Does Marx's critique of capitalism still hold? Leave your thoughts in the comments. To watch the full debate, head to iai.tv/video/marxism-vs-capitalism?UA-cam&
Capitalism is Farsi word "کار پولیست kaare-pooli-ast" which means Work for Money/compensation or paid job. In the old time everyone belonged to a community and worked for the community and not for another person. Marxisem is the opinion of one British man called Mark, it is not a common social, political or economical system. Mark is just the face behind a workers unrest created by Brits to destroy the Russian/Eastern factories by sabotaging their operations using workers. Opposite to Capitalism is Communism and not marxism which is just a book and an opinion.
Marx's critique of capital is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it. All that has happened is the quantities have changed. The relations are the same.
"All that has happened is the quantities have changed. The relations are the same." - Sorry, but that's not all that happened; the number of real-world examples to be given in support of that critique has multiplied exponentially as well... 😊
As someone with an academic background in history myself, I find it bizarre Matthew would attribute the development and creation of some of the 20th century's most transformative technologies to the private sector Jet planes, magnetic tape recordings, early computers, telecommunications all primarily developed under states during ww2 were later produced and adapted as consumer goods. Aaron's response regarding it being taxpayer funded was also wrong. The US government simply created the dollars necessary to conduct the war effort. The whole approach to free market ideology is really flat earth stuff. State's have always existed, and there's no market out there that doesn't have some form of regulation regardless of it's effectiveness.
When Universities were tuition free and when there was massive public investment in the sciences and when the marginal tax rate in the USA was over 90%.
They are essentially taxpayer funded because the burden is on the working class to offset that and deal with it's consequences. If cost of living increases by 10% that's a higher cut of a working class person's than the wealthy who it will not even make a dent on their budget. The bigger capitalists can weather the storm and then scoop up assests and wealth of the smaller capitalists and make themselves bigger. This is essentially what happens in every capitalist country. Monopoly is inevitible.
It is well known that public funding and public institutions have always been essential for innovation. Whether the government uses taxes or monetary expansion for that is just a technicality with FIAT money. The risks are carried by the public and it is true that for many public investments the profits eventually go to just a small group shareholders.
@@regpharvey "You'd like to believe that profit and the public good are fundamentally opposed to each other" - They are. Both by definition, and by direct observation. No apologist can even dream to change this reality...
One thing is certain: Capitalism does not provide a good standard of living for most of the people. It only does so for a small minority of the population. 80% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
The standard of living of those 80% living pay to pay check in America is still better off than 80% of the world. Secondly, you claimed that it only does for the small minority, but yet America has the biggest and strongest middle class of any country. US takes in more immigrants per year than all of the EU combine including some Asian countries. Yet by and large most are able to lift themselves out of poverty into the middle class. You cant show me one country in last 150 years that can do what American capitalism did for the average person.
@@mostlysunny582 you've raised a very good point. The United states are the winners of world capitalism, the other 80% has suffered immensely for it. It's a capitalist world
2:25 my main complaint with capitalism is that everything is monopolized by some corporation and is therefore not competitive because they create cost/price gaps for out of control profit margins -then they can afford to undercut independent businesses for marketshare or enslaving you to their sales platform. Where you are sold more shite every step of the way to checkout.
yeah seriously! the 'self correcting free market' that capitalist ideologues love to prop up hasn't panned out has it? Not that I ever believed that they meant it in earnest. Too easy to buy out politicians, or even entire political parties, offshore jobs, and pay the paltry fine if they do ever get slapped on the wrist for their crimes.
@@mostlysunny582 there is absolute monopolization but it just accepts the fact that any rational successful enterprise trends in this direction. its an unavoidable end of competition, some one eventually wins. this lasts perpetually until it falls apart or is taken apart and then immediately as it does so, the drive in that direction begins again. socialism or communism seeks to instantiate that monopoly and make it democratic/public rather than have it be a private possession ( in regards to whether it succeeds or fails is another question)
Natural monopolies are capitalist but today there are few natural monopolies...Apple at most. The rest is state capitalism like China, where the state puts up too many barriers to entry for a company and so large companies do what they want and can pay a lot of taxes.
@@cazzac4817 Of course every enterprise wants to trend in that direction that is their nature and interest to do so. No one is arguing that. The argument here is that socialism and communism has never been able to place that monopolization into the hands of the public nor democratic. Not once has it provided any good anywhere, and that is a fact. Practicality is its main issue when it comes to socialism and communism. Sounds good in theory, but is a tragedy in practice. Free markets capitalism is extremely flexible and practical. There is more freedom and power for the consumer because free market capitalism allows its participants the freedom to choose. The power lies within your wallet. It provides avenues for it participants counter monopolization. Secondly, big government is by far the biggest creator of monopolies. The further a particular economy moves away from free market capitalistic principles then more monopolies arises. You have to be extremely irrational to even consider allowing the government to take control of the means of production. Time to wake up from your theoretical utopia my friend.
So here's the thing. If capitalism actually worked, and was beneficial to any society or country, nobody would be talking about socialism, Marxism or communism
I would start these sorts of discussions with the following questions: - What values and principles guide your position on social policy and economics? - When and how were you at your most financially vulnerable? - What is unacceptable? - What are your fears and concerns regarding the other(s) speaker(s) proposition(s)? After that I can actually understand what people mean when they say things like "everyone", "together", "productive", "common sense", "what's best", etc.
Indeed he just goes straight on the attack before the debate has even started, he even lied about how long capitalism has been around for. I'm only 2 minutes in and I came to the comments to see if I wasn't the only one who noticed. I suspect the rest of the debate will be the capitalist guy just shouting down Bastani all the way through instead of letting him speak.
As a society we are trying out to different ideologies to build the society. Which one is perfect? I guess there's no right answer. But reasoning and rationality will get us there one day. So let's keep trying and hv mindful discussions about it.
