Why Capitalism Is A Success (And Why Socialism Isn't)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 сер 2024
- You know what? I'm gonna just come right out and say it - Capitalism is pretty good. It allows people to work and earn their way through life. It's a system of merit, where quality will naturally rise due to quality demanding more money, and money affording more luxuries. I know that this isn't always the case, but it seems like people who want to tear down capitalism are people who don't understand the concept of meritocracy - or are unable to compete within one.
Of course, capitalism has its problems. Unregulated capitalism lead to the horrorshow that was the industrial era, but human rights regulation has largely solved that. Homelessness and grinding poverty are still a problem, as is the nature of banking and stock trading. But these things are better off tackled within a mixed capitalist economy with sensible government regulation, instead of insane ideas like removing money from society or returning to the nomadic darkness and superstition and fear characteristic of the time of our ancestors, or communal living where everybody is equal because everybody is poor and starving.
No. I'll keep capitalism, and the human rights, technology, and enlightenment-era western democracies it has created, thank you very much.
-----
Support The Show:
Paypal ► www.paypal.me/...
Patreon ► / shortfatotaku
Humble Bundle Affiliate Link ► www.humblebund...
Amazon Affiliate Link ► amzn.to/2NR9trt
-----
Tweet aggressively at me: / shortfatotaku
SFO Facebook: / sfotaku
My Minds account: www.minds.com/...
My Gaming Channel: / gameboomer
My Stream: / gameboomers
SFO/GB Discord: / discord
-----
GB Archive Channel ► / gameboomer
Dev Kit Channel ► / @thedevkit
SFO Backups Channel ► / channel
BitChute ► www.bitchute.c...
Rumble ► rumble.com/c/c...
Brighteon ► www.brighteon....
DailyMotion ► www.dailymotio...
Odysee ► odysee.com/@Sh...
-----
Links:
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian - mises.org/libr...
Why Stalin Starved Ukraine - newrepublic.co...
THE CULTURAL CONTRADICTIONS OF SOCIALISM - www.cambridge....
Venezuela: Teenage Girls Turn to Prostitution to Fight Starvation - www.breitbart.c...
Venezuela’s Crisis Is the Latest Example of Why Socialism Doesn’t Work - dailysignal.com...
Kapitalizem Za Telebane (non-english source) - wmeworry.wordp...
The Road To Wigan Pier - www.limpidsoft....
Pets or meat? Venezuela's Maduro urges starving populace to eat rabbits - www.foxnews.com...
The Political Doctrine of Fascism - fascism-archive...
-----
#capitalism #socialism #lifeislikeahurricane
"Even the most talented pastry chef can't turn a mud pie into a apple tart, reversely, a untalented laborer can take fresh dough and high quality apples, and turn it into an inedible mess, value : zero. These kitchen analogies destroy the Marxist theory of equal value of all work, regardless of quality."
- Robert Heinlein.
Just for information Marx specifically says “work leading to a product valued by society” neither a “mud pie” nor an “incredible mess” are a product valued by society…
@@onatkalkan4907Cooking Leads to work valued by society. If successful. But that's just it - IF! - having raw metals can LEAD to producing goods valued by society but if at no point an actual fuckin metalworker gets involved it won't happen, the raw materials are inherently valueless if nobody knows what the fuck they're doing with them, your point counters nothing
On the hierarchies of power, I felt like my country is an excellent example of how circumvention of merit fails in progress.
South Africa enforces a policy called BEE (Black economic empowerment). It was intended to offset the disparity of the majority poor against the minority white. The policy strongly encourages the hiring of non-white employees while putting white applicants at the back of the queue. It sounds noble in light of South Africa's apartheid era, but it ignores merit. In a lot of cases it ignores qualification altogether to the point where our top political positions are held by people who barely have high-school qualifications (in a country with a ridiculous pass rate btw)
What happened in the following twenty years is a gradual degradation of the overall economic system. Public services consistently fail for the impoversihed areas which are ever growing due to elevated promises to said poor. The country is bleeding out in skilled workers through emmigration. The only thing preventing the country from collapsing altogether is the stubborn never-die attitude of employed people who refuse to leave the country, despite the financial detriment. When a country circumvents merit (if only in a partial manner through subsidies and tax breaks) it guarantees a decline in overall services and delivery.)
How do you identify merit from cronyism, favoritism and nepotism posing as meritocracy?
@@Trexmaster12 Immediately, you can't. You can really only tell years later (or in the worst cases months later), when systems built on merit succeed and those built without merit in mind fail and go bankrupt.
There is nothing noble about people who endure something only to subject other people to the same treatment. That is revenge, and it is not noble. A noble thing would be the exact opposite. To forgive and establish a society of merit. That would be noble.
That is the core problem of Capitalism, if everyone is allowed to be selfish, you will inevitably beget an enterprise of Socialist-Communists that fester within until they can pay to have their demands met, or in other words, liberty allows for those that wish to destroy liberty. We haven't figured out a solution for that problem, and we (the US) are running out of time, because of how delicious the moral taste is of propping up those that couldn't succeed.
@@Terszel What? No. If everybody is acting selfishly, then it all cancels out as long as no one uses the government to acquire a privileged negotiating position. The less the government interferes in the market, i.e. the more capitalist a society is, the less people can exploit the government for personal gain.
Lol human beings living within a system without forming hierarchies. You know when someone says that to you it's time to end that conversation.
Also it seems Socialism depends on the belief that all people are inherently good but somehow simultaneously makes the argument that certain people are inherently evil...HOW!!??
Hypocrisy is a hell of a drug.
The problem with communsism is it commands a society to require advanced skills that it does not incentise the attainment of
Exactly. Why become a doctor or engineer when there's no real reward compared to doing anything else?
@@randomcenturion7264 The award is free healthcare, housing, transportation and food along with helping your fellow comrades. Thanks for the question! :)
@@O_O.The.Commenter so, exactly the same you get from working a less qualified job? Makes you wonder why there's so many furry porn artists in Latin America.
@@O_O.The.Commenter But you can receive all of that just by cleaning toilets or working on a factory, why put all the sweat, blood and effort into doing a more complicated job if you're getting the same and giving the same out of it?
