“*It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.*” ― Thomas Sowell
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals." --C.S. Lewis
"The welfare of the people will always be The alibi of tyrants. And it gives the added benefit of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." --Albert Camus
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain." --Frederic Bastiat
@@paulnolack297 Richard Wolff is a socialist economist who did a debate on this same forum not too long ago, and he’s still active, there’s plenty of socialist economists, sorry you don’t know about them.
For crying out loud put up a clock the speakers can see instead of disrupting their points. Or a clock the audience can see and instruct them to clap when time runs out.
no, money doesn't even matter. You have to make goods and services in order to distribute them. Socialists are only looking at money, but not the actual goods. It literally doesn't even matter that some guy makes 100 billion dollars and another guy makes $100 bucks, if you take money from the rich and give it to the poor it doesn't create new stuff. It just increases the demand for already available stuff. And there isn't enough "nice stuff" to go around for everybody, some people can't get nice stuff either way. It doesn't matter how you distribute the money. We all want a nice house at the beach and a new car. But there isn't enough of those houses and cars for everybody, that's why we have prices on things that determines who get it and who don't
@TryllaTröllMaistre Fictitious Fables of Europa I don't even quite understand what you are saying, but those UBI checks didn't help anybody but the very rich, it just made everything more expensive. The poor is worse off than they were before the UBI. Unless you own assets like real estate you didn't get more wealthy from UBI
@TryllaTröllMaistre Fictitious Fables of Europa lol. Suppose you got 1 chocolate bar. If I ate that chocolate bar, how many chocolate bars left do you have kiddo?
Socialism always works until they strangle and kill off the Capitalist industries that paid the bills to keep it running. Even Communist China realized that only Capitalism could save them and used the Hong Kong laissez-faire model in over 20 provinces. China adopted Reaganomics in the 1990s, at the time the US abandoned it.
@@sayebkhan8098 Richard Wolff seemed to want to make a point that what socialism meant to people varied from one group to another ever since the term 'socialism' was first popularized by Charles Fourier and Henri Saint Simon, then later Robert Owen and all of them had a more Utopian view of how the economy should be like as Karl Marx would point out. Karl Marx was a stronger advocate for workers being the ones to own and manage the production and distribution instead of private interest groups. This is now known today as worker cooperatives and statistically they perform better than their privatized counterparts. Destiny knows what Socialism is, his problem is that socialist have no answer for how to either incorporate or provide a better alternative to the capital market such as the stock market. No socialist has given him an answer on how socialism would deal with that yet and that's why he mostly seems like he's anti-socialist. Don't get your hopes up about him being your capitalist champion. You will get disappointed.
@@Hunterchuck To the latter points, check out his discussion recently with Sensible Socialist. He’s worked with Richard Wolff and gave answers Wolff would’ve, but in a more charitable manner, in less of a “debate” setting, and they had a pretty productive conversation!
It’s 50 50. Yin and Yang. We both get what we want. That is if what socialism does. We may not like it, but we have to support it. If one gets extreme the others will not be happy and it causes anger which anger triggers violence and then triggers rebellions.
Yes and that "or else" scenario is so vanishing small as to be worthy of dismissal because most people comply at the threat before the force - I guess is Ben's reply to that. It seems a few of the key socialist assumptions and positions come from a combination of lack of imagination and pro govt takes on historical events. I wonder if Ben has seen the work on slavery being made more costly and economically wasteful as farming tech and practices advanced. Surely a govt education would omit or downplay roles the private sector played in positive advancements the people have made through market action.
As a moderate conservative, my views on economic policy are: Hayek at ordinary times, Keynes occasionally; Hayek as a whole, Keynes as a part. Moreover, the biggest problem of socialism is not to cultivate lazy people, nor to destroy the economy. It is that although the big left-wing government can give you everything, you must listen to what the big left-wing government says. If you don't listen to the government, if you dare to criticize the government, the big left government can take everything from you at the same speed as it gives you everything. Moreover, the big left-wing government can create the virus first, and then legislate to provide effective methods to control and treat the virus. These methods can turn your community into a prison for you. These methods can forcibly inject a certain formula of medicine into your body. These drugs may be harmful or harmless, but it must be the foreign matter that the big left government forces you to accept, forces you to trust, and finally enters your body. If no one has the right to object to the government injecting foreign bodies into their bodies, then the government can create the virus ahead of time, and then use the prevention and control of the virus as an excuse to do what the big left government usually wants to do but can't do, such as mailing votes, banning gatherings, and assassinating people with specific DNA. The low-end population on the right is always reluctant to wear masks, but at most they will only hurt themselves, not others. If the whole country can maintain a certain number of right-wing idiots, I will not feel lonely and helpless as a smart man who is extremely afraid of the government. Although I don't care what the news says about the current epidemic, I will always insist on wearing masks and not getting vaccinated. But I will always be grateful to those Rightists who never believe in science, authority or government. The right-wing fools are lovely, harmless and beneficial to society and others. The left always emphasizes that everyone must be exactly the same, which is very dangerous. If no one doubts what the left-wing big government and the left-wing big media say, then the left-wing big government can really create a virus first, and then detain all people, invade all people's bodies, and deprive all people of the right to March and assemble under the first amendment of the Constitution in the name of epidemic prevention. My imagination is very limited. I can only think of the leftist government that can assassinate people with specific DNA by means of vaccines, such as trump. As long as the big left government can force people across the country to get vaccinated through the vaccine pass policy, it is possible for the big left government to assassinate any American.
