It shows a miserable lack of imagination to believe that the alternatives to the inherently immoral and socially and ecologically destructive social construct of neoliberalism are limited to those that hav been trialed historically. It is pathetic.
@@hailymusic5378 yeah, his views are clearly colored by his current position in life. to him this is simply a theoretical discussion. there are ways to decommodify essential markets without violence serious erupting. ps: this speaker is a russiagater.
@@jeremias5688 What makes you assume I have not done that? Do you think a YT comment section is the place to do that? Really? What makes you assume I am a "lefty" or any "...y" for that matter? You are lucky that I am nice person. So, if you are really interested in solutions you can start by reading the following that I wrote about 15 years ago: planettitanic.wordpress.com/intro/preface/ (read everything not just the preface). When you are finished and have properly digested the content... I have about 2,000 pages more that I will then willingly share with you. Go ahead.
I am a radical centrist. I think that left and right should be abolished because with their awful views and propaganda they create state, social, economic instability. Balance is needed, and they upset it.
@@ferGonzalezMusica economy is inexorably linked with social politics. He was most definitely discussing philosophical economics, as he very clearly stated.
Yeah I agree. Nuance, love for one another and tolerance is needed. Unfortunately I really don't see that reported in the news... It's either strong conservative from Fox News and hard left from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc. They have a narrative and reframe information or use "sources" to stitch hate and polarization. Personally I'm financially conservative and moderate socially. I think things should be equality of opportunity but no guarantee of equality of outcome. That's what logically and emotionally is fair to me at least.
As an African who studied international relations 11 years ago, this kind of discussion is refreshing to see. My classmates would have really enjoyed it. I appreciate Lex even more now.
He's right that we have a beautiful system. I wish he would point out that the other main issue putting a dark shadow over the brilliance of the potential system is that we allow politicians (who are supposed to represent people) to be funded by mega corporations and private donors. Politicians should not be allowed to have their loyalties and policies be shaped by financial incentives, at least not legally. That is ruining the system and in my opinion is what is driving more and more people to the dangerous fringes. People are not feeling like the system is working for them anymore, which it isn't. And it will only get worse as long as people refuse to make this their main target.
money is merely a representation of resources (or potential resources) held. If you prohibit the transfer of money between lobbyists and politicians, they will merely exchange resources in other ways, which incidentally will be much more difficult to track and have transparency over. Though I do understand that money would be more efficient. At least with legal lobbying, we the people, sort of know about it. The crazy thing is, we do know about it and most of us don't do shit about it. Although that could easily be explained by en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance Further, if you prohibit campaign donations, the best funded campaign will be the campaign run by the ultra wealthy individual eg. Donald Trump. I'm not convinced that's an improvement. In my opinion, the only way to reduce this corruption is to reduce the scope of things politicians have control of i.e. libertarianism.
No doubt, as Joe Rogan said the other day, no money in politics and no money for the lobby AND adding to that, no dual citizenship for any politicians.
Yeah sorry for the late but just wanted to tell you that this is one of the worst ideas ever. That is just gonna give the government more power to control us. Private, public, either way we will end up being controlled. And at the end of the day those same big corporations will influence the governments regardless of the ways. Living in Brazil, I damn well know what I'm talking about. It's one of the most corrupt yet most regulated countries in the world. Corporatism and government corruption run side by side here.
That and the fact that political dynasties even exist. The founders hated aristocrats and royalty but that's exactly what career politicians are creating and to the detriment of the people.
@@ScottyNapaa obvious objections with equally obvious solutions. Ban all private money, have elections state funded, limit the election cycle to say six months to make it practical with set, equal times for candidates to be heard and otherwise a media black-out. Fairness or near fairness is possible: the real problem is the system doesn't want that.
Such an interesting guy to listen to. Very knowledgable breaking things down objectively. Great interview, will definitely keep listening to this guy. Thanks
How dare you inquire about the source of his audacity, you don’t know this stranger and it’s rude to ask such questions. Personally, I believe he was dropped on his head as a child and or adult. But his severe brain injuries/impairment are none of my business, so I will refrain from asking.
I would've loved having Kotkin as a political science professor. We always tended to get too deep into the minutiae (yes, that's the point of graduate education) at the expense of understanding the larger system. It's like a watchmaker who focuses so much on the movement of the escapement that he forgets he's working on a watch. Maybe each field needs its generalists to reorient its specialists from time to time.
Amazing perspective on an age old question. I had been trying to understand these political arguments more deeply and I feel I am much closer after watching this. Thank you!
Hello. If you would like to hear some real arguments, try watching this (auto translation does it's job): ua-cam.com/video/dWTbvgVOnn0/v-deo.html After you watch, I'm open to discussion. Have a nice day)
Death rate might actually be a good metric for a good society, although I think the essence of a good society is individual self-determination or liberty, and that a lower death count is just generally a proxy to that, but that breaks down as soon as you get into the question of a government which sees fit to deprive people of their liberties in order to keep them safer than they would want to be, say by locking them in their homes because the government determines that it is too dangerous outside, kind of like what is happening now with covid-19.
@@seeker.8785 Fine, let's go. COVID breaks out but the government does nothing to prevent the spread of it. Millions die due to the lack of supportive care necessary in some cases of COVID because the hospitals are overrun. LA country is running low on oxygen for patients......but no biggie...
You're spot on....I think he keeps his/our focus because he cogently steel-mans contrasting arguments for why "X" is needed and why "Y" is the problem. But what really keeps you at the edge of your seat and hanging on every word is the inability to pick up cues on his preference early. You have to wait until he tells you. That's the personification of the "Steel Man".
This is terrible stuff. The system today isn't market capitalism, it is oligarchy. Socialism for the rich. The problem is on the center, which is so far to the right, and in the control of the oligarchs.
@@s1dew1nd3r4 How can we disagree so much? To me the center is doing the bidding of Wall Street, the Military Industrial complex, Silicon Valley, big oil, basically all the corporations are getting what they want, and nothing is going to the people like universal healthcare and such things. How can you say that is left? The center keeps on giving taxbreaks to the rich. What does the left get in economic terms?
Lex, thank you so much for what you do. I found you on joe rogans podcast but i have found that i enjoy your discussions to a much greater degree, thank you for everything you do.
You can't discuss political systems without addressing the issue of culture. How does an individual view himself in a political system, as an individual or as a group? Or any in-between as it is quite the spectrum. You can't, for example, have communism in a culture where individualism is extremely strong.
This podcast has 6000 views. A far right site like Liberal HIvemnid has 400,000 after going live just 6 months ago. Its amazing how we become so tribal and yearn to be fed by our preconceived biases, instead of question them. There seems to be little room for nuanced thought and compromise seems to be at an ebb right now.This is from an American perspective... I see the social democrats of Europe as our hope (not saying its perfect by any stretch), but without redistribution, the Prieto principle goes from 80/20 to more like 95/5
@scooby skwad no doubt. I have no problem if we had oscillation from the left ( worker's rights) to the right (business interests). But since Clinton took the dems to the center right, we are too far skewed and out of balance. The extremes on both sides are the danger
@@stevesetzer3361 Socialism, AT ANY LEVEL, will completly DESTROY you country. Don't be delusional. Don't play the "moderate" or you will regret forever.
also called market place socialism. like in Sweden where we don't only regulate capitalism but have big companies that are owned by the people. mainly in the services that are used by all people. Energy, media, real-estate, water, telemarket (phone/internet), pharma and alcohol. the idea being that it helps regulate the prices and give citizens "affordable options" in the market place.
@@ArkhonXIX i just sent you first one of a quick search do it yourself anf youll see they all say the same. lived and worked in both countries and a life long citazen of SOCIALIST Sweden there is a world of difference. but yes, maybe we see the "term" regulated differently witch makes it hard to compare. soon different countries. but remember Sweden had the same socialistic party in power for 60 years. our whole system, our way of looking at capitalism is way different than Americans. here regulation, welfare and unions are prioritized at no1.
I wonder how well the Swedish system would work without American medical innovations and military protection. When there are crimes against humanity why doesn't the world cry out for Swedish intervention? When there are natural disasters why doesn't Sweden funnel huge amounts of capital to help the victims? And why isn't Sweden brokering peace deals between war torn countries in the middle east?
