed by interest-groups, captalists, dishonest or just plain fucking stupid.

99% of the comment section and watchers of this video have never watched, listened to, read anything by an actual socialists. You watch capitalists tell you what socialism is and means because you don’t like to disrupt your worldview. This book “why not capitalism” is stolen from a book called “why not socialism”. If you’re gonna read this book, read the original. If you don’t understand the case for socialism, don’t let a capitalist tell you what it means. You grew up in a capitalist society you’re inundated with this nonsense. Challenge yourself. Look into things you don’t know. Because I can assure you as a former libertarian , you don’t even know what you don’t know about socialism and capitalists won’t tell you anything

@MyDomesticChiffchaff

3 жыл бұрын

The basis of socialism is very simple: workers own the means of production. So I own a small business, I employ people. In capitalism I'm the sole owner and I run my business the way I think fit, I agree salaries with my employees and if they like it they work for me. In socialism anyone who works in my business is suddenly a co-owner and they get a share of what I have built. I have no command over how much to pay people, because we have to decide it collectively, even if I was the one who started the entire thing. This is just evil.

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

@@MyDomesticChiffchaff Most socialists don't actually understand what socialism really is.

Just met this guy, he's mind fucking smart.

@1989Freakazoid

8 жыл бұрын

Keith Knight Where did you meet him? Did you have class with him?

@KeithKnightDontTreadonAnyone

6 жыл бұрын

So sorry I’m just seeing this, I met him at IHS annual retreat in AZ, I have an interview with him next week on my channel if your interested.

I identify socialist democrat which is DIFFERENT then democratic socialist (thanks Bernie). I agree with this guy that one person can not come in and fix the economy alone. Socialism is all about interconnectedness like that of the human soul but capitalism has no soul so my belief is that we need BOTH. The billionaires that plunder the earth and exploit the people have no soul and should be considered extremely dangerous. We cannot imprison them nor can we ask them to stop being sociopaths, rather we have to change the story of what the people want to do with our democracy. The descriptor is socialist and the noun is democrat. Do we take the power as the people or do we continue to bow to people with a whole of money if we know that the true value of the american dollar is that we won't blow up your country if you use this petrodollar to buy oil.

Sorry, the main reason i called him out is because he brought hipsters into his "libertarian" movement. If he actually knew what libertarian meant; he'd drop his hipster report and bring up the issue on micro city counsel levels

Lol so human nature and prices are his argument. Apparently we also can't communicate with each other.

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

Most of us can't.

"socialist planners literally don't have the information that they need to make rational economic decisions." This could probably be fixed through open scientific rigor. Human nature--I agree to an extent--cannot be fixed, but it can be hedged against.

@mateovazquez6685

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly, modern software and different technologies could solve many problems, and also areas where there could be corruption could be assigned to a program which cannot do anything else that what is assigned to do and so it's not corrupt.

@TheJefzemail

3 жыл бұрын

We are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God

@bludeuce3855

2 жыл бұрын

no it cant

@Ruby_V_

2 жыл бұрын

@@bludeuce3855 ha. lol. looking back at how much my mindset has changed over the past 7 years... where do I even start with fixing my response 😂 umm.. (1) "socialist planners" is talking about an authoritarian socialism and that's definitely shit and no tech bro algorithm magic changes that. (2) human nature. lol. what a worthlessly reductive concept. (3) lite versions of socialism emphasize worker power and workplace democracy. In this view, socialism is superior to capitalism for the exact argument that the video is presenting: more people working together to make decisions have more information than a capitalist boss just trying to maximize their exploitation.

@bludeuce3855

2 жыл бұрын

@@Ruby_V_ Capitalism is not exploitation and socialism does not work

Why is it always one extreme against another, why is it so hard for people to understand that you can't live at one extreme. In this case people should understand that neithet full capitalism nor full socialism works. A system combining the benefits of both works best. Because honestly pure capitalism will not work either, only because people are selfish, bosses would try to monopolise the market like it happened during the industrial revolution, the top bosses would pay their employees as little as possible, and that would lead to the collapse of the capitalistic system. By combining capitalism and socialism in the right ratio you get a pretty good system, providing what needs to be provided (public schools, public transport, infrastructure, protection, minimum wage, the basic stuf to provide a humane life in a society), all other things should people provide for themselves. Socialism as it is executed in Europe doesn't mean people don't have the freedom to start their own business, neither do you not have the freedom to choose for yourself, you just have higher taxes to provide a more equal opportunities for everyone. Of course taxes shouldn't be too high. That's why we should stop thinking in extremes, only somethimes the extreme lead to good decisions but most of the time this won't work for society.