@@安徒生局部拆党还政于 Keynes was totally discredited in the late 1970's. In 1978 during the "stagflation" era, the Keynesians had their usual meeting at Bertton Woods and said that, under their system, stagnation and inflation could not exist together But there it was starting to touch double digits. They said they could not explain it. and in '79-80 it would be eating us alive with inflation reaching 18% and six quarters of "negative growth [for those of you who speak English; 'shrinkage]". Why they weren't laughed off the stage and sent home, I have no idea. They are an embarrassment
Contrary to claims, Socialism is very free-market oreinted. The market in corruption is a veritable wild west as persons seek and give special favors, breaks and subsidies to those who seek them. The phrase "It's not what you know, but who you blow" was big in the 1970's and will be big again in the 2020's as people seek relief from the tax and regulation onslught that will be engineereed by Commie-la Harris, who is running this administration
Congrats everyone our honorable Zachary Wallace & burgis said they were going to pay for all of us. Let's sit down and relax while these suckered who sacrifice their time pay for our equallateral lifestyle
@@MrDeano-eu9rg I'm Australian too and you're presenting a very disingenuous premise. Australian tax rates are quite high compared to other countries of similar populations and economic capacities. Namely personal and company income taxes, and also stamp duty taxes. High company income taxes disincentivise investors from investing in businesses which in turn results in lesser and lower quality production per worker in a business, which in turn results in lower wages. Add on top of this the fact we have heavily regulated and increasing minimum wages in Australia and that makes it incredibly difficult for businesses to grow and contribute to the economy and to the very classes of people that "democratic socialists" claim to fight for. Increasingly large income taxes for higher-wage demographics (Australia has recently ranked 2nd in the world for high income tax rates) discourage people from striving to make more money. Couple this with the fact Australia has incredibly high stamp duty taxes making it difficult for middle class entrepreneurs wanting to start an SME (small to medium enterprise) to buy property. Altogether Australia has incredibly high taxes which lead to a greater income inequality and less entrepeneurship. You mentioned medical bankruptcy. Yes. And if we didn't have such a huge income disparity between classes due to extremely high taxation rates, there'd be no need for the Australian government to inject tens of billions of dollars annually into a fragmented and frankly very poorly organised public welfare and healthcare system.
As a moderate conservative, my views on economic policy are: Hayek at ordinary times, Keynes occasionally; Hayek as a whole, Keynes as a part. Moreover, the biggest problem of socialism is not to cultivate lazy people, nor to destroy the economy. It is that although the big left-wing government can give you everything, you must listen to what the big left-wing government says. If you don't listen to the government, if you dare to criticize the government, the big left government can take everything from you at the same speed as it gives you everything. Moreover, the big left-wing government can create the virus first, and then legislate to provide effective methods to control and treat the virus. These methods can turn your community into a prison for you. These methods can forcibly inject a certain formula of medicine into your body. These drugs may be harmful or harmless, but it must be the foreign matter that the big left government forces you to accept, forces you to trust, and finally enters your body. If no one has the right to object to the government injecting foreign bodies into their bodies, then the government can create the virus ahead of time, and then use the prevention and control of the virus as an excuse to do what the big left government usually wants to do but can't do, such as mailing votes, banning gatherings, and assassinating people with specific DNA. The low-end population on the right is always reluctant to wear masks, but at most they will only hurt themselves, not others. If the whole country can maintain a certain number of right-wing idiots, I will not feel lonely and helpless as a smart man who is extremely afraid of the government. Although I don't care what the news says about the current epidemic, I will always insist on wearing masks and not getting vaccinated. But I will always be grateful to those Rightists who never believe in science, authority or government. The right-wing fools are lovely, harmless and beneficial to society and others. The left always emphasizes that everyone must be exactly the same, which is very dangerous. If no one doubts what the left-wing big government and the left-wing big media say, then the left-wing big government can really create a virus first, and then detain all people, invade all people's bodies, and deprive all people of the right to March and assemble under the first amendment of the Constitution in the name of epidemic prevention. My imagination is very limited. I can only think of the leftist government that can assassinate people with specific DNA by means of vaccines, such as trump. As long as the big left government can force people across the country to get vaccinated through the vaccine pass policy, it is possible for the big left government to assassinate any American.
says the man who believes the us could magically have as good "free education" as the number one country in the world, and acted like we could have the good parts of the USR whatever those where, but without the bad.
“*If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?*” ― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
And that point couldn't be more important. Not only that, but if the people are so bad that they need to be forced to be good, then how is the resultant cost of the enforcement, which is essentially the enforcement of behavior of an entire society in order to control the economy, not a cure that's worse than the disease?
We can have public (elected) control or we can have private (un-elected) control...right now the private sector (Capitalists) controls both government and business...and somehow that's OK with you?
And yet you somehow want to continue to allow capitalists free rein to run everything, in the belief that nothing has gone wrong as a result. What utter nonsense.
@@ivandafoe5451 People are way more sensitive to and critical of corporate power than they are of their political leaders. That's why a market without politics is preferable. The primary destructive tool for corporations is politicians with too much power. And for some reason people think it's the corporations that are the problem, yet continue to support the mechanism that gives them power. That's only because people think if only they had the "ring of power," they'd know what to do with it, because the people in power have conditioned you to believe that someone needs to be in charge, and they've also convinced you that it's possible it could be you, or "the people."
Believe it or not, socialists think this exact thing about capitalists. If we all just learned to respect each other's opinions and stopped yelling at those with different ideologies, we'd be much better off ya know.
@ilya shapiro Socialism and Libertarianism can both succeed, in varying degrees, in a society where human beings are mostly rational (doesn't exist). Successful companies spring out, grow into enormous entities, and will work against the society which sprung it, and the it will be blamed on (Corporatism).
@Hellish Venezuela?? what about it? It was a mixed economy and a victim of colonial capitalism and forced embargo. many other post colonial nations with same economic condition also fell along with Venezuela at that time. Now u accuse Venezuela of some 'ideology'. If u check it's economic structure, it is much similar to that of Norway. Venezuela didn't even had the 65% government ownership over the means of production that Norway have today. I think Norway, the top most country in the world have more of that 'failed ideology' that u accuse Venezuela of.
@@jeevanjayakrishnan2707 Wow you are just brazenly lying. Norway's government owns roughly 35% of the working capital which is about what Venezuela had but there is a massive difference as to how it was handled. Although Norway has large government holdings in oil similar to Venezuela's system, Norway's pricing is set by the open market and has less regulation where Venezuela is more of a command economy to the point where they debased the Bolivar. Although Norway has a large and comprehensive welfare system it is dispensed equally to everyone at request and is paid for by a huge flat tax across all brackets, Venezuela on the other hand would expropriate property from the wealthy or political enemies. There was even a show called Alo Presidente where Hugo Chavez would dramatize the confiscation of property for humorous effect and rant about capitalism while getting medical treatment in Cuba. There is a clear ideological difference between the 2 countries not to mention the violence and corruption of the Maduro administration which has never been seen in any modern nordic system countries, I believe these factors would contribute more to the collapse then a trade embargo from the US.