@@MrAtheistLibertarian first of all.. im not hating on or criticizing America? I don't know where that idea came from? I simply explained the political system of Sweden since the were talking about the different socialistic system. We have a unique one. . Second, Sweden is a small country but we do more than our part. We give more to the poor and war-torn countries per capita than almost every other country in the world. We take in more refugees than almost any other country in the world. In fact one city in Sweden. Södertalje.. took in more Iraqi refugees than the whole of America during the height of the Iraq war. I'm very comfortable with our positive impact on the world. If I were you I would read up more on the geopolitical history and impact of America post the second world war. From the Korean and Vietnam wars in the 50 - the 60s.. to Iraq, Iran, Syria, and South American coups in the 60 and 70s to Afganistan in the 80s to Iraq again in the 90s to Afghanistan and Iraq AGAIN in the 2000s - America has had a hand in STARTING so much chaos in the world the last 70 years. All bc of a cold war, political power, oil, or geopolitical strategy. There is a reason why big parts of the world despise America. It's not bc of "American freedom" - that's silly - that's just feedback .- propaganda - you tell yourself to feel good. its bc they have parent or grandparents that been touched by American violence. Friends that died by American hands. With all that said. I have a lot of love for America. I have a lot of American friends and have spent a lot if time in America for the last 20 years. But your politics and your history is complex. Your impact on the world is complex. Many Americans need to wake up and be honest about who they are and what their REAL impact is on the world.
Excellent Interview, extremely refreshing to know their is someone who has wrapped their mind around government and how we can do it better. Inciteful conversation, in order to receive the right answer, you must begin by asking the right questions. Lex does an outstanding job at this.
He tried to avoid it, but you can tell at the end there that what he truly endorses is social democracy, a healthy balance of both free markets and government regulation and distribution. Scandinavia has already figured this out and has proven it.
The truth is that even in the USA the government sector is huge, and there is socialism. Non-marxist socialism works perfectly fine when its in a holistic system. The marxist prism is the problem and really ought to be a curiosity from history, not an ideology that so many people are still trying to use and apply to our world.
Skandinavia only works because it is a small, homogeneous population. Same with South Korea and Japan. The best countries in the world have very very little immigration, and their citizens actually love their country. Americans are all too different and they all hate their country or government. It would never work here.
I was with him right up to the very end, where he seemed to imply that the problem with the schools was the need for more funding. Funding won’t do squat when the problem with the students is a lack of family structure. The school systems that produced the electrical engineers, doctors, teachers, and business leaders of the past century taught the kids with pennies compared to what we spend now. But the successful kids had parents who stressed the importance of the education, discipline, courtesy towards your fellow students, and support for when you failed-encouragement to get back up and try again. This was a father and a mother, and often extended family nearby, for both support and discipline.
Professor Kotkin lays out at the argument between Marxist who wanted to destroy capitalism (nuke it purist) and left-leaning social Democrats who wanted to introduce social programs while reforming capitalism. In society today we have capitalist purists arguing against left-leaning social Democrats who wanted to sustain and introduce social programs while reforming capitalism as if they were Marxist purist. Sadly, you can't have a conversation today (except for churlish ones), let alone legislation without this incorrect simplification of an inaccurate representation of the situation. The issue runs deeply within our American psyche, and I fear we will not shake it until we ruin our opportunity to achieve our potential. We will defeat ourselves in the adoration of slogans.
As Mr. Kotkin said, we need competition in politics and economics. The current problem seems to be that there is a concentration of economic power which can buy political competition, thereby concentrating political power. Solution : Direct-democracy with lateral power distribution ?
"The current problem seems to be that there is a concentration of economic power..." Depends on who you believe though doesnt it? Concentration of wealth via the stock market isnt the same as profiteering from the sad life of someone going into a coal mine for 14h a day, or sewing clothes until they have RSI. I could easily argue that if anything, in the West, the government already does too much to help, and is the real 'opiate of the masses' as it takes away the sufferings that make life what it is. Making things 'flatter', not so much 'lateral', is a laudable goal. And very large bureaucracies face that pressure anyway. Bezos got to the top, and from the moment he got there was attacked endlessly. For example, he divorced his wife who is determined to give most of it away as fast as she can; his kids and grandkids are at risk of becoming mediocre trust fund babies; he is more interested in orbiting the planet than growing his business... The reality of it is that it would take 100s of Bezos' to simply give it all away and lift all the poor and useless up to the middle class. People get to the middle class and beyond through a combination of factors, none of which are predicted or ensured by marxism.
No political system will ever fix the deeper human issues that lead to corruption, violence and exploitation of one's fellow man. We must continue to grow as a species, and that can only be done in the hearts of each individual, not through force.
What’s so crazy is that this is basic, fundamental and assumed. Now it seems like a whole new generation needs to be told these basic premises of a free and functional society. The multiparty system we have in Northern Europe is not perfect, but it’s at the upsides discussed here.
The credit card issue was nothing to do with politics, it was to do with commercial decisions of private companies based on what they think will be most profitable for them. As women became more economically independent and richer, so they became a business opportunity not to be missed out on.
It’s unbelievable to hear someone calm, reasonable and rational. I wish we’d hear more from people like this instead of the bleating, screeching lunatics on the far right and left.
@@eddyf4426 gladly, but his critic is due to misinformation, because this polemic lacks constructive basics and everything said has no relation to socialism/marxism. I propose to use one statement, which you find the most trustworthy and I will comment on that.
@@eddyf4426 also I have already posted here my comment. If you look at it, you'll see simplified arguments against video content. And the link contains pro socialism elaboration info.
Not true what this guy is saying about history, he should educated himself more. Socialism in Yugoslavia did not produce tirany, mass violence, and deaths, it was actually quite the oposite, or as famous French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre , after visiting Yugoslavia, said - the Yugoslav socialism is the materialization of my philosophy.
Brian - I’ll rephrase, there’s no doubt that a certain type of feudalism dominated Western Europe and there were alterations depending on the region to feudalism this did exist, possibly at a different time in almost every fiefdom. Categorisation of that period as feudal I’d the one Marxist historical interpretation that has been incorporated into history without contention among academics. While naturally it took different forms, this was the economic system broadly. I think what this person was doing was trying to undermine Marxist thought by wrongly insinuating that it’s contentious wether feudalism existed and dominated the world for that period. It’s therefore less of a historical statement than a political one.
He is referring to how Marx viewed history. When he says supposedly, Kotkin is simply making it clear that it's not his own judgment on the matter, but what the author he's referring to meant about the issue. And in Marxist theory it is supposed that before the bourgeoise revolutions that created capitalism, there was a previous system called feudalism. He's not denying that feudalism was real, just making it clear that Marx supposed it was an important system in political history.
He is not right in the head. He is too deep in capitalist propaganda that he wants to deny that in pre-socialist countries, people lived in inhumane conditions.
Doesn't the current Capitalist model just kick the can down the road? Markets are all based on growth, and it is self evident that in a finite world growth can't be eternal
Goddam. After this crazy year, it is so refreshing to hear a reasonable, sound, and comprehensive analysis of the American political system. SocDems unite!
He shouldn't be criticized for what he said. The better take on this is....he should be commended for having clarifying points made. He explained things differently.
Equality of opportunity should not be the goal of society, because it is always easier to prevent opportunities from those who have them than give opportunities to those who don't have enough, so it will always be the easy way for politicians to create equality of opportunities in an unjust manner, that would harm everyone. The goal should be to maximizing opportunities for everyone, on the basis of merit and not on basis of need.
I like your thought process here. Instead of "equalizing" opportunity for everyone, the gov't should focus on MAXIMIZING the total opportunty available to society. In other words, the gov'ts job should be to create opportunities for everyone, not destroy opportunities for those who already have them.
"Hey can you tell me how all the different political experiments tried around the world can inform our current situation?" SK: "Well we have the answer, it was the American Revolution. We did it the best as possible. Case closed." ....... (me screaming into the void)......
The best political system? It's the family, that allows for mutual cooperation among other families, with the perpetual threat of mutually assured destruction.
@@wconniff878 If the fact that over a million people died in a civil war to end slavery doesn’t satisfy you then go to the people who actually owe you like the Clintons, Obama, Anderson Cooper, Beto, his wife other descendants of slaveholders.
So can we do a Andrew Yang says to do and just take the best of both worlds capitalism socialism leninism whatever Humanity first capitalism where you don't start at zero
@@landonhagan450Basically free markets with social programs that pads the bottom, so at minimum there is a floor where all individuals at least have some capital to participate and fuel the market as well (cue Yang, UBI, end poverty)
So... Pre-Reagan/European Capitalism? You guys act like US capitalism has always been shit. It wasn't it was brought low by greedy tycoons and their pet politicians.
@@panda-bean Eh, something similar to UBI is an inevitable good, but the way we currently conceive of it isn’t really workable for a number of reasons. I think Yang could have set the stage for it to happen faster, but he could never have instituted it himself.