The answer is obvious, capitalism is the one that works the most, it is not perfect. In Latin America many are socialists and they are increasingly becoming socialists in Africa where communist politicians or religious fanatics govern.
So far no economic system has lifted more people out of poverty than free market capitalism. We're not trying for perfect, but instead for the best and most practical method available.
@@mostlysunny582 No that's a lie. The WorldBank defines poverty as earning below $1.90 a day but the UN disputes that as it's not enough to get basic nutrition and average life expenctancy so they think the more realistic number is somewhere between $7.40 so poverty has actually gone up in the last 4 decades but the proportion has gone down. And the reason for that going down is mostly because of China's poverty allevation campaign which was done through state planning and spending and their poverty line is set at $5.50 which is higher than WorldBank's. This doesn't mean that poverty is no longer but absolute poverty is basically rooted out. Unless you think China is a capitalist country to which then I'd say okay so why don't other capitalists country do what China did?
@@hotto5150 the world bank is defines poverty as 1.80 a day. Haha in America poverty is making under 20k a year. The people that lives in poverty in america is still more well off then most of the world. Thanks for proving my point.
When was Adam Smith born? Taking a longer view than the entire history of the Anglo Saxons(say more than 2,000 years) , it was India and China which took turns being number one in the global economy.
@@tanvirupakula476 I think it's because to understand a system you have to be able to critique it and understand it's limitations, unfortunately capitalism just is realism ATM, so most proponents don't even know how to think outside capitalist thinking and imagine post capitalism (even if that isn't communism or whatever)
Take fossil fuels out of the equation and all these great gains would have been impossible, it's the air we breath but still talk as if it was merely supplemental, the true drivers being either labour or entrepreneural dynamism of capitalism. The foreseeable future, if such there is, will be dictated by that fact. No one and nowhere will escape.
Someone needs to explain to captalist that it is not everyone's difinition of happenes is conspicuous consumption. And most of us are actually misrable because of this difinition included him when he tries to escape the reasonable explanation and protect his ridiculos ideas .. When you live in a country where your electrical train comes exactly on time , no traffic , and public transportation can take you any where, no homeless in the street , you have good and afordable health care and free education where most of the citizens are well educated , no wars every other day , no corruption , goverments decouple economy and enviroment . You are really happy !
The problem with sociology and history is that people knowledgeable in these fields have no idea about how hard it is to predict a three body system and still they are predicting the future or formulate the history. Prediction of future or formulation of history is an absolute illusion.
Agree compleley, and I would add more deeply that the ego behind the concept that either of these systems will solve things is also the one that will presses the clever and agressive to rise to power in any system and oppress, whether "Brave New World" style or "1984/Animal Farm" style. However, per the wise vladdumitrica849 below (for none are so wise as the experienced), if push comes to shove, I'll take Aldous Huxley's dystopia over George Orwell's, hands down. One thing further on Marxism -- it led to Hitler exactly because it pretended that egoism didn't cross economic class lines. No, no one naturally (especially when you substitute religion for relative morality or a random dialectic materialism) wants to "work according to their ability and take according to their need -- unless with a gun pointed to their head. So comes along Hitler and says, socialism is for families, and we "Aryans" are a family. However, we should be the ruling family -- the oligarchy (of vladdumitrica849 observation below). Things have just accelerated today, for with the 21st century mythology Woke, we go immediately to race-based oligarchy that completely ignores the capitalist concerns (at least in theory) of individual effort and merit, and the socialist concerns (at least in theory) of economic hardship irrespective of noneconomic group identity.
Never, ever... ever... in all my years have I heard a lecturer/professor talk about how their work points to a direct understanding/prediction of the future. Never, ever, ever have I seen a history lecturer/tutor scold a student for not applying their historical research to contemporary events... let alone future events! They are warned to extract all such thoughts from their minds at the start of almost any history degree. The vast vast vast majority of professional historians spend their ENTIRE time warning people about the problems of anachronism, and how "the past is another country", and how it should not be treated as if it is immediately amenable to our present day judgements or valuations. And as for the suggestion that the problems of history are somehow mappable to the "three-body problem" ... this appears only to demonstrate that your own understanding of what goes on in the field of human historical research is very very confused.
@@Hic_Rhodus thanks for pointing it out. I could see that I wasn't able to be clear enough. What I was trying to say was that no one can predict the future or formulate the past.
@@elliotpines6225 imagine blaming socialism for the rise of hitler, and not the capitalists and corporations who funded him and benefitted from his policies
Marxism ftw. Can’t believe I’m hearing “Marxism has always failed” in a debate of this caliber. If Marx is so wrong in his assessment of capitalism’s shortcomings, why aren’t Americans allowed to learn about him in school? Shouldn’t we understand the ideology with the most historically popular and coherent criticism of our own system?
The fact people say "Marxism has always failed" alone tells me they're not worth listening to. Marxism is a critique of capitalism, it's a lens of analysis - predicts with near perfect accuracy the contradictions we see today lmao.
We gotta remember the good intentions of Marxist philosophy, maintain the flexibility of capitalism, move beyond both and find something that is better than the two. We can’t keep having the same old argument while Earth is extracted from faster than her ability to regenerate.
Very insightful I'm more of Aaron bastani point of view with a twist if capitalism it's been for a long time and is not working fully or properly we may try other options like Marxism and see if it benefits society as a whole
If an endorsement of central planning is at the core of Marx’s critique of capitalism then why did he forget to mention it in his 3,000 page critique of capitalism?
Socialism requires central planning because socialism requires the total buy-in of all people, and that requires state planning and an autocratic leadership to ensure everybody is onside.
I'm from Romania and there was a joke circulating before 1989... "Question... at Radio Yerevan, what is the difference between a capitalist society and a socialist one?! Answer: in a capitalist society man exploits the man, in socialism is the other way around."