@@saratjata Yes, we can. The socialist/communist societies that you speak of were in fact state capitalist, and yes I know this is a common response to this type of argument, but it is true. For example, the USSR used the Soviet ruble as a base of currency and not labour vouchers or calculation-in-kind both trademarks of a possible lower communist society. In fact, the vanguard party (starting with Lenin then continuing with Stalin) started shutting down democratic worker organization as soon as possible so the vanguard party just continued class relations of the former system, i.e., state capitalist. Moreover, there are many instances where the phrase “you can actually discuss the advantages and disadvantages of other systems” does not apply. For example, in 60’s McCarthyism and earlier instances of the red scare (like after WW1) many supposed communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. were arrested for political dissent. Also, in many Latin American countries communist and socialist leaders who had a peaceful base of support or were elected democratically were killed or removed by the CIA and a right-wing dictatorship took control like Augusto Pinochet in Chile.
Yeah so you are also falling into a common trap that was laid by American propaganda. That trap is equating socialism/communism with authoritarianism. Socialism and communism is an organization of an economic system where authoritarianism can arise in left wing or right wing governments. For instance: under capitalism in the late 1940s and 1950s people were jailed or even killed just because of the suspicion of leftist ideals. Seems like maybe we were not actually allowed to talk about other systems.
@@AlanJWatkins ah yes, the death of million every year under the starvation wages of capital owners. Also reading, something you didn’t bother to learn. There’s a difference between a government structure and an economic system.
My economics professor in college grew up in the former Soviet Union and if try to tell him socialism works he will put your ideas in a wood chipper with his words.
I am Chinese. It's almost an insult to me, if someone tries to tell me socialism works. And my roommate always do this by starting with I understand your personal experience but you are wrong about this. Does all liberals are scumbag like him? If so, this country is over.
That's called anectdotal evidence. Most people in the former USSR when surveyed say they miss the USSR. The 90s was a free market disaster that gave rise to Putin.
If i had to negotiate with the rest of the workers instead of my boss it would be torture, it would be 2 of us working while the rest spent 30years trying to convince each other they are overworked and then try and get me fired for going outside the scope of union approved tasks. This neck beard needs to work out and try some manual labor.
Peaple are natrualy selfish they will tear apart the company and ever time they do. They don't care about the good of the company and there for the good of everyone just what's best for them.
@@culturalliberator9425 yeah basically, but they also inevitably they also help others trying to help themselves. If they work for a soap manufacturer, them working allows them to earn money to buy gold for survival while also helping the soap market and his entire company
This is why any socialist system requires an evolution of Consciousness in the workers. Meaning they need to understand that the product of their labor goes to them and theirs. What you are seeing is the result of Labor alienation and exploitation. You are watching humans smear s*** on the walls of their cage, try letting them out.
@@HallyVee Theirs a reason socialism fails. It's a poor system that lacks motivation or care. It all sounds nice but it's more hellish then you could imagine. If everything everyone then nothing belongs to you.
@@culturalliberator9425 if people are naturally selfish does it really make sense to follow an economic system like Capitalism that rewards them for being selfish and encourages other to indulge in that particular negative trait.
I grew up in the EXACT system that Ben Burgis advocates. Former Yugoslavia was a socialist country with market economy where every company was a worker run cooperative. As a result, the standards of living was much better then in centrally-planned communist countries , but there were still problems. My father achieved considerable success there, and then he came to US and started from the bottom. Even so, he is very critical of socialism and thinks that it was a rotten system. To be fair, there are others who are nostalgic about the way things used to be. While I didn't work there as an adult, I remember some of my parents experience that you will not find in economic analysis of Yugoslavia. For one, worker-run in practice means huge unending political battles at every workplace over who deserves what. That was a huge source of stress for my parents. Unemployment was high and it was hard to get a job without without some sort of connection on the inside. A lot of time was wasted on coffee breaks and socializing because in reality it's hard to and risky to speak out and the responsibility for the enterprise was not on any one person.
Nothing is stopping people like Ben Burgis from starting a worker owned company and showing us all how its done. Of course, that's not the point of socialism. You nailed, "worker-run in practice means huge unending political battles at every workplace over who deserves what." That's the point of socialism.
Wait how was Yugoslavia a market economy? And why did your dad moved to US if things were so nice? Because they weren't. Old people who think life in Yugoslavia was better are brainwashed. Literally brainwashed. When they were kids they had to dress like little socialist pioneers in schools and say shit like "I swear I will study hard and be a good student and good comrade." Every building had have Tito's picture on the wall. Freedom didn't exist let's be honest. And those people remember former Yugoslavia as part of their youth. The life is better when you are young. Yugoslavian standard of living was completely fake (made out of big loans). And let's be realistic we made one of the worst cars ever created. 😉
@@iampavle3153 Q: Wait how was Yugoslavia a market economy? A: Because each worker-run company decided what to produce, how much to charge, and who to hire. Q: And why did your dad moved to US if things were so nice? A: Things weren't nice, but eventually the country collapsed into 6 states and there was a war. This happened after communist party decided to end one party rule and multi-party elections were held. Q: Old people who think life in Yugoslavia was better are brainwashed. A: I think that old people everywhere get nostalgic about past. Here in the US, people get nostalgic about 60 because they forget that the world almost ended with Cuban missile crysis, that men were drafted and sent to fight in jungles of Vietnam, and that 60s social unrest made George Floyd protests look like a church picnic. Q: Freedom didn't exist let's be honest. A: This is true. Some things were said in hushed tones. My uncle got arrested and police beat the crap out of him because he got drunk and set Yugoslav flag on fire. Q: Yugoslavian standard of living was completely fake (made out of big loans). I remember the hype about national debt. People were saying that it was $20 billion. However, reading wikipedia today, I was surprised to learn that it was only 30% of GDP. I do remember the inflation! People would buy German Deuche marks on the black market because currency was tanking in value.
@@hamobu I remember former Yugoslavia when I was a kid and Yugotours the travel agency where my parents booked the travel. It was in western Europe quite a popular destination in the 80s. I was very young but I can remember I had a good time and nice interactions with kids. I also remember buying a cd of a german band called modern talking. The people seemed so solidly bonded together, it's unimaginable how they became enemies of one another like in a heartbeat. Perhaps a good reminder for you to tell the Americans when I see how divisive the rhetoric is being pushed by the media and politicians. There's worse than war and it's civil war.
@@iampavle3153 he didn't said Yugoslavia was great but it was better than east Europe socialist countries. And it was still bad that's why he immigrated to us
@ilya shapiro Absolutely they are, you're selling your labor for a wage, that's capitalism. Capitalist don't care if you want a co-op, but socialist want to force all companies to be a co-op.