1. I always wonder when people talk about America's success being due to the specific form of government if it isn't more likely that it was simply due to an industrious people moving to a continent that was mostly uninhabited and full of natural resources. Under those conditions, a king, and emperor, or any other form of governance may have prospered equally as well. Automatically attributing this success to the form of government might be a fallacy, a case of historical correlation not equalling causation. Makes you wonder about other examples of this from history. 2. In conversations about the "best" form of government, there is always the unspoken presupposition that human flourishing/happiness/suffering can be affected by government. Is this really so? Having travelled a bit, I have witnessed people under many forms of government living similar lives. There is a happiness set point, whether you are a hunter gatherer, a Laotian farmer, or a London banker. There is also the tendency to generate your own suffering when externals aren't forced upon you, a phenomenon commonly observed in the West. It is an old Buddhist observation that hpoliticalzealousunderstand
Your political system is not a matter of choice, like which pair of shoes to put on. It is something which grows out of the fabric of the society, its people, cultural attitudes and values, historical experience, external influences, and most importantly the distribution of wealth and power within the society. The political system is an outer manifestation of all these things. It is in fact, as experience shows, quite easy to impose the superficial forms of democracy on a society, but this does not recreate the substance of democracy as seen in other countries like the US, UK or France etc. The problems of the society soon emerge in phenomena such as civil conflict, oligarchy, corruption etc. etc. it varies from place to place. There are as many types of democracy as there are democratic states, each reflects the substance of all these things I have listed and none are 'perfect'. Former (LOL) imperialist states like US/UK/France have far from perfect democracies as the demands of behaving like a power cut across democracy. The public if asked, (which they never are) are very unlikely to support most of the foreign adventures these powers like to indulge themselves in for the sake of sectional, special interests. In all these states foreign policy is above and beyond any true democratic control (except for ineffectual structures in place for cosmetic purposes) and is shrouded in secrecy and lies. All news about foreign affairs of interest to the state is controlled and distorted in the channels of mass communication to manufacture public opinion.
If you are an educated leftist this guys points of view are very hard to listen. There are so many false things he says, that it is hard to keep track of. For example, he says socialism didn't produce greater freedom, but instead tyranny and "mass violence". The only way you could believe that, is if you were oblivious to how life was for the working class in the pre-socialist times and what rights did the working class gain for example, in the Soviet Union. Before socialism, let's take my country for example, which I am not gonna name, 80% of the population was eating an average of 6 grams of meat a day, were laking access to healthcare, pensions were not a thing, the vast majority were illiterate and a lot of those who know how to read, could barely read and if you organized a workers strike you could get shot by the military. Fast forward 20 years into socialism and most people had access to education, clean water, hospitals, proper housing, women got equal rights etc. Was it perfect? No, but it so much more than capitalism has ever offered to them. Even now, if you were to destroy the infrastructure built by the socialists in the former USSR, those countries would live in medieval condition. It is unfortunate that the truth is hidden under so many layers of bull$%# propaganda lies.
What country are you referring to? It’s weird how you don’t mention it. Is it possibly due to the fact that the innovation you’re talking about was actually due to capitalist foundations backed by welfare policies and you don’t want anyone to call you out on it? Come on tell us which country it’s important :)
@@TheBanditoLad Lol, not really. Maybe you think of Scandinavian countries. But eastern European countries + Russia had a very different story in which capitalist monarchies held the vast majority of the population in inhumane medieval conditions. Just research on your own about the living conditions of Eastern European + Balcan countries before 1945, literacy, number of doctors/capita and compare it to that of 1970 for each of those countries. It matters not what country, the story is identical: all vital infrastructure: hospitals, schools, roads, water dams which provided clean water, irrigation and electricity, nuclear power plants etc. People who are now 80+ years of age saw their countries rise from agricultural states ravaged by hunger to urbanized industrialized states with decent living conditions. And then they saw the stagnation and slow decline after changing the economic system from socialism to capitalism. Capitalism is pretty dope if you are rich though. It is just a bad choice if you are a poor country with no infrastructure. Like Africa and India. Compare Indian infrastructure of any kind with Chinese infrastructure. Life expectancy. Food accessibility. Etc.
Socialism is to capitalism, like differential equations is to Monte Carlo, where monetary system is the reward function. If the money supply is centralized, the result may be in a broad spectrum from liberal to authoritarian, depending on the monetary policy.
@Fuckya Lookin at If you judge a person by a single comment on something that they found intresting in the spur of the moment you might be the worthless one.
If capitalists act like socialists within a free-market system couldn't we have the putative benefits of socialism without the bureaucracy, rules, mandates, superfluity of laws, and whatever else I'm not thinking of right now?
@douglas wahid Yeah, my hopes is to popularise charities to the point where governments have no reason to expand nor for much of the involuntary situations to occur. P.S. Does anybody here know how to get into Liberty for North Korea or to volunteer for them. How does one check if a charity organization is legitimate?
No, if anything that just shows that humans are inherently flawed and no matter what political system we use we will always find a way to turn it into the worst possible version of itself.
Whether one agrees with or disagrees with Marxism, it is important to mention that Marx did not oppose markets; rather, he opposed capital accumulation by the capitalist class. He was not anti-parliamentarian also. He understood "the state" to be an instrument of one class to suppress another. He called for the workers to capture the state and use it to transform society from a society governed by capital interests to one governed by the interests of the popular masses.
Capitalism doesnt exist, its a mistaken concept created by Marxists in the late 19th century. All economies have capital (wealth used to produce more wealth) in their center, therefore all economies have the features attrobuted to Capitalism. What Marxism accomplishes is the precise opposite of what it intends: it concentrates all capital (all means of production) and all political power in one single institution, the Communist Party. Marxism therefore creates not "socialism" (which is a mirage, cannot exist) it creates the most dystopian ultra concentrated economic system possible. But Marxism needs the concept of Capitalism because you have to convince people that a disease exists in order to sell a cure.
Political systems aren't chosen off a supermarket shelf. They're a product of historical and cultural evolution of societies. The question should be "how to steer a society to improve itself and its political system?"
@@guyfromdubai Google is pretty much a monopoly in the search engine space but yes not many absolute monoplies exists which aren't helped by government regulations. The more common issue in the US is the abudance of oligopolies which are able to develop naturally without the enforcement of anti trust laws through constant mergers and acquisitions.
@@patrickhiggins9633 heres the way I see it, if anyone can start their own search engine without having to qualify for red tape regulations and people choose the best search engine then I dont have a problem with one company being ahead pf the others. People can and do still use bing and yahoo, but I would be against google going to lawmakers to enforce unnecessary requirements or regulations to keep out potential competitors from entering the search engine space. I hope that clarifies my position
The best Political System is one that lets you be as free from your fellow countrymen as possible. Socialism and Communism are always the worse system and the exact opposite of this.
Great that propaganda is working. It was the communists who brought together the best working states in the world right now, the Scandinavian welfare states. Without communists, they would still be dirt poor, as they were before they instituted socialist programs.