Because I lived in a communist country, I can say that it was only a form of oligarchy, just like the other capitalist countries, but the conditions are much worse because in communism everything belongs to the state, so the power can control your income more strongly and because the communist ideology wanted to control your private life as well. Otherwise there are no differences, in communism the oligarchs had hospitals, private shops, in capitalism those with money, i.e. the capitalist oligarchy, have access to luxury hospitals, treatments that normal citizens do not have access to, shops to which only they have access because they are very expensive etc.
Thank you! We need people like you that actiually live(d) in a communist country to tell these students that only know there books oh so well that Marxism and everything close to it is a dumb and even dangerous ideology.
Capitalism is Farsi word "کار پولیست kaare-pooli-ast" which means Work for Money/compensation or paid job. In the old time everyone belonged to a community and worked for the community and not for another person. Marxisem is the opinion of one British man called Mark, it is not a common social, political or economical system. Mark is just the face behind a workers unrest created by Brits to destroy the Russian/Eastern factories by sabotaging their operations using workers. Opposite to Capitalism is Communism and not marxism which is just a book and an opinion.
You are missing the main and most important difference. Its is the opportunity that free market society provides for the average person to one day be able to have access or even own those things. I cant say the same for the average person in a communist society. Opportunity is the key difference.
@@mostlysunny582 Yeah bro I'm sure the average person wants an opportunity to have their basic needs met and a comfortable like ONE DAY whereas communist society tries to fulfill these needs as a given so that people have more time to enjoy their lives and do things they want to do not work 50 hours a week just to make ends meet.
@@hotto5150 the average person in a capitalistic society not only has the best opportunity to get those basic things and more, but also the best opportunity to advance even further up the social status. Secondly, you claimed that a communist society can provides those basic needs. I challenge you to give me examples in modern history where a communist state was able to do exactly what you claimed it can do. We been stacking piles of dead bodies from communist rule within the last 100 years let alone claiming they can provide basic needs. You just talking nonsense at this point to be honest with you.
Do you really think a debate of the values of to competing extremist economic philosophies is helpful ? Both ideologies have been proven not to work. Both lead to economic inequalities and stagnation for different reasons and we all know it. Why not debate New Deal capitalism and Democratic Socialism? You know stuff proven to work , granted both needing constant tweaking but that at least they are more adaptable than rigid ideological orthodoxy. You waste your time defending economic ideas that don’t work. Find ones that do.
Finland and Sweden are not Marxist, they are mixed economies. They have enough capitalism to be successful, but taxes are high to pay for their public services. The Marxist talks about 2007/08. He should realize that those economic busts are caused by state intervention - the whole thing can be traced back to State policies distorting the markets (including enforced low interest rates). The same goes for the housing crisis, entirely created by bureaucrats. Keep bureaucrats out of our lives, please! I find it incredible that there are still people like Aaron around who hold to this idea that Marxism can work. I also note how smug he looks - I believe this guy lives in his own theoretical world and has never ever run a business or been close to running one. He should debate Yaron Brook.
As we look around us at a world that will quite soon be unfit to live in thanks to the results of rampant capitalism, I find it shocking that people can still see it as a viable path forward in this late stage. The neoliberal worldview is sociopathic.
Just the kind of uneducated and misinformed responses I'd expect from socialists who can never ever point to one success of Marxism, but can only make strawmen arguments against capitalism.
@@johnrowell3583 I suggest the excellent book The Jakarta Method. It very well lays out the reasons why there have been no successful Marxist governments. Spoiler alert: the US has been obsessed with squashed any developing socialist and communist parties around the world to serve their own greedy interests, most often replacing leftist leaders with right wing dictators. Your argument is akin to stating we should never elect a woman to be president of the US because there has never been a successful woman president of the US. McCarthyism really did a number on y'all, sheesh!
@@johnrowell3583The marxist also claimed Denmark to be marxist ("except for their immigration policies") lol. Here he shows that he is just anti white. I bet he is jewish.
The reality is that neither of these 19th century ideas is fit for the 21st century. Capitalism and markets are to reliant on simulation theory in economics and communism is reliant on production based around capitalist markets neither can operate or exist to maximise potentials. In an age of ideas a new idea is required.
What do you mean neither fits the 21 century? Principles of free market capitalism are timeless because it is predicated on the freedom of the individual to dictate the choices they make according to their self interest. It is practical now and will continue to be practical until the end of time. Communism on the other hand is not practical ever.
Aaron argues that Marxists predicted the 2008 crash. However, so did the Austrian economists. Even a broken clock is correct, twice per day. For what it's worth I have an interest in economics in general, I'm not defending either school of thought.
Karl Marx was literally an economist? It isn't Marxism vs Economics, Marxism is a school of economic thought in the same way Keynes is. I have an economics degree and I'm a marxist, these things are not in opposition to one another, I'd actually argue the more I learnt about the way economies worked the more left wing my thinking became.
@@mostlysunny582 I was making a joke big boy. saying the case is closed doesn't make it so. All states operate on a pseudo socialistic( central banking welfarism, market controls anti trust regulations environmental regulation etc) basis in the 21st century. They just do it for corporate ends. the largest corporations also centrally plan it's just necessary when you get to a certain scale. I would argue history tells quite a different story. It's obviously not communism in the narrow definitive sense but it is socialistic.
@@mostlysunny582 your argument is about as cool and smart as "By looking at the data on US presidents, we can see that they are all white men, therefore nobody who doesn't fit this description could possibly do the job" When people point to failed states to prove a point.. ugh where to begin. It's about as disingenuous as saying "Democracy could ObVioUsLy never work! I mean how's it working out for Democratic People's Republic of Korea and The Democratic Republic of the Congo!?" If you're actually curious to know why Socialism has not thrived (aside from the scandinavian democratic socialist countries that have adopted many marxist economic strategies) I suggest reading The Jakarta Method. A very well researched document that delves into the dark history of the US's meddling and squashing even the tiniest burgeoning worker movements across the globe as a means to control markets and gain power.