Capitalism "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state" I guess... but the "private owners" also being the employees would represent a pretty significant break from its history.
1:28:05 "Concentrated wealth always leads to concentrated political influence." Yes, Ben! ...and concentrated political influence ALWAYS leads to concentrated wealth. That's why giving government more economic power leads to the very problem you're trying to solve, whereas eliminating political power entirely solves both problems. (Eliminating economic power, on the other hand, leads to mass starvation.)
@@rexsoloman6874 yes because people with influence love being on the same level as the bottom. It’s unrealistic to think society cares about others. The, “pandemic” or any other inconvenience should make it apparent the true nature of human. Self preservation.
@@IL_Bgentyl Well that's the fault of shitty systems of government. Not any particular economic system. Capitalist countries also have narcissistic, self-serving leaders.
Props to ReasonTV for having Ben Burgis on! Regardless of your position, this is a sign of intellectual honesty--to have competent, capable socialists on for an open debate. Well done.
@@boilingsnowwater2121 Oh ok opposed to socialism where the government owns everything because the government isn't full of peaple or elites. You are stuck in a cult and a fair tail land. Good day you are not worth my time or effort. Good bye.
The socialist argument is frankly baffling. All this talk of owning the means of production. Thanks to price competition, this guy has the means of production sitting on his lap, and it’s thanks to capitalism that he does. That foldable piece of aluminum and silicon is the modern day means of production. Also, why is it that they always have the luxury brand (Apple) laptop and phone?
I mean technically speaking it is the result of technological advancements that has occurred as a byproduct of the enlightenment & industrialism. While capitalism was the the means in which we incentivized that labour, it is quite plausible to consider it's existence within other systems.
@Peace Out Thank you for asking! :D These are legitimate concerns & I wouldn't want to advocate for a system where more specialization isn't properly incentivized. While some people acquire these skills out of sheer passion, I agree that proper rewards are in order. I don't personally view socialism as a thing that can be quantified as a percentage relative to alternatives. (heck I'm not even a socialist myself :o) It's a bit vague, to be honest. something workers owning the means of production (whatever that means) It's also a common, yet completely understandable misconception that socialism requires or even advocated for state control. Heck, Marx didn't even care about the state gaining more power. Whatever your perspective on some old fashion "handouts", I want to give you the assurance that you probably wouldn't depend on a government to give you, your fair share. While there are different brands of socialism as it's an evolving critique of capitalism, the funny thing is that many of its newer variations have a lot of the things you expect to be absent aren't. (crazy :p) -Commodities still exist -Markets still exists -Wages still exist -Inequality exists (maybe less) -Private business still exists (maybe it's more limited, I dunno) -Co-ops join in for some fun -Profits still exist -Capital still exists (kinda funny tbh) At the heart of socialism for many, is that of a democratic workplace. Some people want workers to have a say in what they create. It's founded on the idea that labour should be guided by democracy for the needs of the community instead of capital alone. Ownership is shared, but hierarchies still exist. So if you have some skills to bring to the table then you would interview as normal. Except instead of a top-down approach, it's bottom-up. If you have any other questions I'd love to answer them.
@@criticalthinker3262 no and free market capitalism has nothing to do with genocide. It's a economic model. Free market capitalism is the absence of the state in the economics. Genocide by government is usually caused by government and government and corporation uniting for a common agenda. That is socialism, like what the nazis had. They were not capitalist. They hated free markets because they wanted to control businesses to make sure they are aligned with the interest of the state. So socialism could be argued to behind genocide more than free markets.
@@luciddream2033 The Nazis were absolutely capitalists. As were those responsible for the genocide in Indonesia, and Chile, and Spain, and Argentina, and so on...
@@FromTheFens219 you are wrong and woefully ignorant. No scholar even debates this. Only ignorant leftwingers. Did nazi Germany have a state planned economy or a free market? Were businesses allowed to do as they please or were they required to carry out state agendas? What happens to those businesses that don't follow the state agenda is nazi Germany? Did the state control the prices of goods and commodities? There is little to no free market mechanism within nazi Germany. Even private ownership was at the direction of the state.
Not really it's because the very wealthy and powerful companies are able to exploit such as become oligarchies to manipulate the market and lobby to change laws to benefit themselves. I often hear people talk about lowering taxes for business but not for individuals, in every way the individual suffers.
My friend was is foster care his whole childhood. He now runs his own business and is kicking arse. Why should he give away his capital and resources to those who don’t want or intend to work nearly as hard as he has in his life?
@@beemo9 That's a fair point. What I take from Bens Burgis' argument is an expanding model of the community any one individual may be a part of. I'm from a large rural town were there are people who are truly deserving of welfare (I have no issue with them recieving a part of my tax dollar.) and people who are lazy and don't seem to be interested in contributing. It's the latter group that worry me when the ideas of ubi or worker controlled production are spoke of. I'm not sure how in a federal system that these two groups are differentiated.
@@youngmachiavelli7625 Greater government control over business, dictating how and by who any company may be ran. As well as central planning in order to decide what individuals within a nation require. Socialist leaning programs such as welfare for needy or out of luck people and some form of public health care are good examples of positive outcomes. However I become extremely uncomfortable with the idea of the redistribution on wealth, I see no end of such a move that doesn't end in blood shed or collapse of business/financial systems. The phrase " You need to break a few eggs in order to make an omelette" makes my deeply suspicious of the mental stability of the speaker.
Let's spin a question a different way to figure out whether or not this question and way of thinking is valid. The advocate for Democracy is a teacher. The advocate for the continuation of totalitarianism in North Korea has a career in the government. Who understands governmental systems better I wonder? 🤔🤔
my god how can there even be a debate about the topic of socialism after the repeated failure in every corner of the globe, next debate is nazisim preferable to capitalism, looking forward to that one, god were fucked its gonna sideways bad very soon
He's part of the reason education is so bad. Also China has better education results not because of their curriculum or spending, school is 9am-7pm or 10pm for high school and they have what they call 'tiger parents'.
@@maxwell2231 hmm just seems like if he’s arguments are so bad then wouldn’t it be easy to just go after thoses? Seems like an emotional reaction to an attachment to some pro capitalist worldview that is being criticised. There are great arguments to be had against him why not make them folks.