@@Fernybun I don't really understand the wording in this question, so please fix the wording so my simple brain can understand and answer. Thank you! :)
I had a discussion, so to speak, with an individual who believed heavily in Communism. However, from our discussions, he wished to Federalize all Housing, Food, and Water supplies. He wanted the Federal government to provide a basic 'livable' income of 30,000$/yr (of course, economic impacts don't matter) for all those who have a job / occupation. This lead to me happily questioning the grounds I stood on for my mentality as a 10th Grader (A few years back), and greatly reflected. I became a conservative after realizing that certain aspects cannot be removed / twisted away from the Civilian population by an Authoritarian Government. This lead to a few heated debates, and it was rather interesting to see that he kept trying to play on Empathy, instead of regulation / maintenance of a system. I was rather dismayed by this, and still wish to debate him every day, if only a hope to change his mind.
Simple truth is, all those positive rights socialists speak of, food, water, shelter, clothing, soap, education, medicine and medical care, for people to have access to those for free would require slavery. Medical care and education are granted by skill and time of the provider. The others require resources people have to collect, process, transport and maintain. So in a very real way socialism is just that latest cover for slavery.
*Breadtube disliked that.*
*Oh, and tankies too.*
Hey, how'd you know I was gonna dislike the video???? You silly little mind-reading goosey!!!!!! You're so silly!!!!!
We live in a world in which both social programs and spending are often mixed with capitalistic enterprises. Instead of everyone having to build and maintain the road in front of his or her house, we have a highway department, funded by taxes. Instead of a personal bodyguard, we have a police force that, since it does not produce a product, must be funded by taxes. If everyone had to build and maintain his or her own fire department, it would get rather unwieldy! Healthcare is an issue currently being debated.
Meanwhile, capitalism is not so much a political system or endeavor, as much as it is an economic reality or fact of life. All it really means is that when you grow and sell a crop, or build and sell a product, that you don't get to tell the people who might purchase it how much it is worth: that is established already and is done by market forces called supply and demand.
As someone who is rounding-the-bases of life and soon to be of an age in which most people retire and live off of a pension or Social Security (but who needs neither, since I always spent less than I earned and invested the difference), I see large groups of younger people who completely misunderstand basic economics and financial reality.
Here is a challenge: Imagine being at that age during which you'll never be stronger or more capable, and also living during a time in which things have never been so readily and easily accessible, and then still complaining. The easier we have made it for people to thrive and prosper, the more some of them complain about how hard it is. - j q t -
Just added this to my playlist about capitalism, which also addresses the economic aspect of libertarianism.
"... mainly because communists would not be able to grow peas in the first place"
Holy shit lmao
Despite being 20% of beans, they account for 80% of the yield
There is a difference between imperialism and nationalism.
Duh
Classically imperialism was directly opposed to nationalism. Just look at the twilight years of the Ottoman and Austo Hungarian empires.
This is the logical process that leads to Capitalism being highly likely to promote Egalitarian ideals:
"I want to sell things to more people, there is a class of people who can not earn money. Therefore i must make them able to earn money and buy my things.
An ethnic group of people are paid less than the majority ethnic group, therefore to sell my more expensive products to more people and thus giving me more profit, i should ensure that both ethnic groups are paid the same wage for the same job, not taking wage bonuses based on good performance into account. (The same logic applies for gender-based pay discrimination)"
Ultimately, the dollar of every person is the same as every other person. So to the Capitalist, it shouldn't matter who the person's race, gender, or class is. They all pay the same. Those who do discriminate are less likely to make a bigger profit than those who do not discriminate.
Really is a beautiful chain of logic, and it is good.
Not necessarily.
Oh this group of people is looked down upon. Let's offer them jobs galore, but only pay them half of what they should earn.
They'll be forced to live in squalor, and we'll earn well enough selling to the rest of the groups with a huge bonus.
Oh, right. That's what's happening today...
And we aren't in a capitalist society today. Neither is the west fully socialist. Its a halfass of both worlds and several others and its a complete mess as a result.
And none of this really argues against the logic of my comment. For it is logically sound. If you want to sell a product and accumulate large sums of wealth, its good to have a society where people are well payed, according to their job that is. Not so well paid as to be a major burden to their employers, but well enough to readily purchase the products sold by others.
The only way socialism/command economy could work, is if we had a machine intelligence with drones able to produce and distribute better than we can, with a information feedback to the intelligence via bio-implants that gauge our wants/needs/general moods based on chemical ratios.
Or a rogue servitor as it may be known
Even if you COULD have the computing power to calculate the sum of all needs, all input and output of all economic factors (which is an absurdly long computation time) it still does not solve the economic calculation problem, first proposed by Ludwig von Mises. Look it up, a lot of folks on YT have explained it, like LiquidZulu or PraxBen
Socialism is an absolute success. It just doesn't do what socialist says it does. The purpose of socialism is to make a small group of socialist criminals extremely rich and powerful, all at the expense of everyone else. At this task, socialism has been consistently successful for over a century.
as a lazy person, I can guarantee that some people don't work as hard as others
In feudalism, the local lord "did" provide utility (at least in theory) by protecting his subjects fom external threats. Which would have been a real thing as the system was created following the chaos of the fall of the Roman Empire.
I disagree right from the start.
By saying it’s socialism vs capitalism you are failing into the socialist trap and letting them frame the conceptualisation of what the debate is about letting them avoid the real issue
The truth is it’s socialism vs liberalism or collectivism vs individualism or state vs private
Capital- the means of production
Capitalism- a system that utilises the means of production
Socialism- state control and / or ownership over the means of production (and people’s lives topic for another time)
or more simple put socialism-state control over capitalism
As you see socialist are capitalist too
Compared to liberalism-a systems where the individuals owns or voluntary collectivises share ownership of the means of production (capitalism)
i cant be fucked looking up political terms, but in my mind when people say socialism what they really want is underlying capitalism, but with much better social service and government programs to combat the ills of capitalism. then again, half of this guys audience loves to jerk themselves off over being contrarian and edgy, so it fits. fuck i hate political content, i shouldnt be wasting time on this
@@lightmorrison5404
yeah like you said you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about so you make a whole bunch of false claims assertions assumptions and false equivalencies
You are not speaking English you’re speaking political rhetoric (not very good political rhetoric) that’s most likely one that correlates with your cognitive bias making you ignorant and prey for blind servitude of the state a useful idiot
Everything you said was absolute shit and total nonsense I’m embarrassed for you
Like everything you said was the socialist clap trap I was complaining about
@@lightmorrison5404 "being contrarian and edgy" ain't you describing yourself tho?
I think if you ask a Marxist about what it means to be a good person and whether they have any evil qualities, a Marxist would say what defines good and evil is Marxist theories of materialism. Therefore, Marxists by definition cannot be evil or have any evil qualities and any Marxists that do are not real Marxists.
Real gondolatwitter hasn't been tried yet. Good video dude.