@@nevermindshort3 Good thing I'm An American and not owned by the Government. I own myself 100% Free Man right here. God Given Right in The USA. Communism/Socialism only come around at the point of Gun. At the point of a gun in CCP China. At the point of a gun in Communist North Korea. At the point of a gun in Venezuela, at the point of a gun, at the point of a gun, and on and on it goes. Communism, "We pretend to work, you pretend to pay us." Yes yes, The Scandinavian. The Scandinavian are a very Entrepreneurial Society. Ericson, Skanska, Volvo, and H&M heavily imported into the USA. They have Low Corporate Taxes. They have no minimum wage. You can hire and fire people at will. WAY LESS Regulation than in Europe and America. Norway is the only one that has a wealth tax? Vat Tax of 25% on consumables. They also produce tons of oil with an extremely small population. Individuals are also greatly limited in the amount of wealth they can create for themselves in The Scandinavian Societies. But here is the thing, these societies had to start undoing Communism/Socialism because it was destroying their economy. Hence the very small list I already provided. Once this was removed, they stopped being "dirt poor" because Capitalism generates wealth. It's true, and they are seeing it, and they are Absolutely walking back "communism" as you call it. As far as States go. Perfect Example is California. California is already Bernie's wet dream. Free College. Free Medical. Free Food. Free Housing. This State already implemented all of this. California is a Socialist State is in the middle of an exodus of Californians fleeing the State. Which means they are taking their Labor and Tax Revenue with them. Of course they have threatened to Tax People leaving for years in the future and even retracting an increase of State Taxes going back 10 years. Middle Class can't sell their houses fast enough. Take a look on Zillow, east from Victorville to west towards the beaches. It's like an economic gradient of middle class to rich. Even Hollywood and Celebrities are running away from California. The Irony considering they vote for this and push for it on Social Media. The Job Creators are leave. California now has a Half Trillion Dollar Deflect into 2021. It's going to get way way way way bigger. San Fransisco housing market is crashing. The rest of the State is right behind it.The homelessness, oh my god the sheer homelessness in Los Angeles let alone Venice Beach. But it isn't just there, the homelessness is everywhere. Has never been seen like this before. Socialist California with all the Social Programs you could ever want can't even address what is happening. Californians pay out cumulatively 50% in their labor into taxes. This has greatly acerbated the homelessness problem because Citizens can't keep a significant portion of their Labor, because the State takes it in the form of taxes. It just simply does not work. The 6th Largest Economy in the World is being dismantled by Millions of Californians pulling a "John Galt" and leaving. My Uhaul Stocks are going to get me a Jet Ski soon. You are correct, the propaganda is working on you. Have fun doing the research yourself, instead of being told what to think. Nobody owns you. I read Marx. Remedial, really remedial. If you get into his letters, the real juicy racism he has and a further dive shows you how nonintellectual he actual was. Communism is old, lame, inefficient as can be. That is why Black Markets Always and I can't stress the Always enough... Always Black Markets emerge in Communist Societies. Meaning at the end of the day after everything a Communist does, Capitalism always emerges and corrects the Market. GG
@@nevermindshort3 "You are owned by the corporation" Okay which one? Specifically which one? Which Corporation?.... Dare I utter the words LEGAL ZOOM!!!
@@radwizard You say California is a socialist/communist state? You are not correct I believe. But as you mention, they are the worlds 5th largest economy? How does that fit into that they are also communists and communism is bad?
Lenin never said he established socialism in Russia. Socialism, and later Communism, was the goal. Lenin correctly pointed out that when they had achieved was state capitalism rather than socialism. Stalin then tried to reverse Lenin's influence and claimed they had established socialism in Russia. After Stalin died, De-Stalinization reforms reversed many of Stalin's policy, including widespread repression and the gulag. Because of two men, Stalin and Mao, historians like Kotkin criticize the entire 150+ year history of communism.
There needs to be a conversation about the similarities between socialism and fascism. The terms had been obfuscated, perhaps purposefully, placing fascism into the "right" category. However, the systems have more commonalities than differences. Mussolini himself was a devoted Marxist for most of his career.
There is no best system, systems don’t decide how they themselves work. People are the problem. Leaders who think they know what’s best for everyone yet they continuously abuse the systems they control for personal gain for them and their conspirators/acquaintances. A system has a purpose on the outside, meant to accomplish a b and c. People use their authority and inherent loopholes in the systems to be what people naturally are, giant douches and turd sandwiches. Even a dictatorship could be good if the person in charge only cared for what’s best for his/her people and chose to listen to them. Nothing we create is “bad” or “evil” just how it’s used.
Far Left and Far Right love to strawman pragmatic centrists but they can never actually engage with the centrist position effectively. Because it isn't really a competition when you look at history and modern realities objectively.
@@Shredow2 There is no centrism. Centrism is just people who don't understand the good arguments in what they call "extremes" well enough. Not even aware their whole argument is a middle ground fallacy. Yet they think they're smart. They're not. Hence the meme "enlightened centrist"
@@TimmacTR Thank you for quite literally proving my point. It's nothing but a strawman. If you had something intelligent to say counter to Kotkin's position, you'd have said it in your post instead of parroting an idiotic meme. Socialists and Right Wing Conservatives/outright neo-fascists hate centrists because the position that political ideas and concepts should be looked at rationally and considered carefully is counter to the accelerationist strategy employed by both groups. The opposite side of the political spectrum is a ready tool for radicalization through fear of the other, the center is the exact opposite of that.
@@Shredow2 Funny how you really consider yourself so intelligent by injecting words like "we should look at things rationally". As if saying this equals doing it, and of course as if saying this meant others don't. This is literally the definition of "enlightened centrist": you feel so intelligent having no actual intelligent opinion.. wow, bravo l'ami!! xD
@@TimmacTR Lmao. All you're doing is repeating yourself now. So shook. Still waiting for you to actually argue against anything that was said in the video.
Close your eyes and it is like Joe Pesci talking politics.......
I'm just some lunatic macaroni mushroom, is that it?
LOL!
Right before beating someone up with an economics textbook
Oh my god
@@aleratz funny how?
"The problems might be real, but the solutions are worse." -amen
It shows a miserable lack of imagination to believe that the alternatives to the inherently immoral and socially and ecologically destructive social construct of neoliberalism are limited to those that hav been trialed historically.
It is pathetic.
@@hailymusic5378 yeah, his views are clearly colored by his current position in life. to him this is simply a theoretical discussion.
there are ways to decommodify essential markets without violence serious erupting.
ps: this speaker is a russiagater.
Yeah so let’s just stick both our hands up our ass and do nothing
@@hailymusic5378 well u could start by giving some alternatives instead of complaining like every lefty, you just confirm the affirmation
@@jeremias5688 What makes you assume I have not done that? Do you think a YT comment section is the place to do that? Really?
What makes you assume I am a "lefty" or any "...y" for that matter?
You are lucky that I am nice person.
So, if you are really interested in solutions you can start by reading the following that I wrote about 15 years ago: planettitanic.wordpress.com/intro/preface/ (read everything not just the preface).
When you are finished and have properly digested the content... I have about 2,000 pages more that I will then willingly share with you.
Go ahead.
I had never seen a radical centrist before
fascism😂🤣 is pretty Central
Jreg?
@@aa-bg7zx yes
@@AKlover What do you think about building codes, should gov get out of that to?
I am a radical centrist. I think that left and right should be abolished because with their awful views and propaganda they create state, social, economic instability. Balance is needed, and they upset it.
So nice to hear a nuanced and non-dogmatic take on the economy.
I believe he is talking more about politics and philosophy than economy
@@ferGonzalezMusica economy is inexorably linked with social politics. He was most definitely discussing philosophical economics, as he very clearly stated.
Is that a joke? That was a dogmatic screed
Yeah I agree. Nuance, love for one another and tolerance is needed.
Unfortunately I really don't see that reported in the news... It's either strong conservative from Fox News and hard left from CNN, MSNBC, CBS, etc. They have a narrative and reframe information or use "sources" to stitch hate and polarization.
Personally I'm financially conservative and moderate socially. I think things should be equality of opportunity but no guarantee of equality of outcome. That's what logically and emotionally is fair to me at least.
Yea - tidak ada is right. Where did you hear nuance?
As an African who studied international relations 11 years ago, this kind of discussion is refreshing to see. My classmates would have really enjoyed it. I appreciate Lex even more now.
@sandpiper Kenya is located in East Africa
What have you done with your degree if you don’t mind me asking?
@@Red_Cupp that's none of your business. Where do you get the audacity to even think you should ask a stranger online about something that personal?
@@Red_Cupp I guess he minds 😂
@@AfroVersity U could've just said no lol
He's right that we have a beautiful system. I wish he would point out that the other main issue putting a dark shadow over the brilliance of the potential system is that we allow politicians (who are supposed to represent people) to be funded by mega corporations and private donors. Politicians should not be allowed to have their loyalties and policies be shaped by financial incentives, at least not legally. That is ruining the system and in my opinion is what is driving more and more people to the dangerous fringes. People are not feeling like the system is working for them anymore, which it isn't. And it will only get worse as long as people refuse to make this their main target.
money is merely a representation of resources (or potential resources) held.
If you prohibit the transfer of money between lobbyists and politicians, they will merely exchange resources in other ways, which incidentally will be much more difficult to track and have transparency over. Though I do understand that money would be more efficient.
At least with legal lobbying, we the people, sort of know about it.
The crazy thing is, we do know about it and most of us don't do shit about it.
Although that could easily be explained by en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ignorance
Further, if you prohibit campaign donations, the best funded campaign will be the campaign run by the ultra wealthy individual eg. Donald Trump. I'm not convinced that's an improvement.
In my opinion, the only way to reduce this corruption is to reduce the scope of things politicians have control of i.e. libertarianism.
No doubt, as Joe Rogan said the other day, no money in politics and no money for the lobby AND adding to that, no dual citizenship for any politicians.