No, because without taxes I'd have to pay for private roads, private schooling, private fire departments etc etc. In the current system, those services are funded by everyone based on their ability to contribute, so the taxes are far less burdensome for a minimum wage worker than paying for privatized versions of all the essential services provided by taxes would be
@@AnarchyRules17 ~50% of the federal budget = social security + medicare + medicaid ~15% = military ~8% = interest on debt. "But muh roads" is a red herring.
@@AnarchyRules17 Roads are paid for by tax added in fuel prices. Schools, police/fire is from property taxes. Those are taxes you pay based on decisions you make. What Adam D is referring to is payroll taxes. This is tax taken from your pay before you make any decisions yourself.
@@o11k as a human who plans to age for as long as possible, social security and medicare are absolutely other examples of something I want publicly funded. In the original hypothetical, as a minimum wage worker, medicaid is also clearly something I want publicly funded. I would be in favor of abolishing the US military, so I'm not saying the government spends my money perfectly, but there's no question as a minimum wage worker I get more out of being taxed than is taxed away
@@edgarbm6407 payroll taxes are the second largest source of revenue for the federal government. Without them, they would have much less money available to fund all sorts of things that I want and would otherwise have to pay for on the private market, undoubtedly for much more than the tax burden of a minimum wage worker
@@AreteMedia Dictionaries of common usage are rarely correct -Naziism and Fascism are just variants of Socialism. The Soviets spent millions of dollars annually to distance Communism from Nazis even though they were just competing franchises selling the same products.
@@hawaiianknight6004 Respectfully I disagree. You said it yourself, dictionaries of common usage. If we can’t agree on the meaning of words, there’s no way we can have a productive discussion. Perhaps that’s the problem. I would point to the practices of the Soviet Union as a reason FOR dictionaries.
Is there a single example of a successful, long term socialist economy? There are dozens of examples on the capitalist side.......... is there 1 on the socialist side?
No, because they either turned into dictatorships, puppet states or got crushed/destabilized in some other way. If not by very corrupt people abusing new-found power and breaking their promises of a better state, it happend through US "intervention" for example. Sometimes even on the behalf of corporations.
In my opinion the entire concept of democracy is socialist. Equal bargaining power over the government=the ability to exercise CONTROL and collective management over the resources of economic production which equals socialism. The real definition of socialism is "public rather than private ownership or CONTROL of property and natural resources" (emphasis personally added), which is what democracy is by definition. Thus the foundation for a democratic society is socialist. To my knowledge this isn't recognized a lot by libertarians and conservatives when they talk about the economy and even when they express opinions on civil disobedience.
@@randomguy1283'Civil disobedience' today is a flowery way to describe soft terrorism. Actual civil disobedience would be refusing to be 'locked down' by an authoritarian govt and going about your day, or not being forced to cover your face like an oppressed woman under Sharia Law. Committing crime to harm or agitate other ppl until they bow to your demands is terrorism, although it's fluffy and ppl know they are dealing with ppl with mental issues.
Yes, he absolutely was. It's kind of insane how wildly authoritarian every capitalist argument is, while simultaneously pointing to socialism and calling democracy authoritarian because it forces freedom on the slaves who "may not want it". What absolute nonsense.
01:38:10 So the only reason people will pay these finnes are because they fear being put into prison. This is where he lost the debate in my opinion. Putting people into prison because victimless crimes is unmoral.
I think the whole point Ben was making is that there is a victim, who is the person making out with less in the wage labor arrangement. In the marxist analysis of wage labor, the capitalist only engages in the activity if they can personally profit from it. In a system where both parties are making out equally, a marxist wouldn't consider that to be a wage labor arrangement.
Socialism facts 1. Free does not actually mean free. 2. You were not entitled to someone else is hard earned money . . . EVER. 3. You cannot tax a nation into prosperity 4. No one is responsible for your financial situation but you. 5. Socialism leads to communism always. Capitalism encourages innovation. There is no incentive within socialism. I do believe we fundamentally want the same thing, (to help people), I think we just differ on the method to do so. I believe the best way is a thriving and free economy so people can help themselves and have equality of opportunity, instead of the alternative, equality of outcome (Socialism). I believe its not only inferior but dangerous to have a dependence on the government.
I find it morally reprehensible when someone embraces the idea of forcefully redistributing (Stealing) the hard worked fruits of ones labor to those who are more than capable but have put forth no time or effort into themselves or the world around them.
@@star.soaked.wanderer Each case is different but those who are willing to help should and those who don't shouldn't be forced to at the point of a gun.
@@TheXarus that's not the case anymore we are in a time where the ultra wealthy are squeezing all they can and pushing out the middle and lower classes.
I believe it was honestly largely due to his composure. Remember the old radio presidential debates where people believed the person with the nicer voice won? Yeah, that was this, except body language, was a factor. Ben showed himself to be emotional during this debate, a big mistake given that people take more than just the arguments being given into account.
I've worked for below minimum wage before (I was having trouble getting a job and I appreciated the pay over no pay). This is just an anecdotal story and I wouldn't take this too seriously, but I felt like mentioning this.
As have I when I was younger. People completely neglect how many more jobs can exist naturally when minimum wage is either far below inflation or removed outright
The social democratic solution to wages is to let industry representatives and unions negotiate collective agreements. No minimum wage, no job market regulation. It's a market approach.
Well, that's actually a good sign. The act of dressing for the occasion can be seen as a mental manipulation since most humans are influenced by trivial matters such as clothing. In fact, science demonstrates that many humans are so weak minded that they attribute skill or knowledge to a person merely due to trivial features like attractiveness and, in this case, formal attire. Him dressing as a "casual" leads me to believe he couldn't care less about those kinds of things or in manipulating us with anything less than an argument. Or.... He's mind screwing us and he double manipulated us into thinking he's like us! Get him boys! lol
@@Captain_Kel Literally nobody talks about all of those things you mentioned more than liberals. Case in point is you very randomly bringing them up now, even tho I was only talking about THIS guy and his hideous orange SHIRT. Exposed your damn self. Reaching is for the disingenuous.
"No socialist ever gave a thought to the possibility that the abstract entity which he wants to vest with unlimited power - whether it is called humanity, society, nation, state, or government - could act in a way of which he himself disproves." Ludwig von Mises
"A socialist advocates socialism because he is fully convinced that the supreme director of the socialist commonwealth will be reasonable from his - the individual socialist's - point of view, that he will aim at those ends of which he - the individual socialist - fully approves, and that he will try to attain these ends by choosing means which he - the individual socialist - would also choose."