These videos are why I keep coming back. It would be nice to see you tackle the subject again in a video today. Because I believe both you are better at editing and explaining yourself now than in 2017. As well as you can't reasonably request your current viewers that haven't seen all your videos to watch an almost 4 year old video witch I believe this video holds a lot of key points to the videos you make today.
You do however do a great job at explaining the points from this video and other older videos in your new videos when relevant. Still it would be great to see this summarized with your modern way you make videos. Great work as always!
Your description of the underlying conversation when shopping for groceries is deeply flawed. Lets drop the collectivist lingo for a second and focus on the individual. What is happening in all interactions in a capitalist society are trades. The baker doesn't care if you contributed to society or not, but he will only make favorable trades for him. To be able to provide value to the baker, you need to obtain something he values, which is usually money since it makes trades easier, and the simplest way to make money is usually to trade something else for it. So to get money you need to generate value and contribute to society.
So the interaction is in practice the opposite. The person with money goes to the baker and asks: What have you produced that I value? If he produced nothing you valued you just go away. But if he succeeded in satisfying your needs, he will be rewarded with your money. This creates a system where the person who best serves, expects the best rewards. On the long run, this places a pressure to become better at serving others on everyone.
However if instead of focusing on serving people and creating value, the person starts thinking that they somehow deserve to be rewarded, that where socialist ideas emerge. The person thinks: I studied, went through college, I sacrificed a lot, so I deserve to be rewarded, and he doesn't realize that the reward he is getting is proportional to the value he is creating. The reward is not tied to effort, but to results. This becomes even more confusing to him when he sees his fat boss doing nothing the entire day, but he doesn't realize that the value provided by his boss doesn't originate from physical labor or from time investment, but from good decision making and past investment. This creates the illusion that you do all the work and he sows the benefits. The entire communist ideology is just a rationalization of this perceived injustice. That is why it makes absolutely no sense. It started with the conclusion of "Boss useless and bad" and created an entire ideological framework to support this gut perception.
>Anarcho Socialsit
[*twitching intensifies*]
Capitalism is far from being perfect, but has proven to be the most optimal economic system so far.
I think the biggest problem with capitalism is that conservatives think that because some capitalism is good, the more capitalism you have, the better.
And the reason why it isn't perfect is because we're not perfect. Capitalism is just what arises naturally when you put people together, and that's also why it's the best "system": it's natural to us. I find it funny when someone says they're against Capitalism, because that's really like being against Evolution.
JackIntheBox
, more capitalism simply means more freedom for people to trade as they see fit and with whom they see fit as long as they're not outright harming someone or stealing. It means less gov involvement in the economy, which inherently leads to less cronyism, less lobbying, less corruption, less gov spending, less taxes, less [shitty] public services, less trojan-horse laws (like anti-trust), regulations and taxation, less long lasting monopolies, ...
Moreover, it's a naturally occurring "system", much like the flight of the starlings (to which it's often compared to). The main reason why socialism always fails and capitalism never does is because the former is a fantasy that goes against our nature while the latter is not even a thought out concept, it's just the result of how we are in reality. You put people together and they will trade, claim private property, etc. Nature/reality always prevails against fantasy.
How can it not be better the more you have of what's actually real and natural to us?
murphy mcmanning
, nice b8 m8.
murphy mcmanning, you remind me of Poe's Law, but then no troll types so much bullshit in one go.
*_""cronyism" typical scapegoat of capitalists (...) lobbying is capitalistic."_*
Cronyism and lobbying happen despite of capitalism, not because of it. In fact, for the market to be properly free *the government cannot be involved in the economy.* Cronyism and lobbying happen because the gov is involved in the economy you moron. Maybe I should remind you that gov involvement is not at all the opposite of what socialist retards want.
You can't point your finger at the failures of socialism and call it the failures of capitalism.
You really have to be overly ignorant to be able to fall for the usual fallacies against capitalism. Reminds me of creationists arguing against evolution.
*_"are you another idiot who thinks freedom is absolute? all profit is theft."_*
So by your logic, theft is absolute, and if you have a job you're stealing from your employer despite that he's profiting from you and he's also stealing from you despite that you're profiting from him... ...
What planet did you just come from? It seems you left your brain back at home.
*_"go back to _**_www.infowars.com_**_ or ben shapiro."_*
Why would I? They're just as full of bullshit as you. And Ben Shapiro is a mild socialist.
I find this a very interesting video. I am far from an expert on social and economic systems and that is why I like the thorough explanation of these systems and their forms.
In the first part of the video I was impressed by the factual nature of the information given, which was later partially lost by the (in my opinion) unnecessary mocking of people with opposing views. The narrator draws some conclusions on the 'ignorance' of people believing in communism and socialism, while stating that he understands where Marx's ideology comes from. This sounds quite contradictory to me.
Furthermore, as a somewhat naive and idealistic person I can see the beauty of socialism in theory, but as a somewhat pessimistic realist I also understand its dysfunction in practice as the narrator so clearly states using our own history. I do not think that all socialists are unable to face their own imperfections and therefore their own humanity and I also think that most people (including yours truely) are unable to do just that. This is in my opinion the case, because facing one's own humanity and imperfections means facing one's own fear, disappointment and pain. We, as humans, do not like to do so, because we like to avoid such negative experiences. On the other had, avoidance may maintain or even aggrevate this negativity, a symptom of emotional dysfunction present in so many functional capitalistic societies today.
Lastly, the narrator states that capitalism works, because the needs and goals of the society and the indivual allign and succes is rewarded by the system and failure is not punished as failure can be punishment in itself. He continues to claim that the unlucky people that remain in a downwards spiral of failure, which is not always their own fault, are protected by social laws. I am under the impression that those laws are necessary for a capitalist system to work, but that those laws are also derived from more socialistic and communistic ideals. There no one system is perfect and seemingly contradicting systems should possibly be intregrated to create a best-of-both-worlds-version.
All in all, I agree that capitalism is the best economic system for now, but is therefore not necessarily without flaws. I think everyone should always strive to improve current economic (but also political and other social) systems and remember that systems that work in theory do not always work in practice. When it comes to improvement and the theorizing and analyzing that preceeds this improvement, there is no train of thought wrong or stupid and no emotions that are triggered by these thoughts are weird or unacceptable. Together we can make capitalism a better system and the world a better place.
39:45 When did "Economic Underwater Applications of Marshland Flora" cease to be the foremost joke example of bad college majors?
I really hope I'm just not getting the "underwater basket-weaving" joke, because as written, that sounds like an interesting and potentially-profitable field.