@Barskor1

6 жыл бұрын

Nope you get corporatism 3000% advantage over a business who does not lobby the government.

@phiksit

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I think this guy is full of it.

@RussellNelson

5 жыл бұрын

Capitalism isn't an extreme. It's normal. Socialism is extreme, because it requires violence. Capitalism requires peace. (but not crony capitalism -- that requires war).

if we we're all good we'd choose the price mechanism all the way

4:00 the problem with capitalism is greatly shown with this strawberry analogy. If you want to make your strawberries cheaper for the consumer, then you have to reduce the cost it takes to make them. A way you can do this is by making the people who pick the strawberries work longer hours for lower wages. Thus reducing the cost to produce, and forcing other companies to do the same in order to compete with your pricing or risk going out of business.

@legalfictionnaturalfact3969

2 жыл бұрын

That is only one way to get prices down, and it is a way that if given the choice between many options as provided by a free market, people will simply drop a company that treats workers that way. They'll stop byung the produce. Then the bad company goes under and the other ones uptake both the customers and the employees. We don't have this kind of option now because we don't have a free market. We are locked into buying from a few monopolies. A good company which wants longevity decreases prices by increasing machine efficiency and thereby upping the quantities moved, thereby making cost for production per unit lower in a few ways. Another way to do this is to expand distribution area. Treating workers like garbage with no negative consequences is something that becomes more and more feasible as socialism progresses.

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

Another way to lower the cost of strawberries is to reduce or eliminate property taxes thus reducing the cost overhead of running a farm.

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

Or maybe keep production costs down by encouraging policies that lower gas and energy costs.

Wow, this guy has never read Marx in his life. Every single problem he came up with becomes invalid in the absence of a state at all.

@spleenmarty7577

8 жыл бұрын

+James Oprey ???!!!

@jamesoprey6330

8 жыл бұрын

paul piwowarski read the fucking Communist Manifesto.

@spleenmarty7577

8 жыл бұрын

+James Oprey has

@spleenmarty7577

8 жыл бұрын

+James Oprey you've never heard the phrase 'Withering away of the state'...?

@jamesoprey6330

8 жыл бұрын

For hell's sake, you do not understand that dictate of proletariat IS a state, and it IS a totalitarian state?

Can someone explain Socialist Information Problem. I get it but i don't see how it clearly hurts a massive socialist society

i thought i hated this book when i illegally downloaded it

This is the first time I hear that capitalism (maybe utopian one) endoses social justice. I thought that it was a left wing thing.

@Barskor1

6 жыл бұрын

First USA black baseball player why was he hired? One He was damned good two he cost less than a white guy.

@Ace-uc5cj

3 жыл бұрын

Barskor1 Nah it’s cause he was very good, he wasn’t in a team so they signed him.

@sorzin2289

2 жыл бұрын

It doesn't. It's just lazy cooptation. For a system that supposedly doesn't work, Capitalists sure are keen in stealing its rhetoric, slogans and symbols.

I'm confused by his logic early in the video he insists that under socialism everything must be done by a group but that's not true, as long as you aren't exploiting anyone by working by yourself and I don't know how you could do that who would actually care? and his second point is that planned economies don't work but if you look into how planned economies have functioned in reality like in Chile (before Pinochet), and/or how intentional communities function you can understand how it will work. if you want a read I would recommend "why socialism" by Albert Einstein (yes that Einstein).

@Barskor1

6 жыл бұрын

If it is ok to do something as an individual why should that change if two or more people cooperate? Bob has a shovel and a pick he sells ditch digging services He can run a business but can't add Steve? Steve who has nether tools wants a job as Steve only brings his labor to the equation he gets less of the profits than Bob who has the tools digs and manages to find new customers. Perfectly equitable arrangement if the values of what each brings are truly assessed. Planned economies do work for a while till the effects of incomplete information pile up and wreck them. Einstein being good at one thing does not mean you are good at others.

@bevanwilson6969

2 жыл бұрын

are you saying we should support giving the majority of our money to the government, which is socialism?

@RoopertThePoopert27

2 жыл бұрын

@@bevanwilson6969 king, this comment was four years ago and I’m not a socialist anymore. I really recommend googling the topic though because I think you might be misinformed on what socialism is and a better and more nuanced understanding of people you disagree with is always helpful.