@@mostlysunny582 The fact you used the phrase "100 years of objective data" to justify your opinion tells me just how unqualified you are to speak on this. Finland is thriving and has policies Marxists desperately want to copy in the west. Using communist dictatorships as some sort of gottcha isn't the slam dunk you think it is, and one look at the average American's standard of living over the last decades should tell you where capitalism is going
There is too much emotion here, like they are fighting to breathe. The world needs more dispassionate and calm intelligence, ideological idealism replaced by real idealism which is love of humanity and life, not love of money and militarism.
My God. Marxism is by far one of the most scientific point of view on the socioeconomic reality. It has revolutionized all the social sciences (at least in Europe). What are you talking about?!
I would argue that Capitalism is the lack of a system. In its purest form, it requires no central planning. It only requires people to act freely, exchanging ideas and goods in a competitive market place. Of course we don't have anything like pure capitalism. Instead we have mixed economies of Markets and central planning. Some socialists make the mistake of thinking that redistribution of wealth is somehow Socialism, and so they point to countries like Sweden. Instead, redistribution of wealth is simply left wing politics.
Redistribution of wealth along with the Welfare State ARE NOT capitalist policies. They were implented by socialist and communist consensus. By the way, the best democracies in the world are the ones with the best WELFARE STATE. In Vienna there's a great tradition of popular housing, and in one of the great socialist buildings there's a statue of Karl Marx!!
@@sgtpprrus a weak definition. If you want to be analytic you need to adequately differentiate the tendencies. Marx did so. He never used the term "capitalism" but "capitalist mode of production", fully aware that it was a tendency always in tension with other tendencies (slavery, feudal, agrarian, socialist,...). If we equate: capitalist mode: - commodification; - private ownership of the means of production; - strict separation between those who have to sell (as juridically free subjects) their labour force on the market, and those who have not; - infinite and privatized accumulation of wealth starting from the first three points, in the spheres of production, circulation and financial speculation on goods and services. Then the logic of regulation, redistribution, socialization (e.g. popular housing, nationalisation of strategic economic sectors, free education and healthcare) is intrinsically socialist, not at all in line with the internest of (as we say nowadays) Big Capital.
The steroid looking guy is steaming mad, look at his eyes… and worse he’s taking notes like he’s Karen getting ready to take you down 😂. We can do capitalism if there’s a universal standard of living and human rights. Like clean water, housing, food, education/internet/tech devices, electricity.
You are referring to policies that were implented by socialist parties in the socialdemocratic Europe. So again: policies against the pure deregulated financial capitalism that we have now.
Steroid looking guy? XD Aaron isnt that big, hes muscly but hes not steds big. Also, its a debate, if youre not writing things down to respond to your opponent then wtf is the point?
One of the reason why US is rich (though under lot of loans)is because though projected as an example of free market, it has minimal informal economy which is a result of strong monitoring of market...In developing countries why socialist system is projected as failure is because a lot of wealth is acquired by informal economy where taxation is bypassed and those who acquire wealth through loopholes control/lure media to influence people's ideas which is used to create more loopholes and acquire more wealth..
The US was rich first because of slavery. Second, because of wars. And third, if what you say about socialists is true, why the US has been killing the elected socialist presidents in Latin America, Africa, and Asia since. And by the way, it was never a ''free market'' but more like privatized profits and socialized losses. All big corporations profited from massive public funds and all poor and middle-class people rescued the big when they f-cked up. So I have no idea, Sir, what are you talking about.
Does Marx's critique of capitalism still hold? Leave your thoughts in the comments.
To watch the full debate, head to iai.tv/video/marxism-vs-capitalism?UA-cam&
Capitalism is Farsi word "کار پولیست kaare-pooli-ast" which means Work for Money/compensation or paid job. In the old time everyone belonged to a community and worked for the community and not for another person. Marxisem is the opinion of one British man called Mark, it is not a common social, political or economical system. Mark is just the face behind a workers unrest created by Brits to destroy the Russian/Eastern factories by sabotaging their operations using workers. Opposite to Capitalism is Communism and not marxism which is just a book and an opinion.
The neoliberalism economy aganda destroying the remrants of democracy 1:01
*Yes, of course it does - now more than ever!*
Bastani got the W 🏆
Marx's critique of capital is as relevant today as it was when he wrote it. All that has happened is the quantities have changed. The relations are the same.
"All that has happened is the quantities have changed. The relations are the same." - Sorry, but that's not all that happened; the number of real-world examples to be given in support of that critique has multiplied exponentially as well... 😊
As someone with an academic background in history myself, I find it bizarre Matthew would attribute the development and creation of some of the 20th century's most transformative technologies to the private sector
Jet planes, magnetic tape recordings, early computers, telecommunications all primarily developed under states during ww2 were later produced and adapted as consumer goods.
Aaron's response regarding it being taxpayer funded was also wrong. The US government simply created the dollars necessary to conduct the war effort.
The whole approach to free market ideology is really flat earth stuff. State's have always existed, and there's no market out there that doesn't have some form of regulation regardless of it's effectiveness.
When Universities were tuition free and when there was massive public investment in the sciences and when the marginal tax rate in the USA was over 90%.
The USA created war bonds. And who pays back the deficit? It's literally held over the heads of taxpayers to justify austere economic policy.
They are essentially taxpayer funded because the burden is on the working class to offset that and deal with it's consequences. If cost of living increases by 10% that's a higher cut of a working class person's than the wealthy who it will not even make a dent on their budget. The bigger capitalists can weather the storm and then scoop up assests and wealth of the smaller capitalists and make themselves bigger. This is essentially what happens in every capitalist country. Monopoly is inevitible.
"The US government simply created the dollars" this is still taxpayers paying for it, just via inflation
It is well known that public funding and public institutions have always been essential for innovation. Whether the government uses taxes or monetary expansion for that is just a technicality with FIAT money. The risks are carried by the public and it is true that for many public investments the profits eventually go to just a small group shareholders.