I thought it was "feminist dance theory"
@@cubiusblockus3973 *Lesbian dance theory
I wish the US was still capitalist.
Feudalism did not necessarily feature citizens being left with little of the profit of their own labors. It merely ALLOWED the lords to do this. This is why there was differential outcomes among different vassalages.
Fascism and Socialism are the same system but acquired by different means
:l
What about Anarcho-syndicalism in catalonia spain 1914?
🙏
You want to help the unfortunate?Capitalism doesn't keep you from being charitable, it just doesn't force you to do it.
Hey SFO, thanks for putting all the information I learned in school 15 years ago into understandable and reasonable words once again. :)
The success of capitalism over all the other socio-economic systems makes it a very interesting topic. I would like to ask you to make another video on capitalism and this time look at the different ways it's being done (along with some history I guess?). Compare states like US and Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Korea, Japan an so on. I don't know how much information that would be to work through, but it'd be incredibly interesting I think.
Awesome :) thanks, I'm looking forward to it.
I would argue that some of limits on capitalism have hurt people more than helped them, but that doesn't mean that the underlining idea of a well moderated capitalism is a bad one. Simply that what is the best way to get to that point is up for a discussion.
I think it would moderate itself
I remember when I watched a Yopniks video called " Why human nature is dumb conservatives argument" the first part of the video is Yopnik saying that this argument is fals and who ever is using the argument is probably got it from Meni Kampf , and mocks the idea that humans can corrupt systema becouse greed, leazines etc.
The second part was about genetic and how the enviromnent sheapes our personallity etc. And the final part of the video was just socialist buzzwords being throw left and right , and how socialism was the perfect system and had no flaws what's so ever. So , averge socialist .
You're a more impressive person than me if you were able to sit through that kinda garbage. My patience isn't anywhere near that.
Well you didn't paid enough attention, is still as naive as an argument as the opposite, that we are socialist by nature
@@DanielGarcia-kw4ep Ah socialists. Accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of. Video already dismantled thar argument, you haven't watched it. Good day.
@@CountSpartula I already said that BOTH are naive, I'm not a socialist myself
@@DanielGarcia-kw4ep Ah, I see what I misunderstood. Your phrasing was poor but I get it now. A bit more definition between points would be nice going forwards. Like saying "Its still as naïve an argument as the opposite." or something. With how it is, it seemed pretty clear that you were presenting the 'that we are socialist by nature' part as fact, rather than example. My apologies.
Yeah, but what about anarcho-monarchism
I used to be anarchist, but my idea of it is so different from anyone else’s, might not even be anarchy it’s just my idea of the best form of government. But I became a centrist after high school, cause fuck all sides.
Even me? :(
The first time I talked to an anarcho Socalist, I was shocked how any issues I could think up and mentioned to him as to how an anarcho socalist system would go wrong was simply ignored them all politely, I think he was trying to either convert me ( I consider Pure Socalism as being a religion) and or simply engage with me to inform me of any misconceptions I may have had.
Upon reviewing the conversation with him, I realized now he did answer a good amount of the questions as best he could, I was just shocked at any of the answer he gave me, as this was my first real conversation with an Anarcho anything, or proper Socialist, so (this was done in the comments of a UA-cam video, so we had not character limits, it was a long conversation).
An answer that kinda shocked me was when I questioned him as to how they would try to preserve their anarcho Socialist societies, he replied by explaining they would try to "teach" (I call it indoctrinate and it will be clear with a very interesting comment he made later) their children to oppose Capitalism, and if need be train them in to fight any possible Capitalist oppressors and only use Guerrilla Warfare tactics, as he viewed them to be strictly defensive in nature, sighting groups like Native American Tribes, the Taliban and the Viet Cong as examples of groups whom have used these techniques in the past to much effect, in their conflicts with larger forces.
When I went after him asking if he thought these Societies would be ever lasting, he said he did not think they would be ever lasting or anything. (possibly to not sound crazy)
He also said something at one point which did not quite register with me at the time, but now rereading it made things clear to me, he said at one point in a much large reply "One of the best things about capitalism is that you don't need to indoctrinate people, you can tell the complete truth and it still sounds awful.", which now makes his whole position make more sense, I could possibly compare it to the religious person, on the cusp of realizing that their beliefs are bullshit, but still having an emotional attachment to the religion.
(I feel kinda bad for having misremembered the conversation, as he was not quite as dodgy as I made him out to be, but then again I was clearly trying to be open minded to a degree even when questioning him, and clearly was not all that familiar with the subject matter at the time, so he may have felt more comfortable talking to me honestly.)
I'm gonna take a crack at economics
Workers make value
Bosses multiply value
Despite the fact that the workers are making the value, bosses create much of the value that they make by providing the tools and opportunities to create that value.
Also Bosses worked for their company and position. They hold the debt if something goes wrong
@@sweetnerevar7030 no, they dont. look at wall street. you cant deny capitalism has at least some issues, right?
@@lightmorrison5404 The Stock Market is a function of corporatism
This video misrepresents the Holodomor. It was not that the kulaks were liquidated, resulting in no one being able to farm, therefore starvation.
It was the communist cadres specifically expropriating all grain to meet unrealistic quotas, then killing anyone who either resisted, hid grain to avoid starvation, tried to get some nutrition from grain stalks post harvest, or anyone who was otherwise politically unfeasible - while justifying it by calling their victims "kulaks."
The horror of the Holodomor didn't stem from incapacity, or even an inability to understand the consequences of some economic policy. It stemmed from the specific targeting of groups of people with the intent to eliminate them. IlThe mass death and starvation was intentional.
Marxism hurts the proletariat too... Especially the proletariat!
Great video! Subbed!
Thank you!
Well known fact about Marxist, they hate poor people. So true, absolutely correct facts
As far as I can see, bourgeois Communists are often just as greedy as the worst Corporatists out there.
And my opinion of those bourgeois Commies is pretty similar- rich kids who just can't wait for their parents to retire and relinquish control. The 1950s Communists in China were largely populated by such pieces of works, and those people are the architects of most of the horror stories I'd heard when I grew up in Taiwan although the local media, being on the blue side of the Cold War, tended to oversimplify the problems with them.
You're somewhat wrong. Most people don't know this, but technically Nazism is not the same thing as fascism, granted, it's very similar. A lot of fascists were Jewish, for one thing. But fascism is based on nationality, whereas Nazism is based on race. They are both forms of socialism, collective ownership over the means of production. The fascist party was a specific government in Italy, and it was different than the Nazi party. Most people use fascist as a word describing a government, but it was actually a government itself. Look it up if you don't believe me.