"Every socialist calls only that system a genuinely socialist system in which these conditions are completely fulfilled; all other brands claiming the name of socialism are counterfeit systems entirely different from true socialism. Every socialist is a disguised dictator. Woe to all dissenters! They have forfeited their right to live and must be "liquidated." The market economy makes peaceful cooperation among people possible in spite of the fact that they disagree with regard to their value judgements. In the plans of the socialists there is no room left for dissenting views. Their principle is Gleichschaltung, perfect uniformity enforced by the police." Ludwig von Mises
5:12 False. People do not resort to "peeing in bottles" at an Amazon facility. Utter bollocks. Working conditions today are almost incomprehensively better and easier to deal with than ever before. Bezos only demands productivity quotas because the PEOPLE demand it. If you want the product to come in on time, then you want the workers to haul it. So you're the one demanding it.
The Q&A was so disappointing. Could have been a much better debate if Gene had addressed Ben's points more directly rather than flirting with straw men and ad hominem.
@@blackout07blue I will tell you one thing about Bernie that is note-worthy. I am from Norway, I have lived in 6 European countries, the US and Hong Kong. I currently live in Switzerland, where I have been living for more than 4 years. Bernie would be considered a socialist in Europe. here is the catch that u are almost right about, but ur quite off. Almost all European countries have a multi-system. This makes it so that the niche parties gets very few votes. I would put Bernie in the category of a little further to the left of most European labour parties. However, in Europe, none of the left-wing parties gets enough votes so they are forced into working with the parties that are considered moderate. Here is also the issue with Bernie. And that is the fact that the policies he is proposing are all too much at once. If you look at European political policies over the past 50 years. we will see that Bernie's policies are more policies that have been done for the past 30-40 years in Europe. ALL AT ONCE. And naturally, the socialists won't have enough with their cake. So they want even more cake. Bernie is especially this type of politician... Therefore Bernie IS considered a hardcore socialist in my opinion. You should also consider a lot of Bernie's fiscal policies would wreck the entire world economy. The funny part about government regulation is the fact that the countries with the most regulations on corporations always see the most amount of crashes, meanwhile, the countries with the least amount of regulations always see the fewest amount of economic crashes, and rarely ever see sector crashes... So there is that you will have to consider if you are a Bernie bro.
Freedom doesn't mean you get whatever you want whenever you want at any price you want. Sometimes you do work a job you'd rather not work, but not prefer to NOT work over not getting paid.
Owning my own business is more free than working for my previous employers. Some days I work and don't get paid or I bid a job wrong and make no money (even lose money 😬). Some days I make in a day what I made at my previous jobs in a week or more. Even if the pay was less than I could make working for someone else though I would still want to be self employed. Sometimes I just hang out with my customers lol. I quoted a job for an acquaintance and then we shot bow and arrows in their back yard. Another friend of a friend made me a sandwich and then showed me their guitars (we both play). I couldn't get away with that before but now there's nobody to say I can't and if I don't have a job scheduled there's no reason I shouldn't. Work doesn't even feel like work to me anymore. I just help people with problems. That is the beauty of freedom. I imagine how much happier I would be if the government wasn't in the way or so many goals.
Cool, not the argument _at all_ nor was it literally ever. As simply as possible, the system is inherently unsustainable. Adam Smith, the "father of capitalism himself" pointed this out extensively with the same points that Marx uses, but these require an attention span more than that of a housefly so I'm going to make this meme-ified and edgy to get anyone to understand this...maybe...idk we'll see what happens. Capitalism is the division of class via the base material organization of ownership and control and importantly to the "libertarian" folk (of which I was one for most of my life to be clear so I get all the dumbass points), _this relationship is protected by the state_ . The police protect first and foremost, say it with me, private property. Gee, it's like that's why they're the only union allowed to exist in the US or something. Anyway...here you guys pretend to like data right? scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf tldr; economic elites influence the vast majority of government policy whose outcomes benefit and align with the interests of the capital class (shocker). You can have capitalism or democracy, not both. The class distinction that fuels production at the base of how we organize material reality under capitalism relies on an inherent power disparity and class tension (the one that implicitly coerces the working class to work while simultaneously incentivizing capital to cut wages to increase profit) that over time has allowed the capital class (particularly finance capital or "fictitious capital" as Marx appropriately called it) to entrench and reify this disparity and consequently the scope and reach of their control and influence toward almost entirely capturing the very institutional tool intended to mediate these class antagonisms in the state. It'd be crazy if people pointed this out like 200+ years ago and were brutally suppressed for even trying to change it, like the optimates of Rome crushing the populares movement of the Gracchi bros and later Caesar, all of which of course literally murdered by the senate...oh wait... Anyway, it's not like any of you give a shit, but for the few that might be interested in the non-strawman understanding of socialism, the one had I known about earlier would have presumably made me less of a pretentious jackass promoting this "divine right of the entrepreneur" bullshit while the world literally burned around me behind the American imperial curtain to provide me the arrogance to suggest this (as it continues to do and intensify doing): www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm Also relevant regarding US empire, and how we sustain this bullshit - can elaborate more if anyone wants, Lenin extending Marx and being entirely correct about the trajectory of the next century (woah predictive power, crazy right?): www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc Oh yeah I guess you'd have to have some awareness of this grotesque bullshit too: www.wikiwand.com/en/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change Also check out like literally any of the CIA and their history. Vincent Bevins' recent book the Jakarta Method has some absolutely disgusting details but the CIA itself are quite open about all of it and its main mission to protect US capitalism (can't get much more clear than Pinochet and the ousting of Allende in Chile, that dude _loved_ "free markets" oh and throwing people out of helicopters - see: Operation Condor).
@@Bisquick " The police protect first and foremost, say it with me, private property." Wrong. The state exists to prop itself up. Private property has not ever been the primary focus of the state. You're a moron. "tldr; economic elites influence the vast majority of government policy whose outcomes benefit and align with the interests of the capital class (shocker)." Oh wow, it's almost like having a massive state is a BAD IDEA! Wonder why the capitalists in all of these debates are advocating for less of a state and the Marxists are advocating for more of it?? No one is coercing labor, and no amount of your faux moralizing makes Marxism better than capitalism. Ignoring the massive human rights abuses that preceded said regime changes is not only idiotic but still pales in comparison to the atrocities of socialists around the world.