The private market is interested in profit. Not the public good
Define the "public good".
Profits over people. What a wonderful idea to run society on...
You'd like to believe that profit and the public good are fundamentally opposed to each other, but they're not. Read some Milton Friedman.
@@Stoddardian " Define the "public good". " - Sure thing: "The best possible outcome for the vast majority of people". How's that for a definition?
@@regpharvey "You'd like to believe that profit and the public good are fundamentally opposed to each other" - They are. Both by definition, and by direct observation. No apologist can even dream to change this reality...
One thing is certain: Capitalism does not provide a good standard of living for most of the people. It only does so for a small minority of the population. 80% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck.
The standard of living of those 80% living pay to pay check in America is still better off than 80% of the world. Secondly, you claimed that it only does for the small minority, but yet America has the biggest and strongest middle class of any country. US takes in more immigrants per year than all of the EU combine including some Asian countries. Yet by and large most are able to lift themselves out of poverty into the middle class. You cant show me one country in last 150 years that can do what American capitalism did for the average person.
@@mostlysunny582 you've raised a very good point. The United states are the winners of world capitalism, the other 80% has suffered immensely for it. It's a capitalist world
it is even worse when you take the whole planet’s population ngl even the planet itself into account
@@mostlysunny582bro you speaking like a ideologue
What a joker.
Move over Richard Wolff! Aaron B just made Marxism relatable to literally everyone in record time!
2:25 my main complaint with capitalism is that everything is monopolized by some corporation and is therefore not competitive because they create cost/price gaps for out of control profit margins -then they can afford to undercut independent businesses for marketshare or enslaving you to their sales platform. Where you are sold more shite every step of the way to checkout.
yeah seriously! the 'self correcting free market' that capitalist ideologues love to prop up hasn't panned out has it? Not that I ever believed that they meant it in earnest. Too easy to buy out politicians, or even entire political parties, offshore jobs, and pay the paltry fine if they do ever get slapped on the wrist for their crimes.
you think there is no monopolization under socialism or communism?
@@mostlysunny582 there is absolute monopolization but it just accepts the fact that any rational successful enterprise trends in this direction. its an unavoidable end of competition, some one eventually wins. this lasts perpetually until it falls apart or is taken apart and then immediately as it does so, the drive in that direction begins again. socialism or communism seeks to instantiate that monopoly and make it democratic/public rather than have it be a private possession ( in regards to whether it succeeds or fails is another question)
Natural monopolies are capitalist but today there are few natural monopolies...Apple at most. The rest is state capitalism like China, where the state puts up too many barriers to entry for a company and so large companies do what they want and can pay a lot of taxes.
@@cazzac4817 Of course every enterprise wants to trend in that direction that is their nature and interest to do so. No one is arguing that. The argument here is that socialism and communism has never been able to place that monopolization into the hands of the public nor democratic. Not once has it provided any good anywhere, and that is a fact. Practicality is its main issue when it comes to socialism and communism. Sounds good in theory, but is a tragedy in practice. Free markets capitalism is extremely flexible and practical. There is more freedom and power for the consumer because free market capitalism allows its participants the freedom to choose. The power lies within your wallet. It provides avenues for it participants counter monopolization. Secondly, big government is by far the biggest creator of monopolies. The further a particular economy moves away from free market capitalistic principles then more monopolies arises. You have to be extremely irrational to even consider allowing the government to take control of the means of production. Time to wake up from your theoretical utopia my friend.
So here's the thing.
If capitalism actually worked, and was beneficial to any society or country, nobody would be talking about socialism, Marxism or communism
Lesh's first response: a stock criticism of Marxism rather than responding to what Bastani actually said. Weak.
That’s all they’ve got. Straw men and ‘gulags, waaah’
I wonder....
Shall I continue to watch this poor man Lesh make more of a fool of himself?
@@opalescentmica I won't.
Do you mean that Marxism doesn't work in reality? Because I find that evident within the last 100 years.
The debaters on the stage have failed to realize that Western civilization is but a blip in human history
I would start these sorts of discussions with the following questions:
- What values and principles guide your position on social policy and economics?
- When and how were you at your most financially vulnerable?
- What is unacceptable?
- What are your fears and concerns regarding the other(s) speaker(s) proposition(s)?
After that I can actually understand what people mean when they say things like "everyone", "together", "productive", "common sense", "what's best", etc.
The host asked the fella to define Capitalism and he decided to define Marxism instead. A bit slimy.
Indeed he just goes straight on the attack before the debate has even started, he even lied about how long capitalism has been around for. I'm only 2 minutes in and I came to the comments to see if I wasn't the only one who noticed.
I suspect the rest of the debate will be the capitalist guy just shouting down Bastani all the way through instead of letting him speak.
As a society we are trying out to different ideologies to build the society.
Which one is perfect? I guess there's no right answer. But reasoning and rationality will get us there one day. So let's keep trying and hv mindful discussions about it.
The answer is obvious, capitalism is the one that works the most, it is not perfect. In Latin America many are socialists and they are increasingly becoming socialists in Africa where communist politicians or religious fanatics govern.
So far no economic system has lifted more people out of poverty than free market capitalism. We're not trying for perfect, but instead for the best and most practical method available.
@@mostlysunny582 No that's a lie. The WorldBank defines poverty as earning below $1.90 a day but the UN disputes that as it's not enough to get basic nutrition and average life expenctancy so they think the more realistic number is somewhere between $7.40 so poverty has actually gone up in the last 4 decades but the proportion has gone down.
And the reason for that going down is mostly because of China's poverty allevation campaign which was done through state planning and spending and their poverty line is set at $5.50 which is higher than WorldBank's. This doesn't mean that poverty is no longer but absolute poverty is basically rooted out. Unless you think China is a capitalist country to which then I'd say okay so why don't other capitalists country do what China did?