Yeah sorry for the late but just wanted to tell you that this is one of the worst ideas ever. That is just gonna give the government more power to control us. Private, public, either way we will end up being controlled. And at the end of the day those same big corporations will influence the governments regardless of the ways. Living in Brazil, I damn well know what I'm talking about. It's one of the most corrupt yet most regulated countries in the world. Corporatism and government corruption run side by side here.
That and the fact that political dynasties even exist. The founders hated aristocrats and royalty but that's exactly what career politicians are creating and to the detriment of the people.
@@ScottyNapaa obvious objections with equally obvious solutions. Ban all private money, have elections state funded, limit the election cycle to say six months to make it practical with set, equal times for candidates to be heard and otherwise a media black-out. Fairness or near fairness is possible: the real problem is the system doesn't want that.
Stephen Kotkin is a voice of common sense informed by historical knowlegde.
Sure...on ***** payroll.
@@algreen1231 You should move to North Korea or Cuba. I'm sure you'd love it there LOL
No, he's not, read before you listen.
His take is as shallow as a puddle. ""Normal politics" is what we do now and it's good!" What an absolute midwit
Lol this is just another revisionist. He doesn’t even have the facts straight. What a bunch of BS.
Such an interesting guy to listen to. Very knowledgable breaking things down objectively. Great interview, will definitely keep listening to this guy. Thanks
How dare you inquire about the source of his audacity, you don’t know this stranger and it’s rude to ask such questions. Personally, I believe he was dropped on his head as a child and or adult. But his severe brain injuries/impairment are none of my business, so I will refrain from asking.
I would've loved having Kotkin as a political science professor. We always tended to get too deep into the minutiae (yes, that's the point of graduate education) at the expense of understanding the larger system. It's like a watchmaker who focuses so much on the movement of the escapement that he forgets he's working on a watch. Maybe each field needs its generalists to reorient its specialists from time to time.
This guys voice is like the blue haired lawyer from the simpsons.
Ha! So true
Any other cogent observations?
@@TheWhitehiker not at this time your honour (said in blue hair lawyers voice.)
@@j.r5159 Clever.
@@j.r5159 Huh?
Amazing perspective on an age old question. I had been trying to understand these political arguments more deeply and I feel I am much closer after watching this. Thank you!
Hello. If you would like to hear some real arguments, try watching this (auto translation does it's job):
ua-cam.com/video/dWTbvgVOnn0/v-deo.html
After you watch, I'm open to discussion. Have a nice day)
The one where you can openly ask this question in without fear.
"Do I make you laugh? How am I funny? Am i a clown?"
Funny? Funny how??
Lol, 04:24
*DANCE, LEX! DANCE!* _[pow! pow! pow!]_
Kotkin nails it here. He also has an excellent three-part series here on UA-cam called "Sphere of Influence". Thanks for posting!
I like how this guy speaks clearly and a hair slow so you can understand him clearly.
What is the best political system?
The one with the lowest death rate :p
Social democracy is the best system hands down
This is actually a really profound case that I rarely see people use.
Death rate might actually be a good metric for a good society, although I think the essence of a good society is individual self-determination or liberty, and that a lower death count is just generally a proxy to that, but that breaks down as soon as you get into the question of a government which sees fit to deprive people of their liberties in order to keep them safer than they would want to be, say by locking them in their homes because the government determines that it is too dangerous outside, kind of like what is happening now with covid-19.
@@seeker.8785 Fine, let's go.
COVID breaks out but the government does nothing to prevent the spread of it.
Millions die due to the lack of supportive care necessary in some cases of COVID because the hospitals are overrun.
LA country is running low on oxygen for patients......but no biggie...
@@wconniff878 who cares
I love this guy. His ability to express himself is unique, everyone can understand what he is saying. No BS, straight to the point
You're spot on....I think he keeps his/our focus because he cogently steel-mans contrasting arguments for why "X" is needed and why "Y" is the problem. But what really keeps you at the edge of your seat and hanging on every word is the inability to pick up cues on his preference early. You have to wait until he tells you. That's the personification of the "Steel Man".
This is good stuff.
This is terrible stuff. The system today isn't market capitalism, it is oligarchy. Socialism for the rich. The problem is on the center, which is so far to the right, and in the control of the oligarchs.
@@LKRaiderYou are living in an authoritarian state with state propaganda my friend
@@nevermindshort3 So what's your solution? Drop the bomb again and hope it works this time?
@@nevermindshort3 thats not true at all - the centre at the moment is so far to the LEFT!
@@s1dew1nd3r4 How can we disagree so much? To me the center is doing the bidding of Wall Street, the Military Industrial complex, Silicon Valley, big oil, basically all the corporations are getting what they want, and nothing is going to the people like universal healthcare and such things. How can you say that is left? The center keeps on giving taxbreaks to the rich. What does the left get in economic terms?
This topic and interpretation is truly a gift.
Lex, thank you so much for what you do. I found you on joe rogans podcast but i have found that i enjoy your discussions to a much greater degree, thank you for everything you do.
One of the best explanations (use of language) of political matters I have ever heard.
Damn he spit that out so clean...
This seems very reasonable. It sounds like common sense to me.
That's because he didn't say anything at all.
Easily one of the best discussions I’ve heard in years.
the most comprehensive short introduction to the history of modern political thought
Yes.
You can't discuss political systems without addressing the issue of culture. How does an individual view himself in a political system, as an individual or as a group? Or any in-between as it is quite the spectrum.
You can't, for example, have communism in a culture where individualism is extremely strong.
If everyone is respected as a full person then who cares how one sees himself?
@@minagray8574 If the individuals idea of respect goes against the parties idea of respect the individual gets chopped down, so gulag or mass grave.
This podcast has 6000 views. A far right site like Liberal HIvemnid has 400,000 after going live just 6 months ago. Its amazing how we become so tribal and yearn to be fed by our preconceived biases, instead of question them. There seems to be little room for nuanced thought and compromise seems to be at an ebb right now.This is from an American perspective... I see the social democrats of Europe as our hope (not saying its perfect by any stretch), but without redistribution, the Prieto principle goes from 80/20 to more like 95/5
Exactly. The problem is getting out of the current moment which seems to be producing more extremists every day. I don't know how we get there.
@scooby skwad no doubt. I have no problem if we had oscillation from the left ( worker's rights) to the right (business interests). But since Clinton took the dems to the center right, we are too far skewed and out of balance. The extremes on both sides are the danger
@@stevesetzer3361 Socialism, AT ANY LEVEL, will completly DESTROY you country. Don't be delusional. Don't play the "moderate" or you will regret forever.
also called market place socialism. like in Sweden where we don't only regulate capitalism but have big companies that are owned by the people. mainly in the services that are used by all people. Energy, media, real-estate, water, telemarket (phone/internet), pharma and alcohol. the idea being that it helps regulate the prices and give citizens "affordable options" in the market place.
@@ArkhonXIX HAHA
@@ArkhonXIX i just sent you first one of a quick search
do it yourself anf youll see they all say the same. lived and worked in both countries and a life long citazen of SOCIALIST Sweden there is a world of difference. but yes, maybe we see the "term" regulated differently witch makes it hard to compare. soon different countries. but remember Sweden had the same socialistic party in power for 60 years. our whole system, our way of looking at capitalism is way different than Americans. here regulation, welfare and unions are prioritized at no1.
@@ArkhonXIX haha yes lets. yeah for sure. around 25-30 % immigrants that are Swedish citizens - that's counting second-generation immigrants,
I wonder how well the Swedish system would work without American medical innovations and military protection. When there are crimes against humanity why doesn't the world cry out for Swedish intervention? When there are natural disasters why doesn't Sweden funnel huge amounts of capital to help the victims? And why isn't Sweden brokering peace deals between war torn countries in the middle east?
@@MrAtheistLibertarian first of all.. im not hating on or criticizing America? I don't know where that idea came from? I simply explained the political system of Sweden since the were talking about the different socialistic system. We have a unique one. . Second, Sweden is a small country but we do more than our part. We give more to the poor and war-torn countries per capita than almost every other country in the world. We take in more refugees than almost any other country in the world. In fact one city in Sweden. Södertalje.. took in more Iraqi refugees than the whole of America during the height of the Iraq war. I'm very comfortable with our positive impact on the world.
If I were you I would read up more on the geopolitical history and impact of America post the second world war. From the Korean and Vietnam wars in the 50 - the 60s.. to Iraq, Iran, Syria, and South American coups in the 60 and 70s to Afganistan in the 80s to Iraq again in the 90s to Afghanistan and Iraq AGAIN in the 2000s - America has had a hand in STARTING so much chaos in the world the last 70 years. All bc of a cold war, political power, oil, or geopolitical strategy.