Mutualism seems cool

Very simple thinking. Forget socialism, let's not pretend we know the answer to the question: what's after capitalism. All we need to focus on is whether capitalism is sustainable. It's not. If you still think it is, then you're living in an ideological bubble. We need to invent a new system that is able to sustain us in the long run or we will collapse.

@martink9218

9 жыл бұрын

Be my guest with inventing new social system, but please, try it only on volunteers, not the whole population.

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

Capitalism is sustainable. Humans are not.

remain skepitcal people

I'm getting big "socialism is when the government does stuff" vibes

@GameByGame

2 жыл бұрын

Socialism is when government/another social entity exercises control over production. Any form of spending money is influencing and exercising control over production. So yes, socialism is when the government does stuff.

the term socialism is redundant

It's better for those who want to make rich pro not for the middle or lower class will try to convince you anyway why they want to have power but they don't care about human life just cares about having a full pocket

A lot of the "good capitalism" he describes is either socialism or a reformed capitalism. Also "society is not a race" is inaccurate because that's EXACTLY what capitalism turns society into. Finally, I'm interested to know what societies those trust polls come from. Scandinavia has high trust and they mix socialism and capitalism, whereas a lot of "tribal" societies have high levels of corruption and injustice that capitalism exploits for the benefit of the wealthier people in that society or wealthier countries that exploit those societies.

"Democracy is good, except in the workplace" - Capitalists

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

You obviously understand neither democracy nor capitalism.

@soconfused8031

2 жыл бұрын

@@DCBChump go on...

There is no either/or. We run a mixed economy. You can't have pure capitalism or pure communism in the real world.

for all viewers... look up the "law of value" and "mode of production "

6:24 "people from traditional societies,..., and from socialist societies are not nice." Not a very rational conclusion.

@alexdelagrange2140

8 жыл бұрын

+Hans Coessens He's basing that off the game. It's a pretty rational conclusion given the moral bankruptcy of those particular societies. I'm pretty sure he isn't saying everyone, but the majority.

@bluewater454

8 жыл бұрын

+Hans Coessens He was simply stating the observations made by the maker of a game. It was obviously more of an anectotal observation, not a scientific one. It does seem to be true, however, that socialists tend to have a need for economic mass conformity, rather than economic diversity. Freedom is too messy. It cant be controlled as easily. I have found in my own life that those who have a need to control others are not very "nice" about it when you tell them to mind their own business.

@jani0077

7 жыл бұрын

my country was a socialist one, and it perfectly fits on us what he said, 100%.

@Andreas-tq7it

6 жыл бұрын

It not rational and it is not correct. I reacted to that statement too. It demonstrates his devotion to ideology and makes his whole proposal very weak.

Argument surmised, "Socialists are not nice!"

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

Well, they aren't.

Ok, so people are bad, and that has nothing to do with the social attitude of greed over all else. Woh woh hold up now. Looking for my comrades.

Because its not one more body away from utopia.

Private property = freedom

@benmiddleton9984

6 жыл бұрын

Harj 7 POWH3D living with less= true freedom

@user-yn3lu3ve1z

6 жыл бұрын

Not living = achieved absolute entropy

@robynjosephinethebrocialis2311

5 жыл бұрын

Private property=People voting against their own interests because they think the words "freedom" and "liberty" are substitutes for the reality of capitalism's failures.

@user-yn3lu3ve1z

5 жыл бұрын

Robyn Josephine The Brocialist Capitalist failures?

@SeptimusPrime

5 жыл бұрын

You don't own your property, you money owns you which is the very thing you are controlled by.

I’m 14 and probably one of the last actual intelligent people of Gen Z.

@user-wy1ys8xf6l

3 жыл бұрын

@Boe Jiden yeah I support Capitalism

@user-wy1ys8xf6l

3 жыл бұрын

@Boe Jiden are you for capitalism? It’s cool if you’re not.

@user-wy1ys8xf6l

3 жыл бұрын

@Boe Jiden I 100% agree. No government system can be perfect

@user-wy1ys8xf6l

3 жыл бұрын

@Boe Jiden I think everybody can become successful but I don’t think everyone will become successful (financially successful). I believe success comes from mindset and not how or where or when you were born.