10:55
Nazism and Fascism are two different ideologies.
It is important to remember that Fascism is an Italian term to describe the system of empowering Fascia, the Italian Trade Unions, to control the economy not the individual. Trade Unions who then formed the first named Corporations.
You are ignoring a major point when you talk about industrual era capitalism. Lets start by the claim that it worked people to death: Were the people working voluntarily? If so, why were they willing to work so much, for so little? Was it because the alternative was even worse? If that is the case, the capitalist is actively improving the life of the person, even if the end result was still bad. What matters is that it was an improvement.
The criticism that socialists make is that the worst condition outside of the factory was bad because of the capitalist. A lot of people was displaced by the advancements in technology of that time, which left a lot of people in very bad conditions. This is not the fault of the factory owner, but of the inevitable technological advancement itself. If you placed a minimum wage law at that time, or maximum work hours, you would only force people into the worse scenario of unemployment, by making it ilegal for the factory owners to hire people of that price.
There is not a single worker right, that it not a simple prohibition to work in certain conditions. Today almost no one would be willing to work so much for so little, but those who do, have that option removed from them, and are forced into the worst scenario.
To ad to that having equal pat will result in workers that do the work to find other jobs and workers that stay don't work as much because there pay if that high.
My boss owns the company I work for and he gets down right beside us in the dirt and knows way more than any of his workers know about the type of work we do, he started his company from the ground and bought and paid for all the tools and machinery we have through his own hard work but he doesn’t deserve to be paid more than I do when I’ve only worked here 7 years and he’s owned the business for 30? How does that add up? I do roofing on the side and I pay my guys good but they don’t make as much as I do because they’re using my tools, vehicles and equipment and I have to go out and get the work but they deserve to make the same I make when all they have to do is show up and work with no other investment in my business? Fuck that
I actually went through the entire twitter chain. I thought you were being rather abrasive, but other than that, I would've liked if you had pointed out that if you had given co-ownership to someone who doesn't work as hard as you do, would that other co-owner not be exploiting you much like how she accuses bosses of doing? Also calling her out on the fact that "voting" doesn't work when you're only two people.
Scale defines the viability of all systems. Communism works at the level of the family; a very small group of people you know intimately who you will interact with for your entire life, much like the structure of pre-historic tribal society. A great hunter who went out and got injured on a hunt wouldn't pay for the tribe to take care of him while he recovered from his injury, the tribal healers would heal him and the tribe would feed him. Likewise, the tribal healer wouldn't have to pay the hunter for his meat during normal times to feed her child or herself, the hunter hunted his meat for the tribe. Everyone played their role in, for the tribe. In other words, communism. But in a world with billions of people or even a tribe which gets to be too large, you can't have that kind of individual accountability. Not everyone can know and care about everyone like that.
Socialism works at a company or town/district level. When people relatively know each other and have accountability for their part of the town/company, when they feel they have some ownership or control, some skin in the game with a place they interact with quite a bit, they'll take care of their part. I worked for a company that was essentially socialist before. Work for a certain number of hours and you accrued stock; do enough training and work there long enough, pay your does, and get a graveyard shift manager position for a bit and they'd give you more stock per time worked. Make your way up to the day shift manager and they'd send you to college to get a business degree, and if you made it through college you'd be expected to work as assistant manager at your store for a while until you were deemed ready to take control of the next new store they opened. Managers made pretty decent money too, and anyone who accrued any stock had a vote equal to their shares in any decision the company made, and it worked surprisingly well.
Liberal economics works at a county level because it isn't overbearing for the results. The money that's taxed out of me to do public works directly affects the area and property value around me positively. Parks are good for me both personally and financially. Quality garbage disposal for all is good for me both for sanitary reasons and for property value reasons. I have enough skin in the game where the value that's taxed out of me which is reinvested in my local county-level society is in aggregate better for me than not having such social services.
Conservative economics is good at the state level. Some very minor social programs, mainly to maintain social stability, avoids the issues of violence and substance abuse which come with homelessness. Largely state-level governments should avoid taxation, but there is a need to maintain state police, National Guard readiness, etc. Minimal funding can be provided to colleges or positive social institutions, but any giving to these institutions from the government should be indirect, such as in the form of tax breaks for doners.
Libertarian economics works best at the federal level. The degree of anonymity is too great for any individual accountability to take place at the federal level. Its too easy to mooch off of welfare programs, and it's too easy loot taxpayers through corporate assistance. The more centralized the economy, the more the inherent corruption in the endless bureaucracy gets away with due to the relative anonymity of any individually corrupt unit. People can't even be looked at as people at this scale, its too difficult to think of one million people as people, instead of a large number of units in a faceless crowd. This works well for military spending, and certain very basic protections such as courts, diplomats, etc. Either discreet units where there is direct accountability (diplomats), or large units where individual accountability isn't the point and the individual doesn't and shouldn't matter (the military).
The basic theory is that the more skin one has in the game, the more one has to lose direction in their life, the more they will take care of it, or suffer the consequences and learn therefrom. The locus of the solution of a problem should come as close a locus both geographically and interpersonally as possible. Or in military terms, solve the problem at the lowest level in the chain of command. In family terms, don't go running to your parents every time you and your siblings have a fight, figure it out between yourselves, your not 3 years old anymore.
Capitalism would be great if interest rate is balance
You are free to start a worker Co-op in a free market economy and can shit at the bankers while doing so.
This is ageing well
Lol
Some parts of society is best when based on socialism, other on capitalism, etc. BUT IF EVERYTHING IS BASED ON ONE SINGLE THING, IT *WILL* BE TERRIBLE.
But what parts are best based on what, is the big political discussion.
Ah yes because capitalist and socialist policy sure does coexist well , not like they inherently work against one another
@@4zap7 Have you heard of social democracies such as Denmark? Both socialist and Capitalist, works very well. Not optimal, but most people fare a lot better than the US
Often times I scuff at the idea of nazism being socialist, since most people that argue for that idea is "But they called themselves the National Socialist Workers Party, so they must be socialist...". I think you're one of the only people who've made a convincing case for that argument, and for that, I commend you.
I could definitely pick out the places in this video where you were parroting Jordan Peterson's phrases and sentiments word-for-word without attribution. Take heed from one of his recent videos and learn how to rephrase those ideas and concepts within your own personal language. That way you're not parroting someone else's ideas (which people can instinctively tell) and instead learn to integrate them into a cohesive whole within your own mind.