There is a reason why big parts of the world despise America. It's not bc of "American freedom" - that's silly - that's just feedback .- propaganda - you tell yourself to feel good. its bc they have parent or grandparents that been touched by American violence. Friends that died by American hands.
With all that said. I have a lot of love for America. I have a lot of American friends and have spent a lot if time in America for the last 20 years. But your politics and your history is complex. Your impact on the world is complex. Many Americans need to wake up and be honest about who they are and what their REAL impact is on the world.
Great guest and discussion Lex. Thank you and keep up the good work.
Excellent Interview, extremely refreshing to know their is someone who has wrapped their mind around government and how we can do it better. Inciteful conversation, in order to receive the right answer, you must begin by asking the right questions. Lex does an outstanding job at this.
He tried to avoid it, but you can tell at the end there that what he truly endorses is social democracy, a healthy balance of both free markets and government regulation and distribution. Scandinavia has already figured this out and has proven it.
The truth is that even in the USA the government sector is huge, and there is socialism.
Non-marxist socialism works perfectly fine when its in a holistic system. The marxist prism is the problem and really ought to be a curiosity from history, not an ideology that so many people are still trying to use and apply to our world.
Skandinavia only works because it is a small, homogeneous population. Same with South Korea and Japan. The best countries in the world have very very little immigration, and their citizens actually love their country. Americans are all too different and they all hate their country or government. It would never work here.
I was with him right up to the very end, where he seemed to imply that the problem with the schools was the need for more funding. Funding won’t do squat when the problem with the students is a lack of family structure. The school systems that produced the electrical engineers, doctors, teachers, and business leaders of the past century taught the kids with pennies compared to what we spend now. But the successful kids had parents who stressed the importance of the education, discipline, courtesy towards your fellow students, and support for when you failed-encouragement to get back up and try again. This was a father and a mother, and often extended family nearby, for both support and discipline.
"History is philosophy teaching by example." - Thucydides
Stephen is in my top five regular guests. The guy is just a machine for contextualisation.
Professor Kotkin lays out at the argument between Marxist who wanted to destroy capitalism (nuke it purist) and left-leaning social Democrats who wanted to introduce social programs while reforming capitalism.
In society today we have capitalist purists arguing against left-leaning social Democrats who wanted to sustain and introduce social programs while reforming capitalism as if they were Marxist purist.
Sadly, you can't have a conversation today (except for churlish ones), let alone legislation without this incorrect simplification of an inaccurate representation of the situation.
The issue runs deeply within our American psyche, and I fear we will not shake it until we ruin our opportunity to achieve our potential. We will defeat ourselves in the adoration of slogans.
Yes, I agree with your analisis.
Why not destroy capitalism altogether
@@MrMCKlebeband Democracy and capitalism are mutually exclusive.
@@rishabhprasad5417 Good morning!. We should not for the reasons through history that he explained.
@@JoeCiliberto What about private businesses being replaced by worker co-ops
As Mr. Kotkin said, we need competition in politics and economics. The current problem seems to be that there is a concentration of economic power which can buy political competition, thereby concentrating political power. Solution : Direct-democracy with lateral power distribution ?
"The current problem seems to be that there is a concentration of economic power..."
Depends on who you believe though doesnt it?
Concentration of wealth via the stock market isnt the same as profiteering from the sad life of someone going into a coal mine for 14h a day, or sewing clothes until they have RSI.
I could easily argue that if anything, in the West, the government already does too much to help, and is the real 'opiate of the masses' as it takes away the sufferings that make life what it is.
Making things 'flatter', not so much 'lateral', is a laudable goal. And very large bureaucracies face that pressure anyway. Bezos got to the top, and from the moment he got there was attacked endlessly. For example, he divorced his wife who is determined to give most of it away as fast as she can; his kids and grandkids are at risk of becoming mediocre trust fund babies; he is more interested in orbiting the planet than growing his business...
The reality of it is that it would take 100s of Bezos' to simply give it all away and lift all the poor and useless up to the middle class. People get to the middle class and beyond through a combination of factors, none of which are predicted or ensured by marxism.
Got to learn a lot from this clip, thanks Lex
A lot of lies unfortunately.
Can we have more of this guy and more people that share this obviously accurate perspective, please?
No political system will ever fix the deeper human issues that lead to corruption, violence and exploitation of one's fellow man. We must continue to grow as a species, and that can only be done in the hearts of each individual, not through force.
What's the best form of government ? One that's not corrupt . Start with that, and you can make any of them better .
What’s so crazy is that this is basic, fundamental and assumed. Now it seems like a whole new generation needs to be told these basic premises of a free and functional society.
The multiparty system we have in Northern Europe is not perfect, but it’s at the upsides discussed here.
Mr.Kotkin you wrote a ********* biography of Stalin and USSR but fortunately we have real historian as prof.G.Furr.
The credit card issue was nothing to do with politics, it was to do with commercial decisions of private companies based on what they think will be most profitable for them. As women became more economically independent and richer, so they became a business opportunity not to be missed out on.
Thanks for voicing my thoughts better than I can...
Great job Lex, awesome podcast. I'd like to hear his thoughts on Portugal.
It’s unbelievable to hear someone calm, reasonable and rational. I wish we’d hear more from people like this instead of the bleating, screeching lunatics on the far right and left.
One of the best breakdowns on modern politics I’ve heard.
Agreed, simple, succinct and salient
I'm afraid, I seriously disagree.
@@bdi_vd3677 Please elaborate?
@@eddyf4426 gladly, but his critic is due to misinformation, because this polemic lacks constructive basics and everything said has no relation to socialism/marxism. I propose to use one statement, which you find the most trustworthy and I will comment on that.
@@eddyf4426 also I have already posted here my comment. If you look at it, you'll see simplified arguments against video content. And the link contains pro socialism elaboration info.
Have listened to this so many times…just brilliant..realism vs idealism..
pretty much spot on for me,
God , we need more Kotkins in this world. Where can I get the full interview?
This is a fantastic layman explanation of socialist theory
Beautifully put
Not true what this guy is saying about history, he should educated himself more.
Socialism in Yugoslavia did not produce tirany, mass violence, and deaths, it was actually quite the oposite, or as famous French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre , after visiting Yugoslavia, said - the Yugoslav socialism is the materialization of my philosophy.
Stephen Kotkin is a brilliant scholar of the Soviet Union and has written what is considered the definitive biography of Stalin....3 volume biography.
“There was supposedly something called feudalism”. What do you mean supposedly? There’s no debate over wether or not it existed.
He meant it was supposedly destroyed by the bourgeoise, not that feudalism supposedly existed
Brian - I’ll rephrase, there’s no doubt that a certain type of feudalism dominated Western Europe and there were alterations depending on the region to feudalism this did exist, possibly at a different time in almost every fiefdom. Categorisation of that period as feudal I’d the one Marxist historical interpretation that has been incorporated into history without contention among academics. While naturally it took different forms, this was the economic system broadly. I think what this person was doing was trying to undermine Marxist thought by wrongly insinuating that it’s contentious wether feudalism existed and dominated the world for that period. It’s therefore less of a historical statement than a political one.
He is referring to how Marx viewed history. When he says supposedly, Kotkin is simply making it clear that it's not his own judgment on the matter, but what the author he's referring to meant about the issue. And in Marxist theory it is supposed that before the bourgeoise revolutions that created capitalism, there was a previous system called feudalism. He's not denying that feudalism was real, just making it clear that Marx supposed it was an important system in political history.
He is not right in the head. He is too deep in capitalist propaganda that he wants to deny that in pre-socialist countries, people lived in inhumane conditions.
Doesn't the current Capitalist model just kick the can down the road? Markets are all based on growth, and it is self evident that in a finite world growth can't be eternal
Goddam. After this crazy year, it is so refreshing to hear a reasonable, sound, and comprehensive analysis of the American political system. SocDems unite!
And also, conservatives unite! :)
He shouldn't be criticized for what he said. The better take on this is....he should be commended for having clarifying points made. He explained things differently.
Equality of opportunity should not be the goal of society, because it is always easier to prevent opportunities from those who have them than give opportunities to those who don't have enough, so it will always be the easy way for politicians to create equality of opportunities in an unjust manner, that would harm everyone. The goal should be to maximizing opportunities for everyone, on the basis of merit and not on basis of need.
Meritocracy is a fraudulent philosophy.
Meritocracy does not exist in America.
I like your thought process here. Instead of "equalizing" opportunity for everyone, the gov't should focus on MAXIMIZING the total opportunty available to society. In other words, the gov'ts job should be to create opportunities for everyone, not destroy opportunities for those who already have them.