Even if it did, it's literally impossible. We live in a world with limited resources and limitless demands and "wants". Everybody wants a sports car, but it's physically impossible to give everybody sports car, because there are more people than sports cars. That's why socialism doesn't work. You need prices to determine who gets a sports car and who don't. Because EVERYBODY cannot get a damn sports car. This goes with any "nice thing" that billionaires can get, but normal people can't
Ben brings up Jim Crow as if that supports his point on consumer action being a force for change. Does he not know that Jim Crow is an example of the tyranny of the majority working through the ballot box? Fewer businesses would have segregated were it not mandated by the government. I don't think it supports his argument.
@@lordsharshabeel Seems to be working on 99% of this simple audience LOL. SEE! He must be a serious person, he has a suit on! All of these dog sht wages businesses have been paying, the outsourcing, the crumbling roads and buildings all around the midwest for the past 40+ years, it was the specter of socialism this whole time and NOT our dominant mode of economic production capitalism! naawwhh couldn't be! /endsarcasm
One question I would have liked to see Ben answer is in his "worker owned co-op" how do you fire unproductive workers, when that worker is literally an owner of the company?
Hiring and firing is usually done democratically. I worked for a cooperative for 7 years once. I am a pretty introverted person so for me it felt like I had a bunch of bosses instead of just one.
@@soulfuzz368 You can't fire an owner. If that were possible then the employees are NOT ACTUALLY AN OWNER. Otherwise they are just merely stock holders in a worker coop, which is no different than Amazon employees who get Amazon stock as part of their compensation. The same Amazon that those who support the worker coop nonsense state that the purpose of worker coops is to prevent the Amazon's of the world.
@@waynespringer501 lol why are you arguing with me? I’ve worked for one and I’m just telling you how it was there. Semantic disagreements are useless. It is completely different from amazon because every worker has say in the wage structure, hiring process and basically every business decision. Low ranking workers and Amazon have zero say in any of this. This is why cooperatives usually don’t grow or do it very slowly, the decision making process is tedious. I think cooperatives are best suited to service based companies like restaurants and daycares but work poorly for companies that need to innovate and grow to survive.
It’s an inherently libertarian audience, they were always going to biased against him. I don’t think it dispels the idea that the broader work force could be swayed by the idea of having greater autonomy in their places of work.
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.” - Frank Herbert
Is he seriously insisting that people don’t get penalized or thrown in jail for hiring people under the table? And that the threat of prison and financial penalization for doing so doesn’t exist? In his mind: (Government) no pay people small moneys (People) okie dokie
@@Andwhatson420 The point is that he is trying to sell socialism as a self help program when it is actually a policy to classify certain actions as crimes. He's trying to get away with the "it is good for people" argument which is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether to treat someone as a criminal or not. That why market advocates are always smashing socialists by telling the truth "hey you are talking about sending people to jail." And socialists always respond with some pissant weak reply like "oh we'll start with small penalties not jail" or "people get sent to jail all the time what's the problem".
So sorry, Sam and I tried to get the word out as much as we could I believe there are other debates going on in the area, check out the soho forum website to see
Socialism Vs. Capitalism When I hear the word “socialism” I want to gag. Having been born in a socialist country, I have plenty of real life experience stories that stuck with me over the years. All I remember is being poor and unable to get the nutritional products and had to have them shipped to us from the UNITED STATES. Parents standing in line waiting for bread. Sending packages from the US to needy relatives who were unable to buy certain things. You had to work a month to purchase a pair of shoes. A car? Forget about it. No one had cars. Most people lived in small concrete apartments. The only way you could “make it” was to join “The Party”. Scarcity was the leading problem with socialism. First of all, there’s no such thing as equality. We are ALL different, with different skills, aptitudes and abilities. I used to hear around the table “ Whether you sit or stand you get paid the same.” So much for equality. Where is the incentive to work? None. No incentive no productivity. No productivity= EMPTY SHELVES. You know the definition of Democracy? Two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. We are a REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY. Thank God! Socialism is a breezeway to communism, where you are monitored and have no future of ever owning property. Property is for the Socialist politicians who skim off the top of the working class, give it to the workers and KEEP THE REST FOR THEMSELVES. Freedom of speech? My father used to listen to “Voice Of America” to get real news. We couldn’t wait to escape from the claws of poverty and raging censorship. So you can debate this all you want but in my life’s experience the Marxist is a Godless tyrannical System making everyone a slave of the state. It is the LOVE OF MONEY that creates slavery to those who don’t have the privilege. Socialism is ALL about privilege, the control of manufacturing based not on incentives but based on duty. While those who have no incentive to contribute because why work harder if everyone is treated equally. You can sugar coat this any way you want but the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It was the tyrants who infected our money system with the Federal Reserve so they can come across as creating philanthropy, using it as a mask to steal from the masses and make capitalism a sham and a scam because the Marxists took over our government over a hundred years ago. If you knowing that a 100 million people died in the Bolshevik Revolution when they tried their Marxist Communist Agenda. If you are in favor of all these wars which both capitalists and communists support, then maybe a death wish is at hand. At best: a cradle of corruption because regardless of what model we use: THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO CONTROL IT. Carefully examine who the money grabbers are: their names and their origins. It will answer all your questions.
What country are you originally from? I'm an American and I agree with everything you said. We need more people like you here and we want people like you to come here. People who respect America and it's economic systems.
Excellent comment. But to be clear, worker owned co-ops are not the same as state owned enterprises with sick incentive structures in place. The co-ops are just more egalitarian.
What about the average worker in a co-op and they own 2% equity in the company he works for a year and the companies unprofitable and he makes no money that year
It’s always a philosopher with piss-poor experience in running an economy who’s a socialist, against an actual economist who runs things for real who’s a capitalist. Ivory tower v.s. Reality. Guess what? Reality always wins.
I'm always blown away that Jacobin Magazine is a thing that is just out there with little push back. The Jacobins slaughtered 10s of thousands of innocent men, women, children, and old people and these guys are just like "yeah we wanna be them". I suppose it lets you know who you're dealing with at least.
Imagine that here in China, Mao is on the currency and his image is plastered all over the place. After all, he *only* killed 45 million of his own countrymen.