Not accusing of plagiarism, just tired of people picking out individually meaningful phrases and sentences from certain works and regurgitating them without letting them properly integrate themselves into a cohesive whole. You find this a lot in the Skeptic™ folks and I was worried that you might be falling into it.
Socialism and communism dwell on the fact that the entire society as a whole is going to be one unit working for the betterment but fail to realize that greed is very much a human aspect. Unless people are incentivized to do stuff, why would they?
fun fact- one of the tsars actually was putting into motion to end serfdom and create a constitution, similar to the british, BUT socialists murdered him preventing the draft from being created. all in the name of the people, comrade!
@brien Not his children though
Good Video, But the quote at the end is wrong. it's "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the other forms that have been tried"
The quote of his on capitalism is:
The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.
Who does this video only have 1.5k views?
"Why Nazism was Socialism".
Well it IS short for National Socialism.
the man with the mustache himself on this topic:
ua-cam.com/video/fQultIx6z9c/v-deo.html
I kinda feel like it's unfair to put feudalism in here....feudalism isn't the weakest of the MODERN social system...its one of the strongest of the CLASSICAL social systems...feudalism peers are the slave dependant Roman Society or the Chinese Imperial structure
Capitalism is pretty good. It allows people to work and earn their way through life. It's a system of merit, where quality will naturally rise due to quality demanding more money, and money affording more luxuries. I know that this isn't always the case, but it seems like people who want to tear down capitalism are people who don't understand the concept of meritocracy - or are unable to compete within one.
Of course, capitalism has its problems. Unregulated capitalism lead to the horrorshow that was the industrial era, but human rights regulation has largely solved that. Homelessness and grinding poverty are still a problem, as is the nature of banking and stock trading. But these things are better off tackled within a mixed capitalist economy with sensible government regulation, instead of insane ideas like removing money from society or returning to the nomadic darkness and superstition and fear characteristic of the time of our ancestors, or communal living where everybody is equal because everybody is poor and starving.
No. I'll keep capitalism, and the human rights, technology, and enlightenment-era western democracies it has created, thank you very much.
While a pure meritocracy would have it's advantages.
Capitalism is not a meritocracy.
This is because in a meritocracy you would have equal opportunity to everyone else to show your merit.
In a capitalist society, those with the most merit might rise to the top to begin with, but then the empires they create will centralize all power around their families and friends. Causing them to have an advantage over everyone else in the next test of merit.
Which over time will divide society into a minority with all the power descendants of those with merit.
And a majority living in squalor not able to show their merit, because nobody is interested.
You can see an inkling of this in the US today. But socialist structures are keeping it at bay.
setting a cap on how low a human can get before society has to take responsibility.
It's still a shitty system, but it's socialist structures that keep it from being even worse.
If you really want a meritocracy, you would need to remove inheritance.
Good luck with that.
Haiiry Cake but sometimes those very socialist also aid in destroying the meritocracy within capitalism as well. Dodd Frank is one example. It was designed to regulate big banks but what it ended up doing was make an exclusive club of banks that could operate due to regulation capture. They could just simply lawyer and lobby their way out of these regulation violations while new smaller banks couldn’t establish properly in the competitive market.
@@16m49x3 I believe social programs to help the poor would be better, because you should be able to do what you want with your money, even giving it to your offspring
@@mechamedegeorge6786
The argument was not for removing inheritance, the argument was that a meritocracy is a pipe dream.
I agree that people should be able to choose what to do with their own money. And I would advocate for their ability to do so. But I would also advocate for them to choose to spend it giving people opportunities they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.
Because there's an argument for that being good for everyone.
I would not argue for a state that steals your money and give it to people in the name of equal opportunity however.
I think the biggest issue with the left is not that the idea of giving the weak a little help is bad, it's that they feel that the weak are entitled to get help, and that therefore make it so being weak is a privilege
This is pure brilliance. How have I never come across you before?
I can't feel passion for something that I hold higher than another person? I feel quite *_STRONGLY_* about that. Is this what they call *_TRIGGERING_* ?
Right? Let's see an author write a book series, possibly spending years on it. Then they ask for my help on the project, pitch ideas, help edit. And now because I have equal ownership, I can add whatever I want to it. Therefore allowing me to change any lore, any character I wish. That author is going to be pissed that I did that because that was their passion.
The American measurement of poverty does not include food stamps, refundable credits, TANF payments, section 8 money, and Medicaid eligibility. When all these programs are taken in to account, the USA poverty rate is a mere 4-7%.
Homelessness would be solved if cities built public housing consisting of studio apartments.
Banks should be broken up, with the lending side split off as finance companies, and the deposit taking side split off as money market mutual funds with bricks and mortar. Note that finance companies rarely get into trouble, and that MMMFs do not require deposit insurance.
At least 30-50% of all stocks should be owned by indexed mutual funds, held by pension plans and retirement accounts. This way everybody would benefit from stocks, which have returned 10.9%/year on average since 1949.
Much of the rural UK consisted of land owned by aristocrats and farmed by tenant farmers, whose cottages were rented as well. Leaseholds were inheritable in perpetuity, and rentals were set by custom and were low. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the British Parliament passed Enclosure statutes, which allowed landowners to terminate customary leases and to send tenant farmers packing. The expelled tenant farmers fled first to the USA and Canada, then to the cities where they were desperate for jobs. Wages were low and working conditions were terrible, because many families were desperate for wages.
The lifestyles of British manual labourers began to improve in the 1850s, in part because of technological advances in workplaces, and in part because the repeal of the Corn Laws made food cheaper.
Socialism does not work because economic executives are paid salaries that do not vary with economic outcomes. If economic execs are paid bonuses based on profits, that exacerbates the income inequality that socialism opposes. Socialism is also predicated on job security; firing people because the unit they managed loses money violates this unspoken compact.
The form of equality that a nation state can assure, is equality in poverty for all but a tiny elite. Maoism at its worst approached this. The USSR allowed wages for Europeans to be 2-3x higher in central Asia and in Siberia, in order to encourage Russians and Ukrainians to settle there.
Capitalism just sounds like regulated anarchism to me!
Lol remember that time when hotter was asked if he would dismantle and reassemble the largest German steel company as a national property and he was all “what are you insane? Why would I cripple Germany’s steel production ?”
I think your biggest issue here is that there is no such thing as “good faith” and that there is NO POSSIBLE THING that could unify a people besides product/wealth.
Child labor has been decreasing before there were laws against it. Also, there were businessmen, like Henry Ford, who gave their employees rights without any government involvement.
1 year later, and your predictions of Venezuela have come fully.
As a Venezuelan, he was right.
there is 3 functions that all government share: consume, grow, and scapegoat.