@user-wy1ys8xf6l

3 жыл бұрын

@Boe Jiden yeah exactly, they have no idea how finance works. I too don’t agree in a world where the rich rule everything, I just think people should show respect to these private ownerships because they’re the ones helping you pay taxes and everything but people still consider that inequality because they don’t want the rich making profit.

Yes

I stopped at 2:00 min mark when he spoke about Privacy. It told me right away that this man knows nothing

Getting recommended this as we are headed towards climate disaster feels like a knife to my chest

@christiansoldier77

2 жыл бұрын

Maxine 28Ve You fool . There is no such thing as climate disaster. It's just a hoax to get you to give up your freedom

@BifronsCandle

2 жыл бұрын

They’re getting more desperate. Almost feels good.

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

We are not heading towards a climate disaster.

"Market societies" =/= Capitalism literally look up the term "market socialism"

@randominternetguy1499

4 жыл бұрын

hellllll yeah! i truly believe that market socialism is the best economic system.

@verycoolguy3457

3 жыл бұрын

Because that worked so well in Yugoslavia.

I feel like Brenna is conflating socialism with a command economy. This happens a lot in the USA.

@MilwaukeeF40C

10 жыл бұрын

Socialism and command economics are the same kind of collectivist thinking. Therefor, nobody gives a fuck that some people think that "socialism" is something slightly different from a command economy.

@Cheedillow

10 жыл бұрын

Bushrod Rust Johnson My point exactly.

@Barskor1

6 жыл бұрын

Your non-point exactly.

I see countless mainstream articles and discussions like this, and some valid points are made, but the prescriptions are simply shaky and unproven. I always think to myself... has ANYONE fucking heard of Libertarian Socialism before?? It never gets mentioned and, yet, it basically covers all the concerns laid out by BOTH statist-Socialists as well as Capitalists (of any stripe). Capitalism, organized religion, and the state are destined to die off, likely by their own "hands". The way forward is localized, egalitarian, non-hierarchical, open-source, and not rooted in structures of authority or private ownership and wealth accumulation.

@Barskor1

6 жыл бұрын

Libertarian Socialism It is an oxymoron aka Freedom Slavery so why talk about it? Capitalism is not dying off Government cronyism using fiat currency is dying off.

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

There is no such thing as libertarian socialism. Anyone who claims they are is lying. The two ideologies are so opposed that they can't coexist.

This interview was disappointing.

All these social, economic and political theories to me all have positive and negative sides. What makes them fail is not their concepts but human interpretation and greed. We all have witnessed and are still witnessing how capitalism has failed USA in many different ways and in many occassions throughout history. Now that America is in the brink of collapse they (the champions of capitalsm) are now disrupting nations who still incorporate a little bit of socialism in there society i.e. scandinavian countries and other parts of Europe. It is really hard to stomach the concept of capitalism when we see it everywhere destroying the working class. I noticed that nations who adopted both capitalism where it is necessary and socialism where it is neseccary in there society are more progressive and secure hence, they are the most peaceful and prosperous of all nations.

Any business with a budget knows that what actually occurs doesn't match what was forecast to occur. This is why a central planning department of a socialist regime can never manage an economy effectively. It causes under and over production problems which the market mechanism in capitalism is far better at regulating away. Socialism also ignores human nature. It was created in the scientific method era where scientists expect human beings to behave as machines. Unfortunately unlike robots we have psychological needs and those get satisfied far more effectively in a capitalist society. Hence motivation levels amongst society are a lot higher under capitalism than socialism.

I see a whole lot of confusion between socialism and communism.

@Barskor1

6 жыл бұрын

Vladimir Lenin The goal of Socialism is Communism!" Gee, I wonder where the confusion came from?

@phiksit

6 жыл бұрын

Social Democracies are consistently rated as having the happiest citizens.

@MarkelBeverley

2 жыл бұрын

@@phiksit thats not true

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

@@phiksit There is no such thing.

This is a weird smear piece with a thin veil of "reason"

@daleiverson6822

3 жыл бұрын

Why is socialism better?

@jotarobat

3 жыл бұрын

@@daleiverson6822 kzread.info/dash/bejne/nqlszrOEhsbIf9Y.html

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

@@daleiverson6822 It's not.

He literally doesnt even know what socialism means 🤦‍♂️

@amazingspiderfatty7375

3 жыл бұрын

7:52 He gives a simple run down of the definition of socialism. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Maybe, you are the one who does not know what it means.