@@squatch545 Meritocracy provided you with the technology you're using to spout your opinion to a bunch of people who don't care about it.
@@ddandymann No it didn't, but keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better and more meritorious about yourself.
screaming at my monitor for him to discuss bordiga and luxemburg
"Hey can you tell me how all the different political experiments tried around the world can inform our current situation?"
SK: "Well we have the answer, it was the American Revolution. We did it the best as possible. Case closed."
....... (me screaming into the void)......
The best political system?
It's the family, that allows for mutual cooperation among other families, with the perpetual threat of mutually assured destruction.
The guy is missing the tip of his middle finger right hand.
Lex you have to talk about money and money structure systems, more important than political ideology
Is China a socialist communist state that is succeeding in growing and thriving?
@@allenwagner388 China isnt communist, look up the 'New Economic Policy' which China borrowed from what Lenin started and Stalin later threw out.
Allen Wagner China is none of those things.
This is the problem with Critical Race Theory, they espouse equity and not equal opportunity.
They actually espouse collective punishment for history that no living person is responsible for or can fix. It’s a precursor to genocide.
@@wconniff878 If the fact that over a million people died in a civil war to end slavery doesn’t satisfy you then go to the people who actually owe you like the Clintons, Obama, Anderson Cooper, Beto, his wife other descendants of slaveholders.
This dudes spittin
jesus and yet everyday I hear another one spouting off in some chat somewhere. bad education ironically will be the end of us all.
Exactly. If only politicians realised education is the pinnacle of society, not just one of the ministries...
*In a capitalist society. The people with the most wealth have the most control and power over others.*
Think about who those people belong to..
So can we do a Andrew Yang says to do and just take the best of both worlds capitalism socialism leninism whatever Humanity first capitalism where you don't start at zero
What does that even mean, specifically?
@@landonhagan450Basically free markets with social programs that pads the bottom, so at minimum there is a floor where all individuals at least have some capital to participate and fuel the market as well (cue Yang, UBI, end poverty)
So... Pre-Reagan/European Capitalism? You guys act like US capitalism has always been shit. It wasn't it was brought low by greedy tycoons and their pet politicians.
@@panda-bean Eh, something similar to UBI is an inevitable good, but the way we currently conceive of it isn’t really workable for a number of reasons. I think Yang could have set the stage for it to happen faster, but he could never have instituted it himself.
@@Shredow2 Pre Reagan capitalism led to runaway inflation and economic stagnation, hardly the perfect system.
Thumbnail looks like a remake of Rocky IV
Get Richard Wolff to talk about Marxism
@@dektran4843 As opposed to the wanton capitalist apologia on this podcast so far? Quite biased.
Get C. Derick Varn!
1. I always wonder when people talk about America's success being due to the specific form of government if it isn't more likely that it was simply due to an industrious people moving to a continent that was mostly uninhabited and full of natural resources. Under those conditions, a king, and emperor, or any other form of governance may have prospered equally as well. Automatically attributing this success to the form of government might be a fallacy, a case of historical correlation not equalling causation. Makes you wonder about other examples of this from history.
2. In conversations about the "best" form of government, there is always the unspoken presupposition that human flourishing/happiness/suffering can be affected by government. Is this really so? Having travelled a bit, I have witnessed people under many forms of government living similar lives. There is a happiness set point, whether you are a hunter gatherer, a Laotian farmer, or a London banker. There is also the tendency to generate your own suffering when externals aren't forced upon you, a phenomenon commonly observed in the West. It is an old Buddhist observation that hpoliticalzealousunderstand
Your political system is not a matter of choice, like which pair of shoes to put on. It is something which grows out of the fabric of the society, its people, cultural attitudes and values, historical experience, external influences, and most importantly the distribution of wealth and power within the society. The political system is an outer manifestation of all these things. It is in fact, as experience shows, quite easy to impose the superficial forms of democracy on a society, but this does not recreate the substance of democracy as seen in other countries like the US, UK or France etc. The problems of the society soon emerge in phenomena such as civil conflict, oligarchy, corruption etc. etc. it varies from place to place. There are as many types of democracy as there are democratic states, each reflects the substance of all these things I have listed and none are 'perfect'. Former (LOL) imperialist states like US/UK/France have far from perfect democracies as the demands of behaving like a power cut across democracy. The public if asked, (which they never are) are very unlikely to support most of the foreign adventures these powers like to indulge themselves in for the sake of sectional, special interests. In all these states foreign policy is above and beyond any true democratic control (except for ineffectual structures in place for cosmetic purposes) and is shrouded in secrecy and lies. All news about foreign affairs of interest to the state is controlled and distorted in the channels of mass communication to manufacture public opinion.
The way Stephen talks he’s basically Lex in the future
If you are an educated leftist this guys points of view are very hard to listen. There are so many false things he says, that it is hard to keep track of. For example, he says socialism didn't produce greater freedom, but instead tyranny and "mass violence". The only way you could believe that, is if you were oblivious to how life was for the working class in the pre-socialist times and what rights did the working class gain for example, in the Soviet Union. Before socialism, let's take my country for example, which I am not gonna name, 80% of the population was eating an average of 6 grams of meat a day, were laking access to healthcare, pensions were not a thing, the vast majority were illiterate and a lot of those who know how to read, could barely read and if you organized a workers strike you could get shot by the military. Fast forward 20 years into socialism and most people had access to education, clean water, hospitals, proper housing, women got equal rights etc. Was it perfect? No, but it so much more than capitalism has ever offered to them. Even now, if you were to destroy the infrastructure built by the socialists in the former USSR, those countries would live in medieval condition. It is unfortunate that the truth is hidden under so many layers of bull$%# propaganda lies.
@WUKID videos The fact that you call me "brainwashed" clearly shows how brainwashed you are by western propaganda.
@@leftalone3820 you are typical leftist brainwashed. Talks a bunch of lies as if it was obvious truth. It's disgusting.
@@heitord5539 Like what lies? Call them out.
What country are you referring to? It’s weird how you don’t mention it. Is it possibly due to the fact that the innovation you’re talking about was actually due to capitalist foundations backed by welfare policies and you don’t want anyone to call you out on it? Come on tell us which country it’s important :)
@@TheBanditoLad Lol, not really. Maybe you think of Scandinavian countries. But eastern European countries + Russia had a very different story in which capitalist monarchies held the vast majority of the population in inhumane medieval conditions. Just research on your own about the living conditions of Eastern European + Balcan countries before 1945, literacy, number of doctors/capita and compare it to that of 1970 for each of those countries. It matters not what country, the story is identical: all vital infrastructure: hospitals, schools, roads, water dams which provided clean water, irrigation and electricity, nuclear power plants etc. People who are now 80+ years of age saw their countries rise from agricultural states ravaged by hunger to urbanized industrialized states with decent living conditions. And then they saw the stagnation and slow decline after changing the economic system from socialism to capitalism. Capitalism is pretty dope if you are rich though. It is just a bad choice if you are a poor country with no infrastructure. Like Africa and India. Compare Indian infrastructure of any kind with Chinese infrastructure. Life expectancy. Food accessibility. Etc.
Well articulated
So basically, Capitalism works better than Socialism
Nicely put.
Socialism is to capitalism, like differential equations is to Monte Carlo, where monetary system is the reward function. If the money supply is centralized, the result may be in a broad spectrum from liberal to authoritarian, depending on the monetary policy.
This is like a mini Great Courses lecture
Just realized he’s missing the tip of his right middle finger
@Fuckya Lookin at If you judge a person by a single comment on something that they found intresting in the spur of the moment you might be the worthless one.
@Fuckya Lookin at ur gay
Brilliant interview!
If capitalists act like socialists within a free-market system couldn't we have the putative benefits of socialism without the bureaucracy, rules, mandates, superfluity of laws, and whatever else I'm not thinking of right now?
@douglas wahid Yeah, my hopes is to popularise charities to the point where governments have no reason to expand nor for much of the involuntary situations to occur. P.S. Does anybody here know how to get into Liberty for North Korea or to volunteer for them. How does one check if a charity organization is legitimate?
No, if anything that just shows that humans are inherently flawed and no matter what political system we use we will always find a way to turn it into the worst possible version of itself.
Whether one agrees with or disagrees with Marxism, it is important to mention that Marx did not oppose markets; rather, he opposed capital accumulation by the capitalist class. He was not anti-parliamentarian also. He understood "the state" to be an instrument of one class to suppress another. He called for the workers to capture the state and use it to transform society from a society governed by capital interests to one governed by the interests of the popular masses.