Socialism can work but only in small populations. Small as in 500 people minimum.
Socialism can work if the Socialists mooch off of something else
That is why the pwople who invented the term are mainly farmers who don't know a lot about how governments work.
@@tanimation7289 agreed. It's a good system for a naturalist community but for a country, it doesn't work long term
Americans: Yeah, socialism is great because healthcare, education and unions
European: That... is not socialism, those are government programs/policies government just implemented
Do you own property? Do you own your business? Do your workers have any say in how your business operates and is it enforced by state? Does state command the market? No? Good, you live in capitalism, literally 90 % of the world does and guess why. Because this is the most effective economic system and the fact that you do not go broke by breaking your arm or needing medical attention or the fact that you are not in debt for the rest of your life by getting higher education has literally nothing to do with socialism.
If you want to see which system brings in more overall wealth and therefore more human development, just look at East German Trabants vs West German BMWs.
?
Socalism in 2 words muh workers. That is all they say. Muh workers muh workers muh workers.
There's a hole in your analysis of feudalism, and that is that it doesn't take into account the... political context, for lack of a better term. Serfs received protection in return for working the land. In functioning modern societies, we take the stability of society and protection of the police and military for granted, but in the Middle Ages things were different. Most people, even many Medieval enthusiasts, don't seem to fully grasp how chaotic those days were. Violence didn't only occur during wars, there were constant low-level feuds between rival lords and neighbouring towns or clans. Some combination of bandits, pirates, barbarian tribes, and steppe raiders were a constant threat no matter where you lived.
Therefore, the nobility specialised in being warriors and leaders to protect serfs from all these threats so that the serfs could get on with the business of providing agricultural products to society. There were also ways in which a feudal lord was expected to provide for his serfs if disaster struck, and he was incentivised to do so because he'd lose their labour if they starved. It was a flawed system to be sure, but it made sense within the context of the times.
Of course, the system was hopelessly outdated long before the mid-19th century. Russia really should've reformed it much sooner.
I’m 14 and this is so deep
If anarchy ever managed to take hold, it would last about 5 minutes before turning into feudalism.
Feudalism was literally born to fight the anarchy made by the collapse of the Roman empire. Giving your work in exchange of protection was a good deal when there was no protection to be had anymore.
Has a Communist outright explain to me how we will close all the airports, ban air travel and build railroads everywhere.
When I asked him where are we getting the resources he said that the government will be distributing it fairly.
I was left speechless, this person was so clueless on how much money and time everything costs and that railroads are somewhat inefficient. Especially if you want to get the resources quickly from point A to point B.
And lets not even start with the geography of this planet. Thomas Sowell had a essay on why Africa could never be as prosperous as Europe despite being a larger continent.
"I was left speechless, this person was so clueless on how much money and time everything costs and that railroads are somewhat inefficient"
Compared with air travel? No, that's completely ridiculous.
" Especially if you want to get the resources quickly from point A to point B."
Anything important enough to be required so quickly can be stockpiled, solving this problem. (Not under capitalism though)
" Thomas Sowell had a essay on why Africa could never be as prosperous as Europe despite being a larger continent."
Do you think being colonised and slaughtered by europeans might have had something to do with it
@@DeoMachina So Communist how is that flat earth for you with no elevation.
How about you learn something and not act like an illiterate.
@@DeoMachina African societies have been around long before European ones, so why did Europe surpass them in technology? Surely with a head start in technological innovation by merit of being around for so much longer, Africa should have had the adequate technologies to defend itself from Europeans.
@@ICantThinkOfAFunnyHandle Sure sure because real life is like a video game and there's a "tech tree" that different countries just move along
Sounds reasonable
@@DeoMachina are you suggesting that there is something that would make the Africans develop technology slower than Europeans?
To slightly defend socialism it can never be a success because capitalism exist ! There will always be someone who has the idea to fill a niche or fulfill a need ! Unless the state by force stops them !
Real capitalism has never been tried. Let’s just say that over and over until the Thankies get tired of it and realize how lazy that scapegoat is
I argue that the reason why there can't be anything outside of socialism or communism in order for them to be "real" is because, for the adherents, it's not actually about building themselves up, but tearing others down. If I can't have success, then neither will you.
Facts m8
A lot of the Communism material seems influenced by recent lectures by Jordan Peterson. I'm curious what you think about the good Doctor's religious views.
Have to ask, where are you from? You sound almost Minnesotan like me haha
Vietnam, china, cuba, Laos, north korea, Venezuela. 2 of these have reformed towards more capitalist systems... free markets, private overnership etc. Cuba has huge debt. Laos relies heavily on trade with its neighbours and foreign aid. And North Korea, well, enough said. Which of these countries would you rather live in as a basic citizen?
?
@@Smegead ?
Altho this video gets something wrong it's largely correct.
Would you like to talk about Anarco Capitalism? I don't like live debates because they're "won" by smooth tongues more then truth (and because I stutter a lot), I'd accept either DMs or using a public platform (to write to each other in a long period of time that needs not to be constrained by a couple of hours, letting us so discuss with calm and clarity of mind).
Well it doesn't look like Dev noticed you but I'll bite.
Lay in on me. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say about the subject.
@@letsgetreal6402 Dev hasn't responded to THIS one, but we've been talking some times on Twitter AND he already talked about ANCAP.
tl;dr he has no argument except pointing and laughing.
@@Italian_Isaac_Clarke still, would you mind throwing a few ideas my way? To me it seems a bit oxymoronic and I'm curious what people think it's strong points are. I don't/won't go on Twitter so I'll ask here
@@letsgetreal6402 I will be as brief as possible while explaining everything:
What people cal Capitalism, in popular culture, is just "when money do bad in my opinion tbh". Capitalism is a economic model where free people engage in free trade without government intervention of any kind.
Anarcho Capitalism is redundant because Capitalism is inherently Anarchic, BUT it's called that way not only to hammer the point, but also to ledge it into politics.
In ANCAP the only law, The Law, is the Non Aggression Principle, a Law which states that all initiation of force among people
(living machines with the attribute of Personhood, altho I am the ONLY ANCAP which will actually say that because either other ANCAPs haven't yet or they refuse to take the Logic to the end and give the answer to "what's the difference between the humans and others?")
is never justified.
As all politics this is applicable only in a society. It can't be applied either in an apocalypse or to photosynthesis.
The N.A.P. is extrapolated with the use of Logic from First Principles, meaning that The Law is literally written in the fabric of reality.
This is pretty much everything. For more info Shane Killian is the best source you may use.