@soytube1151

3 жыл бұрын

and most socialists dont even know themselves sounds like u r one of them

@amazingspiderfatty7375

3 жыл бұрын

@@soytube1151 You should rephrase that sentence to make sense so I can properly understand what you are trying to say.

@justkillitho4528

3 жыл бұрын

Idiot

@Paul-ly5ht

3 жыл бұрын

TikTok Poggers and where are these people? Socialism boiled down to its simplest definition is just democratization of the workplace. Workers have more say so in regards to benefits, who the ceo is, who sits on the board, voting for if anyone should be laid off. Power in the hands of the many and not the few

A good economy balances capitalism and socialism

@Barskor1

6 жыл бұрын

No, socialism wants to be Charity only they use a gun so it is just theft. They claim to be altruistic yet gain material benefits.

Because you're not so tough without your money, that's problem right there, don't feed the corporate pig.

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

You do realize that when you replace the corporation with government, you end up with the same abuse.

it worries me when people are so mad about the for over-taxing the middle class, instead of getting mad at the government for applying those taxes. they start to think the government will help them by over-taxing the rich. wanna help the middle class? stop taxing everyone and getting the politicians even more rich

@Conman2541

3 жыл бұрын

your boy tom thinks that taxes are the reason politicians get rich lmao

@yourboytomTV

3 жыл бұрын

@@Conman2541 im not saying its taxes getting politicians rich. i think people are getting taxed too much and the government is shifting the blame on the rich instead of relaxing on taxes

@Conman2541

3 жыл бұрын

@@yourboytomTV hey Tom how much do u pay for health insurance? Rent? How much of your real wage declines over time because avg wage doesn't rise with cost of living? Do you have any issues with paying these things? If you don't, you are not the average American, especially right now

@yourboytomTV

3 жыл бұрын

@@Conman2541 looking at states like the west coast and comparing them to more southern states the taxes and living expenses are much higher in the West coast

@Conman2541

3 жыл бұрын

@@yourboytomTV cost of living should always be compared to real wage in these areas. Western states like Cali, Oregon, and Washington have high costs of living along with high real wages ("real wage" means what ur wage can actually buy in the area where u live) Southern states might have lower state income or property tax rates (tho this isn't always the case, and low property tax rate doesn't mean the *average* resident is getting the benefit), but they also have some of the lowest wages in the country. But this is all besides my point, because I believe that in both cases ("red" and "blue" states) the bourgeoisie is screwing everybody about the same. It's not primarily thru taxes, it's thru the mechanisms that I mention in my previous response

millions of deaths per year as a result of capitalism and propertarianism. capitalism is great for the property holding class, and voluntary. it is not a voluntary system for the non-property holders. land became private property only through state action... through the enclosure laws, meant to create a class of people isolated from the natural world with NO CHOICE but to submit to the property holders and pay rents and work as wage laborers. the intent of land as private property was specifically in order to turn formerly independent people into servants for those connected people who were issued land title. your free markets are inherently sociopathic... even the act of selling a sandwich is a sociopathic act, and your excuse for rents and wage labor being voluntary is a false claim.

@paulsiebenthal7133

8 жыл бұрын

+seth vanhaelst 22,000 children die per day due to poverty (UNESCO) poverty is forceful exclusion from land... because of private property... unable to plant food or build a home

@paulsiebenthal7133

8 жыл бұрын

+seth vanhaelst I used to be an AnCap. the basis of their claim that private hierarchical systems are voluntary are ultimately based upon the issue of private property, which they fail to show as a voluntary arrangement, and never understand the history behind it's creation.

@paulsiebenthal7133

8 жыл бұрын

+seth vanhaelst also, basic market exchange is sociopathic

@paulsiebenthal7133

8 жыл бұрын

Can you describe the difference between Bakunin and Marx? Do you understand the difference between Anarchism and state socialism or state communism? AnCaps typically criticize state socialism as a proxy argument against Anarchist socialism without any understanding about how it differs

@paulsiebenthal7133

8 жыл бұрын

Anarchism is voluntary association and gift economy... not state managed production and distribution

He said Socialism countless times but didn’t mention unions, cooperatives, or democracy. Who the fuck hired this guy at Georgetown?