@@hotto5150 the world bank is defines poverty as 1.80 a day. Haha in America poverty is making under 20k a year. The people that lives in poverty in america is still more well off then most of the world. Thanks for proving my point.
When was Adam Smith born?
Taking a longer view than the entire history of the Anglo Saxons(say more than 2,000 years) , it was India and China which took turns being number one in the global economy.
Bastani is so much more articulate omg
@@tanvirupakula476 I think it's because to understand a system you have to be able to critique it and understand it's limitations, unfortunately capitalism just is realism ATM, so most proponents don't even know how to think outside capitalist thinking and imagine post capitalism (even if that isn't communism or whatever)
Take fossil fuels out of the equation and all these great gains would have been impossible, it's the air we breath but still talk as if it was merely supplemental, the true drivers being either labour or entrepreneural dynamism of capitalism. The foreseeable future, if such there is, will be dictated by that fact. No one and nowhere will escape.
The moderator won this debate!❤
The vulture capitalism of winner takes all is very different from the theoretical platonic unicorn world this bloke is living in..
Where does Finland get the capital to support its small, ethnically and ethically homogenous population?
Someone needs to explain to captalist that it is not everyone's difinition of happenes is conspicuous consumption.
And most of us are actually misrable because of this difinition included him when he tries to escape the reasonable explanation and protect his ridiculos ideas ..
When you live in a country where your electrical train comes exactly on time , no traffic , and public transportation can take you any where, no homeless in the street , you have good and afordable health care and free education where most of the citizens are well educated , no wars every other day , no corruption , goverments decouple economy and enviroment .
You are really happy !
Lol
The capitalist brought a napkin to a spoon fight
am always astonished by how poor the arguments of European and American Marxists are. Eurocommunism can hardly be called communism. A shame...
The problem with sociology and history is that people knowledgeable in these fields have no idea about how hard it is to predict a three body system and still they are predicting the future or formulate the history. Prediction of future or formulation of history is an absolute illusion.
Agree compleley, and I would add more deeply that the ego behind the concept that either of these systems will solve things is also the one that will presses the clever and agressive to rise to power in any system and oppress, whether "Brave New World" style or "1984/Animal Farm" style. However, per the wise vladdumitrica849 below (for none are so wise as the experienced), if push comes to shove, I'll take Aldous Huxley's dystopia over George Orwell's, hands down.
One thing further on Marxism -- it led to Hitler exactly because it pretended that egoism didn't cross economic class lines. No, no one naturally (especially when you substitute religion for relative morality or a random dialectic materialism) wants to "work according to their ability and take according to their need -- unless with a gun pointed to their head. So comes along Hitler and says, socialism is for families, and we "Aryans" are a family. However, we should be the ruling family -- the oligarchy (of vladdumitrica849 observation below). Things have just accelerated today, for with the 21st century mythology Woke, we go immediately to race-based oligarchy that completely ignores the capitalist concerns (at least in theory) of individual effort and merit, and the socialist concerns (at least in theory) of economic hardship irrespective of noneconomic group identity.
Never, ever... ever... in all my years have I heard a lecturer/professor talk about how their work points to a direct understanding/prediction of the future. Never, ever, ever have I seen a history lecturer/tutor scold a student for not applying their historical research to contemporary events... let alone future events! They are warned to extract all such thoughts from their minds at the start of almost any history degree. The vast vast vast majority of professional historians spend their ENTIRE time warning people about the problems of anachronism, and how "the past is another country", and how it should not be treated as if it is immediately amenable to our present day judgements or valuations. And as for the suggestion that the problems of history are somehow mappable to the "three-body problem" ... this appears only to demonstrate that your own understanding of what goes on in the field of human historical research is very very confused.
@@Hic_Rhodus thanks for pointing it out. I could see that I wasn't able to be clear enough. What I was trying to say was that no one can predict the future or formulate the past.
@@elliotpines6225 imagine blaming socialism for the rise of hitler, and not the capitalists and corporations who funded him and benefitted from his policies
Marxism ftw. Can’t believe I’m hearing “Marxism has always failed” in a debate of this caliber. If Marx is so wrong in his assessment of capitalism’s shortcomings, why aren’t Americans allowed to learn about him in school? Shouldn’t we understand the ideology with the most historically popular and coherent criticism of our own system?
The fact people say "Marxism has always failed" alone tells me they're not worth listening to. Marxism is a critique of capitalism, it's a lens of analysis - predicts with near perfect accuracy the contradictions we see today lmao.
Aaron, do you work out, man? Nice arms!
We gotta remember the good intentions of Marxist philosophy, maintain the flexibility of capitalism, move beyond both and find something that is better than the two. We can’t keep having the same old argument while Earth is extracted from faster than her ability to regenerate.
eco-socialism ftw
Very insightful I'm more of Aaron bastani point of view with a twist if capitalism it's been for a long time and is not working fully or properly we may try other options like Marxism and see if it benefits society as a whole
You can't have a "twist" of capitalism. It requires constant expansion and will take over everything else.
Historical materialism has been vindicated? Hardly.
If an endorsement of central planning is at the core of Marx’s critique of capitalism then why did he forget to mention it in his 3,000 page critique of capitalism?
Socialism requires central planning because socialism requires the total buy-in of all people, and that requires state planning and an autocratic leadership to ensure everybody is onside.
Careful, you keep spitting facts the CIA might get involved. 😉
Why doesnt Bartani moves to one of the communists countries?
흠.. 자본주의 변호하는 측은 ㅉㄸ처럼 생기고 ㅉㄸ처럼 말하네 하이예크도 그런 이미지였는데
I'm from Romania and there was a joke circulating before 1989... "Question... at Radio Yerevan, what is the difference between a capitalist society and a socialist one?! Answer: in a capitalist society man exploits the man, in socialism is the other way around."