@@Italian_Isaac_Clarke thanks. I'll look over it
America must not be capitalistic because increases in wages and increase in corporate profits became decoupled in the late 70s. Now the corporations are in complete control of the government through lobbying & donations (aka bribery) and suppress wages as a way to squeeze more money out of the common working man until he doesn't make enough to even survive which is where we are headed. Massive tax cuts and subsidies for wealthy multi-national corporations is a form of corporate socialism in order to keep their profits rocketing higher while government coffers then have to turn to the middle class worker to keep everything running. The worst part is that the USA has a consumer spending based economy so when nobody makes enough money to spend while the average Americans is drowning in debt it freezes the entire economy. Henry Ford understood that you have to pay workers enough to buy the products and services for our economy to work as intended; today it's just a race to the bottom in the name of quarterly profits.
When it comes to the Holodomor, the artificial famine perpetrated by Stalin in Ukraine, it wasn't done to upset hierarchy. It was a secondary result of Stalin forcing a technological leap in the Soviet Union. He moved many of his people into the cities so they could work in the factories building the machines for agriculture and mostly for war he knew was coming eventually. In his mind the people working in the factories were more important than the farmers and thus needed to be fed first. So when the collectivization of foodstuffs started the farmers were left with nothing. After the Holodomor the starved Ukrainians were replaced Russians which in a round about way has led to the current shitshow problems going on in southeast Ukraine today with Putin's lies of protecting ethnic Russians living in Ukraine.
I genuinely feel like a dumbass when watching your content because I have to look up half the things you say.
If your approach to new information is to take the time to understand it more fully, you are far from being a dumbass.
You're not dumb, you're just ignorant of the facts about what he's talking about, and by taking the time to look into it that shows you want to no longer be ignorant of what he's talking about.
"Anarcho-socialism" is an oxymoron.
Student loans are why university is so expansive
Expansive?... Universities do take up quite a lot of space, but I do doubt that that is directly linked to student loans.
opps...
ex·pen·sive
I’m sorry, but I have to say it:
It’s “picture” not “pitcher”
There is a huge issue with your argument starting at 27:25. It assumes that, as a hierarchy moves from a hierarchy of merit to a hierarchy of power, it will grow more ineffective and collapse eventually (citing the lack of collapse and existing effectiveness as proof that we can't be too close to a perfect hierarchy of power/not too far away from a hierarchy of merit).
While it is reasonable to assume, that a hierarchy of merit should be more effective, I don't see any reason to assume, that an absolute hierarchy of power has to be so ineffective, that it leads to collapse or a worse state of affairs than the one we live in.
There are two more issues with that: Any system can still get a lot of good work out of the most capable people without putting them too far up the hierarchy. Also, the amount of good work, you get out of good people, is not strictly monotonically increasing with the amount of money you pay them (which is, in our system, strongly connected to their ladder on a hierarchy), in fact, I consistently see by far the best results of my work in the endeavours for which I have the most intrinsic motivation. I cannot prove this, but I am almost certain, that I would focus much more on those projects if my pay was completely disconnected from my work (and sufficient, of course.
I think "power" isn't the correct word, here. Communism always suffers from having conniving weasels and/or power-hungry madmen rising to the top. Both the USSR and China are prime examples. They (the ones at the top and the ones with ambitions of being at the top) end up wasting significant amounts of energy undermining their own comrades in order to gain/maintain power. Like crabs in a bucket, but with a little stepladder in the middle to play King of the Hill on. It might not necessarily collapse on itself, but it will only be as efficient as the guys at the top enable it to be, and these guys will not be reflective of good leadership, but of good ability to gain power within that structure (ie weasels and monsters).
Been subbed for a while, never seen this one before, aged like wine dude.
Individual liberty, capitalism and private property are necessary for civilization, imo
I doubt capitalism really is. It's just economic system, which btw naturally tries to go against freedom and human rights.
It's restrictions and regulations of the state, what saves us from neofeudalism(which is a threat imo)
But the creation of the system which doesn't require nor exploitation, nor regulation or authority would be a true miracle.
But you can't just do the revolution and turn everything upside down of course.
But defending capitalism is stupid just the same as defending communism imo.
So, what to do I don't know lmao
P. S. Private property and all kinds of freedoms are essential indeed
Factory worker here, and a full supporter of Capitalism, the best, most effective economic system yet to be invented. It's given me a standard of living superior to what kings had in feudal societies: clean water, abundant food year-round, and entertainment at the tips of my fingers at all times, among many other things. I own land. I have money put away. I don't have to stand in bread lines for hours on end in order to survive. My job honestly compensates me more than I deserve, but I'm not complaining. My 40 hours per week allows me to comfortably pay for the other 128. Socialists need to step up their arguments if they want to convince people that their system is superior to Capitalism, because it honestly sounds awful in comparison.
This video was like going through the 5 stages of grief (except in this case, there's six) with capitalism in the role of acceptance.
Fantastic video
Anarchy is a joke.
“Industrial society and it’s future”
I have a friend that is a socialist and sometimes we constantly argue about which is better, not in a "I hate you" way but just trying to convince each other to the other thing, and always when I ask to say where and how his ideology would work he lists NEAR PERFECT CONDITIONS and he REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ANYTHING CAN WORK WITH PERFECT CONDITIONS
It really is a Utopian dream, and like all utopian projects it fails. There is no perfect society, never was, never will be. Even if Socialists want to point to hunter gatherers as an example of humans in a natural socialist state of being (not a state), that still was not utopia. At the very least, it had enforcement through things like violence or shame, and when those failed, those groups have been shown to be fluid, with people leaving when they wanted. You can't have that in a modern socialist state, as it would fail, which was why the Berlin Wall was built.
I would disagree with inequality being a sign that capitalism isn't perfect, inequality is inevitable in a free market because there will always be people who you have less ambition. The real argument against capitalism is that quantitive easing is allowed and general market manipulation which interferes with the system's nature. Money also at many points throughout history had true value, unlike the paper money today that is no longer consisered to be an IOU note in exchange for gold, but considered to be the literal asset which is nonsensical when the state has the power to simply print more.
Many years later, I think this is still your finest work, devo.
Capitalism is based on merit. Until it is regulated.
Unfortunately the people who need to hear this will ignore it and say capilatism is evil the end.
You can have higher social standing by virtue of merit and your *Social Standing is POWER.* Am i missing something? I don't think you debunked the claim that human hierarchy is based on power, you simply said "hey it works" and moved on to the next. Meritocracy is great but let's not pretend its kind to humans on the lower end of the skill spectrum.