Another trickle down on my leg supporter. Democratic socialism is a very simple concept, entirely separate from Marxism. In a Democratic Socialist society, the government uses the taxes collected from the citizens, and uses them to benefit the masses. There are five primary costs, six if you include the military. Health, Education, Housing, Food, and the ect. (Parks, roads, various other small government services, environmental protections.) A governments job is to take care of their people. If the people are starving, homeless, uneducated or unable to afford healthcare, that government has failed and needs to change. America fails to meet every single one of the primary areas.

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

everything you said is wrong.

the great thing about capitalism is it takes advantage of human tendencies and our very nature...we want to do what is best for ourselves and our families and in capitalism even if you are greedy you still help others without the intention or desire to help others, if i have a starbucks i have to give the best prices and service to get money, i have to compete with other companies and brands but under socialism this isnt the case capitalism is where the people own most means of production communism is where the government owns almost all means of production socialism is where the government owns the main things and the people own the small things(healthcare) while socialism is just less severe communism it leads to communism and the longer we are socialistic in any way shape or form the greater the odds we will turn communist and fail as a nation

capitalism - funding all other isms since man existed

My utopia is a kibbutz for hotties.

Look at all these twitter minors and wannabe tankies in this comment section. Socialism cannot exist without capitalism. Learn it.

Ahhhh. I can see that you dont understand socialism.

@phiksit

6 жыл бұрын

The only ones conflating the desire to convert to a purely socialist society are right wing loonies who refuse to acknowledge that SOCIAL DEMOCRACIES all around the world are successful and doing just fine.

@RussellNelson

5 жыл бұрын

What part of socialism do you not understand?

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

Do you understand it?

@andrewconner9672

2 жыл бұрын

@@DCBChump I do

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

@@andrewconner9672 Glad to hear that.

Long live communism and freedom

@DCBChump

2 жыл бұрын

Can't have both.

@maxmillianwiegel1643

2 ай бұрын

Those two things have not been done simultaneously in the same country -Sincerely, a Macedonian.

Brennan RULED the FEE immigration debate Sunday. Well done, man.

Socialism only works in very small groups where social pressure (or in worst case, banishment) can be brought to bear. A family is such a group. So are small tribes, but once the tribe gets bigger than 100 people or so and people stop having personal relationships with every other tribe member...when people can sneak stuff by without anyone noticing...things fall apart and you either have to split into two tribes or become capitalist.

@bezlichnyy7675

10 жыл бұрын

If you believe that so much why aren't you living in such an arrangement? Group comes first there is no individual members. Capitalist don't steal they trade or exchange values for values.

@blurglide

10 жыл бұрын

I DO live in a family, and it's to each according to their need and from each according to their ability WITHIN the family. What's wrong with that? I'm just saying that only works with people you have a close, personal relationship with- not with strangers. What about that do you disagree with? There are too many people these days to live in a tribe unless you move to the amazon or something, and I appreciate my modern amenities, so I'm a capitalist outside of my family.

@bezlichnyy7675

10 жыл бұрын

blurglide Look your parents or whatever familial relation agreeing to support you is not socialism. Taking care of dependents is a responsibility. If you are capable of supporting yourself without family assistance then you should do so independently or pay rent to relatives if it is a financial burden while you still living with them. Socialism is not a matter of a difference of opinion, it is detrimental to the survival of human life.

@blurglide

10 жыл бұрын

Special pleading- it's still an economic arrangement. Plus, you can put your dependents up for adoption. For most of human time until the development of agriculture, people lived in relatively small extended families called "tribes". They were nomadic and had little property. "Socialism" works in such a society because social pressure can be brought to bear. It does not work in a large faceless society.

@bezlichnyy7675

10 жыл бұрын

blurglide While I understand your point that socialism will work on a small scale, your reasoning is wrong. I will illustrate with an analogy about arsenic. Arsenic is a poision in small quanities it will not kill you, but if ingested enough over time the person will die. Socialism like arsenic in small quantities will not cause immediate harm, but in the long run it will. Socialism stunts a person's ability to survive independently by being dependent on a provider. In cases where the providers are decease or unable to support or do not exist the dependent will have to support themselves. The ability to survive and self-preservation are a person's most important action in life, therefore any chosen action that impairs this jeopardizes that person's life. Once a person reaches maturity--adulthood, they are responsible for supporting themselves. At this point it is optional for family or relatives to continue supporting an adult. In order for socialism to exist it depends on another person. In absence of another person the dependent will at first be helpless, the dependent wil try to look for another person, be it a socialist government or another provider but rarely seek out their own effort to survive in such a case they perish.