Because I lived in a communist country, I can say that it was only a form of oligarchy, just like the other capitalist countries, but the conditions are much worse because in communism everything belongs to the state, so the power can control your income more strongly and because the communist ideology wanted to control your private life as well. Otherwise there are no differences, in communism the oligarchs had hospitals, private shops, in capitalism those with money, i.e. the capitalist oligarchy, have access to luxury hospitals, treatments that normal citizens do not have access to, shops to which only they have access because they are very expensive etc.
Thank you! We need people like you that actiually live(d) in a communist country to tell these students that only know there books oh so well that Marxism and everything close to it is a dumb and even dangerous ideology.
Capitalism is Farsi word "کار پولیست kaare-pooli-ast" which means Work for Money/compensation or paid job. In the old time everyone belonged to a community and worked for the community and not for another person. Marxisem is the opinion of one British man called Mark, it is not a common social, political or economical system. Mark is just the face behind a workers unrest created by Brits to destroy the Russian/Eastern factories by sabotaging their operations using workers. Opposite to Capitalism is Communism and not marxism which is just a book and an opinion.
You are missing the main and most important difference. Its is the opportunity that free market society provides for the average person to one day be able to have access or even own those things. I cant say the same for the average person in a communist society. Opportunity is the key difference.
@@mostlysunny582 Yeah bro I'm sure the average person wants an opportunity to have their basic needs met and a comfortable like ONE DAY whereas communist society tries to fulfill these needs as a given so that people have more time to enjoy their lives and do things they want to do not work 50 hours a week just to make ends meet.
@@hotto5150 the average person in a capitalistic society not only has the best opportunity to get those basic things and more, but also the best opportunity to advance even further up the social status. Secondly, you claimed that a communist society can provides those basic needs. I challenge you to give me examples in modern history where a communist state was able to do exactly what you claimed it can do. We been stacking piles of dead bodies from communist rule within the last 100 years let alone claiming they can provide basic needs. You just talking nonsense at this point to be honest with you.
Do you really think a debate of the values of to competing extremist economic philosophies is helpful ?
Both ideologies have been proven not to work. Both lead to economic inequalities and stagnation for different reasons and we all know it.
Why not debate New Deal capitalism and Democratic Socialism? You know stuff proven to work , granted both needing constant tweaking but that at least they are more adaptable than rigid ideological orthodoxy.
You waste your time defending economic ideas that don’t work.
Find ones that do.
Problem is that western social welfarism has always been parasitic on either colonial misadventures or economic imperialism.
👀
There's literally nothing wrong with Denmark's immigration policies. If anything, it's still too mild.
Marx was wrong about absolutely everything. His so-called history was supposed to be a predictive science.
@@b.alexanderjohnstone9774 what you say is BS and nonsense HAHAHAHA LOL 😂😂😂👍👍‼️
what you say is BS and nonsense HAHAHAHA LOL 😂😂😂👍👍‼️
what you say is nonsense HAHAHAHA LOL 😂😂😂👍👍‼️
what you say about Marxism is completely BS and nonsense Alexander Johnstone9774 HAHAHAHA LOL 😂😂😂👍👍‼️
Finland and Sweden are not Marxist, they are mixed economies. They have enough capitalism to be successful, but taxes are high to pay for their public services. The Marxist talks about 2007/08. He should realize that those economic busts are caused by state intervention - the whole thing can be traced back to State policies distorting the markets (including enforced low interest rates). The same goes for the housing crisis, entirely created by bureaucrats. Keep bureaucrats out of our lives, please! I find it incredible that there are still people like Aaron around who hold to this idea that Marxism can work. I also note how smug he looks - I believe this guy lives in his own theoretical world and has never ever run a business or been close to running one. He should debate Yaron Brook.
As we look around us at a world that will quite soon be unfit to live in thanks to the results of rampant capitalism, I find it shocking that people can still see it as a viable path forward in this late stage. The neoliberal worldview is sociopathic.
Yarn Brook the ultimate bootlicker, you gotta be kidding me 😂😂
Just the kind of uneducated and misinformed responses I'd expect from socialists who can never ever point to one success of Marxism, but can only make strawmen arguments against capitalism.
@@johnrowell3583 I suggest the excellent book The Jakarta Method. It very well lays out the reasons why there have been no successful Marxist governments. Spoiler alert: the US has been obsessed with squashed any developing socialist and communist parties around the world to serve their own greedy interests, most often replacing leftist leaders with right wing dictators.
Your argument is akin to stating we should never elect a woman to be president of the US because there has never been a successful woman president of the US.
McCarthyism really did a number on y'all, sheesh!
@@johnrowell3583The marxist also claimed Denmark to be marxist ("except for their immigration policies") lol. Here he shows that he is just anti white. I bet he is jewish.
The guy in brown spoke twice longer for intro but didn’t make any valid and reasonable point or conclusion 😅
Marxism vs Capitalism?? Haha
You guys really want Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek fans to click the video, don't you??So scammy and sensational..
The reality is that neither of these 19th century ideas is fit for the 21st century. Capitalism and markets are to reliant on simulation theory in economics and communism is reliant on production based around capitalist markets neither can operate or exist to maximise potentials. In an age of ideas a new idea is required.
How is communism reliant on production based around capitalist markets?
@@irish_deconstruction I will reply fully later as I am working on something at the moment. You can think of capital as ideas, energy and resources.
What do you mean neither fits the 21 century? Principles of free market capitalism are timeless because it is predicated on the freedom of the individual to dictate the choices they make according to their self interest. It is practical now and will continue to be practical until the end of time. Communism on the other hand is not practical ever.
Aaron argues that Marxists predicted the 2008 crash. However, so did the Austrian economists. Even a broken clock is correct, twice per day. For what it's worth I have an interest in economics in general, I'm not defending either school of thought.
Karl Marx was literally an economist? It isn't Marxism vs Economics, Marxism is a school of economic thought in the same way Keynes is. I have an economics degree and I'm a marxist, these things are not in opposition to one another, I'd actually argue the more I learnt about the way economies worked the more left wing my thinking became.