Capitalism doesnt exist, its a mistaken concept created by Marxists in the late 19th century. All economies have capital (wealth used to produce more wealth) in their center, therefore all economies have the features attrobuted to Capitalism. What Marxism accomplishes is the precise opposite of what it intends: it concentrates all capital (all means of production) and all political power in one single institution, the Communist Party. Marxism therefore creates not "socialism" (which is a mirage, cannot exist) it creates the most dystopian ultra concentrated economic system possible. But Marxism needs the concept of Capitalism because you have to convince people that a disease exists in order to sell a cure.
Political systems aren't chosen off a supermarket shelf. They're a product of historical and cultural evolution of societies. The question should be "how to steer a society to improve itself and its political system?"
That’s very Marxist of you
"I like competition"
Drops nuclear bomb
Monopolies take over
"I said I like competition"
What monopolies exist in the current market place that were not helped by government regulations/power?
@@guyfromdubai Google is pretty much a monopoly in the search engine space but yes not many absolute monoplies exists which aren't helped by government regulations. The more common issue in the US is the abudance of oligopolies which are able to develop naturally without the enforcement of anti trust laws through constant mergers and acquisitions.
@@patrickhiggins9633 heres the way I see it, if anyone can start their own search engine without having to qualify for red tape regulations and people choose the best search engine then I dont have a problem with one company being ahead pf the others. People can and do still use bing and yahoo, but I would be against google going to lawmakers to enforce unnecessary requirements or regulations to keep out potential competitors from entering the search engine space. I hope that clarifies my position
The more apt question would be how to best manage hundreds of millions of people, have their voices heard, in a relatively efficient way.
The best Political System is one that lets you be as free from your fellow countrymen as possible. Socialism and Communism are always the worse system and the exact opposite of this.
Great that propaganda is working. It was the communists who brought together the best working states in the world right now, the Scandinavian welfare states. Without communists, they would still be dirt poor, as they were before they instituted socialist programs.
@@nevermindshort3 Good thing I'm An American and not owned by the Government. I own myself 100% Free Man right here. God Given Right in The USA.
Communism/Socialism only come around at the point of Gun. At the point of a gun in CCP China. At the point of a gun in Communist North Korea. At the point of a gun in Venezuela, at the point of a gun, at the point of a gun, and on and on it goes. Communism, "We pretend to work, you pretend to pay us." Yes yes, The Scandinavian. The Scandinavian are a very Entrepreneurial Society. Ericson, Skanska, Volvo, and H&M heavily imported into the USA. They have Low Corporate Taxes. They have no minimum wage. You can hire and fire people at will. WAY LESS Regulation than in Europe and America. Norway is the only one that has a wealth tax? Vat Tax of 25% on consumables. They also produce tons of oil with an extremely small population. Individuals are also greatly limited in the amount of wealth they can create for themselves in The Scandinavian Societies. But here is the thing, these societies had to start undoing Communism/Socialism because it was destroying their economy. Hence the very small list I already provided. Once this was removed, they stopped being "dirt poor" because Capitalism generates wealth. It's true, and they are seeing it, and they are Absolutely walking back "communism" as you call it.
As far as States go. Perfect Example is California. California is already Bernie's wet dream. Free College. Free Medical. Free Food. Free Housing. This State already implemented all of this. California is a Socialist State is in the middle of an exodus of Californians fleeing the State. Which means they are taking their Labor and Tax Revenue with them. Of course they have threatened to Tax People leaving for years in the future and even retracting an increase of State Taxes going back 10 years. Middle Class can't sell their houses fast enough. Take a look on Zillow, east from Victorville to west towards the beaches. It's like an economic gradient of middle class to rich. Even Hollywood and Celebrities are running away from California. The Irony considering they vote for this and push for it on Social Media.
The Job Creators are leave. California now has a Half Trillion Dollar Deflect into 2021. It's going to get way way way way bigger. San Fransisco housing market is crashing. The rest of the State is right behind it.The homelessness, oh my god the sheer homelessness in Los Angeles let alone Venice Beach. But it isn't just there, the homelessness is everywhere. Has never been seen like this before. Socialist California with all the Social Programs you could ever want can't even address what is happening. Californians pay out cumulatively 50% in their labor into taxes. This has greatly acerbated the homelessness problem because Citizens can't keep a significant portion of their Labor, because the State takes it in the form of taxes. It just simply does not work. The 6th Largest Economy in the World is being dismantled by Millions of Californians pulling a "John Galt" and leaving. My Uhaul Stocks are going to get me a Jet Ski soon.
You are correct, the propaganda is working on you. Have fun doing the research yourself, instead of being told what to think. Nobody owns you. I read Marx. Remedial, really remedial. If you get into his letters, the real juicy racism he has and a further dive shows you how nonintellectual he actual was. Communism is old, lame, inefficient as can be. That is why Black Markets Always and I can't stress the Always enough... Always Black Markets emerge in Communist Societies. Meaning at the end of the day after everything a Communist does, Capitalism always emerges and corrects the Market.
GG
@@radwizard You are owned by the corporation in stead of the government. That is not freedom.
@@nevermindshort3 "You are owned by the corporation" Okay which one? Specifically which one? Which Corporation?.... Dare I utter the words LEGAL ZOOM!!!
@@radwizard You say California is a socialist/communist state? You are not correct I believe. But as you mention, they are the worlds 5th largest economy? How does that fit into that they are also communists and communism is bad?
This is one of the most sober things I have listened to in quite some time.
Lenin never said he established socialism in Russia. Socialism, and later Communism, was the goal. Lenin correctly pointed out that when they had achieved was state capitalism rather than socialism. Stalin then tried to reverse Lenin's influence and claimed they had established socialism in Russia. After Stalin died, De-Stalinization reforms reversed many of Stalin's policy, including widespread repression and the gulag. Because of two men, Stalin and Mao, historians like Kotkin criticize the entire 150+ year history of communism.
Thank you so much for saying this. Wish more people were more aware of information like this.
There needs to be a conversation about the similarities between socialism and fascism. The terms had been obfuscated, perhaps purposefully, placing fascism into the "right" category. However, the systems have more commonalities than differences. Mussolini himself was a devoted Marxist for most of his career.
Yes Hitler the great admirer of marx
@@rimondas6729 Hitler wasn't, but Mussolini definitely was.
There is no best system, systems don’t decide how they themselves work. People are the problem. Leaders who think they know what’s best for everyone yet they continuously abuse the systems they control for personal gain for them and their conspirators/acquaintances. A system has a purpose on the outside, meant to accomplish a b and c. People use their authority and inherent loopholes in the systems to be what people naturally are, giant douches and turd sandwiches. Even a dictatorship could be good if the person in charge only cared for what’s best for his/her people and chose to listen to them. Nothing we create is “bad” or “evil” just how it’s used.
Is there a deadline or can we still put this guy on the ballot?
I was thinking the exact same thing!
"Enlightened Centrist" position...
Far Left and Far Right love to strawman pragmatic centrists but they can never actually engage with the centrist position effectively. Because it isn't really a competition when you look at history and modern realities objectively.
@@Shredow2 There is no centrism. Centrism is just people who don't understand the good arguments in what they call "extremes" well enough. Not even aware their whole argument is a middle ground fallacy. Yet they think they're smart. They're not.
Hence the meme "enlightened centrist"
@@TimmacTR Thank you for quite literally proving my point. It's nothing but a strawman. If you had something intelligent to say counter to Kotkin's position, you'd have said it in your post instead of parroting an idiotic meme.
Socialists and Right Wing Conservatives/outright neo-fascists hate centrists because the position that political ideas and concepts should be looked at rationally and considered carefully is counter to the accelerationist strategy employed by both groups. The opposite side of the political spectrum is a ready tool for radicalization through fear of the other, the center is the exact opposite of that.
@@Shredow2 Funny how you really consider yourself so intelligent by injecting words like "we should look at things rationally". As if saying this equals doing it, and of course as if saying this meant others don't.
This is literally the definition of "enlightened centrist": you feel so intelligent having no actual intelligent opinion.. wow, bravo l'ami!! xD
@@TimmacTR Lmao. All you're doing is repeating yourself now. So shook. Still waiting for you to actually argue against anything that was said in the video.
Best statement on politics I’ve ever heard. I’ll be sharing with my students.
As Thatcher once said...”The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of others peoples money”...or in todays world printing money....
IQ level off the chart on this one. Good job Lex!
l think you can convert a bunch of BS into serious talk if you can only say it with a serious face
I thought the same thing this guy cant stand russians
Thank you thank god for lex