@@ZeldaKid5000 he’s comparing Marxist economics to Austrian economics - 2 different schools of thought, both economics.
To even have this debate is comical. Capitalism on a bad day is still better than marxism on its good day. Case closed.
JUST DON'T LIKE IT. SIMPLE AS
@@cazzac4817 so you're operating on your emotions instead of rationality based on 100 years of objective data.
@@mostlysunny582 I was making a joke big boy. saying the case is closed doesn't make it so. All states operate on a pseudo socialistic( central banking welfarism, market controls anti trust regulations environmental regulation etc) basis in the 21st century. They just do it for corporate ends. the largest corporations also centrally plan it's just necessary when you get to a certain scale. I would argue history tells quite a different story. It's obviously not communism in the narrow definitive sense but it is socialistic.
@@mostlysunny582 your argument is about as cool and smart as "By looking at the data on US presidents, we can see that they are all white men, therefore nobody who doesn't fit this description could possibly do the job"
When people point to failed states to prove a point.. ugh where to begin. It's about as disingenuous as saying "Democracy could ObVioUsLy never work! I mean how's it working out for Democratic People's Republic of Korea and The Democratic Republic of the Congo!?"
If you're actually curious to know why Socialism has not thrived (aside from the scandinavian democratic socialist countries that have adopted many marxist economic strategies) I suggest reading The Jakarta Method. A very well researched document that delves into the dark history of the US's meddling and squashing even the tiniest burgeoning worker movements across the globe as a means to control markets and gain power.
@@mostlysunny582 The fact you used the phrase "100 years of objective data" to justify your opinion tells me just how unqualified you are to speak on this. Finland is thriving and has policies Marxists desperately want to copy in the west. Using communist dictatorships as some sort of gottcha isn't the slam dunk you think it is, and one look at the average American's standard of living over the last decades should tell you where capitalism is going
There is too much emotion here, like they are fighting to breathe. The world needs more dispassionate and calm intelligence, ideological idealism replaced by real idealism which is love of humanity and life, not love of money and militarism.
Yeah that's socialism.
@@RBTVN It is wrong to create labels for rational and compassionate behavior
Capitalism changed a lot since Marx, Marxism barely not, because capitalism is a system, thou marxism is an idiology
My God. Marxism is by far one of the most scientific point of view on the socioeconomic reality. It has revolutionized all the social sciences (at least in Europe). What are you talking about?!
I would argue that Capitalism is the lack of a system. In its purest form, it requires no central planning. It only requires people to act freely, exchanging ideas and goods in a competitive market place. Of course we don't have anything like pure capitalism. Instead we have mixed economies of Markets and central planning. Some socialists make the mistake of thinking that redistribution of wealth is somehow Socialism, and so they point to countries like Sweden. Instead, redistribution of wealth is simply left wing politics.
Redistribution of wealth along with the Welfare State ARE NOT capitalist policies. They were implented by socialist and communist consensus. By the way, the best democracies in the world are the ones with the best WELFARE STATE. In Vienna there's a great tradition of popular housing, and in one of the great socialist buildings there's a statue of Karl Marx!!
@@mattiafabbri8944 it's definition matter. I refer capitalism as free market with levels of restrictions and regulations.
@@sgtpprrus a weak definition. If you want to be analytic you need to adequately differentiate the tendencies. Marx did so. He never used the term "capitalism" but "capitalist mode of production", fully aware that it was a tendency always in tension with other tendencies (slavery, feudal, agrarian, socialist,...). If we equate: capitalist mode:
- commodification;
- private ownership of the means of production;
- strict separation between those who have to sell (as juridically free subjects) their labour force on the market, and those who have not;
- infinite and privatized accumulation of wealth starting from the first three points, in the spheres of production, circulation and financial speculation on goods and services.
Then the logic of regulation, redistribution, socialization (e.g. popular housing, nationalisation of strategic economic sectors, free education and healthcare) is intrinsically socialist, not at all in line with the internest of (as we say nowadays) Big Capital.
It is very intresting that the marxist one just brings "words" for the capitalist practical definitions and examples!
Sounds like someone didn't watch/listen, just read the title...
@@danc4435 a typical leftist reaction, not offended thou.
The steroid looking guy is steaming mad, look at his eyes… and worse he’s taking notes like he’s Karen getting ready to take you down 😂. We can do capitalism if there’s a universal standard of living and human rights. Like clean water, housing, food, education/internet/tech devices, electricity.
Yes, correct!
You are referring to policies that were implented by socialist parties in the socialdemocratic Europe. So again: policies against the pure deregulated financial capitalism that we have now.
Steroid looking guy? XD Aaron isnt that big, hes muscly but hes not steds big. Also, its a debate, if youre not writing things down to respond to your opponent then wtf is the point?
Aaron is spot on about state funded "smart-tech" that goes into iPhones. Look up Mariana Mazzucato's presentations about the iPhone.
One of the reason why US is rich (though under lot of loans)is because though projected as an example of free market, it has minimal informal economy which is a result of strong monitoring of market...In developing countries why socialist system is projected as failure is because a lot of wealth is acquired by informal economy where taxation is bypassed and those who acquire wealth through loopholes control/lure media to influence people's ideas which is used to create more loopholes and acquire more wealth..
The US was rich first because of slavery. Second, because of wars. And third, if what you say about socialists is true, why the US has been killing the elected socialist presidents in Latin America, Africa, and Asia since. And by the way, it was never a ''free market'' but more like privatized profits and socialized losses. All big corporations profited from massive public funds and all poor and middle-class people rescued the big when they f-cked up. So I have no idea, Sir, what are you talking about.
The US since the creation of the federal reserve can no longer be considered a free market economy.
what you say about Marxism is completely BS and nonsense Alexander Johnstone9774 HAHAHAHA LOL 😂😂😂👍👍‼️