@@wuvs2spooge True. I can picture a poorly groomed 30-something American sporting a Che T-shirt and Mao pin carrying a copy of Jacobin with absolutely no sense of the irony.
By that logic you should feel worse about identifying with american values, considering the bloody history of Native American genocide, slavery, the toppling of sovereign regimes of south america and the middle east, sanctions on countries that amount to starvation for their poor citizens, tacit/direct support for ethnic cleansings etc etc
@@meddlesomemusic Nope, not even slightly comparable. A nation's entire history is not the same as the actions of a political party that existed for 5 years and when they were in power slaughtered innocents.
Have you ever noticed that most everything you like in your life, your home, clothing, food, neighborhoods, jobs, products, services, universities were created by democratic vote rather than free people?
If you want to know exactly why socialism, when implemented with any consistency, always leads to an oppressive, corrupt dictatorship, I recommend searching Google for this video: "Why Socialism is Always Oppressive, Dictatorial and Corrupt".
If a publicly owned company made more money for all workers then people would flock to create them. Under capitalism you can make that happen. Voting to receive other people’s money is easy to convince someone. Large government is always a problem. We should not take away the right to private property.
Remember, the Grapes of Wrath was banned in some locslities in the US because it was deemed "Communist propaganda". Yet The Grapes of Wrath was also banned in the USSR because it showed that under capitalism even the poor could afford a car.
10:35 Burgis says that "capitalism" has done a bad job with healthcare. The problem is that our government won't let our healthcare system anywhere near the free market. Everything is buried in a mile of red tape and regulations, all of which bear a compliance cost that is forwarded to the customer ... which is why it is so expensive. Just look at the actual market for healthcare. Where you have the least government regulation, you have the lowest prices in the market. Lasik eye surgery, for example, has been going down in price for the last 30 years as the technology has improved year after year. Why? Because it's not covered by insurance and barely touched by government regulation. In order for Lasik offices to remain in operation, they compete based on quality and price for the most customers. This keeps quality up and price down without the need for government intervention. Take a minute and look up Direct Patient Care (also called Direct Patient Services) which is a health-care model in which a patient pays a doctor's office a direct monthly subscription fee of $50-$75, which entitles him to unlimited access to the doctor's office and services at no additional cost. Why is it so cheap for unlimited service? Because by rejecting 3rd party payers (insurance/medicare/medicade) they step out from under that mountain of regulations and can just help the customer without having to jump through a marathon of hoops on the back end. 10:50 Finland has all public schools. Okay, but that's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. They have a small homogenous population and they don't deal with a lot of the social stuff we do that rolls into the school systems. Additionally, it's not America's private/charter schools that are failing. It's our public schools! How is the solution to our education problem to get rid of the schools that work so that we can force EVERYBODY into the schools that fail? How exactly does that help? Going back to the guy with the insulin problem. The problem, again, isn't that the free market failed him. The problem is that there is no free market for insulin in the U.S.! There are basically two companies who have a government protection racket that prevents any other competitor from joining the market to force down prices. Insulin is cheap in every other country in the world because none of those countries grant monopolies to the insulin manufacturers like we do. Shocker, I know ... create a government-granted monopoly and you end up with monopoly pricing! Who could have possibly have seen that coming?! The obvious and easiest solution here would be to simply revoke the monopoly on producing insulin and let the market deliver competitive pricing just like every other country in the world. 13:00 He brings up Spain as the example of how to run an economy and manage businesses. Spain's unemployment rate has bounced between 14%-47% for the last decade. Their economy is abysmal ... and we know why! Their socialist policies don't work. 16:50 "In a society where you can lose your health insurance if you lose your job." This is a relic of Herbert Hoover and FDR's manipulation of the economy in the Great Depression. It is because of the government, not the free market, that insurance is primarily employer-based today. If you'll notice, the vast majority of problems socialist claim are caused by the free market are actually caused by the government, usually while attempting to implement some form of socialist program. 23:10 Notice how Epstein has, from the start of his segment, has been talking nothing but real number and real events. Burgis was nothing but platitudes and false-equivalents with no real-world substance. Even when he tried to create real-world substance, it worked against him, such as by invoking the name of Spain which has some of the worst unemployment in all of the EU. 34:10 Epstein brings up Burgis' Democratic Socialsim. I just wanted to point out that the notion of "Democratic Socialism" is a complete and total myth, nothing but propaganda generated by Marxists to pretend it isn't what it very clearly is. Search "Democratic Socialists of America Constitution" and look at their charter. The very first line under their Purpose says "we reject an economic order based on private profit." That's a rejection of the entire free market system! Burgis and those like him are constantly saying that they don't want to eliminate the free market so that you won't be afraid of the brand of socialism he's selling ... but once you peel back the wrapper and see the product, it's the same exact socialism that crashed the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, and every other socialist nation of the last century. Burgis is LYING to you. He is a liar. He is dishonest and untrustworthy and if you're taking anything he's saying seriously, you're exactly the kind of useful idiot he's hoping you'll be. 43:30 Burgis brings up segregation of public businesses. Let's not forget that those Jim Crow laws were passed by Democrats and that it was the Republicans who fought to repeal them. Further, let's acknowledge that segregation of businesses was a top-down government push into the private sector. Businesses and the public as a whole didn't necessarily want segregation. They didn't need to forcibly de-segregate anything. They only needed to stop prohibiting integration. Integration would happen naturally on its own as most business owners don't really care what color your skin is so long as your money is green. Those who chose not to integrate would soon put themselves out of business and the problem would be solved without coercion of any form. 57:20 Burgis talks about outlawing voluntary labor contracts, yet he still claims to be on the side of freedom and liberty. If you aren't allowed to decide for yourself how you will engage others economically, how can you consider yourself free? 1:00:00 Burgis starts talking about labor contracts where people have to agree to sexual harassment. This is a nonsensical argument that attempts to conflate sexual harassment with voluntarily accepting a wage for labor. At this point, I've given up on breaking this down. Burgis just goes on and on with various nonsensical rants that don't add up to anything, and the vote at the end bears that out.
Capitalism failed in healthcare, not just in the US, but in every advanced economy. All the other economies went with socialized medicine decades ago and none went back. I think that capitalism works 99% of the time, but at some point you have to recognize the reality when it comes to healthcare. Why did capitalism fail with healthcare? Well for one, consumption of healthcare does not involve consumer choices and preferences. If you need to take antibiotic for 7 days to cure an infection, that is not a choice you made, nor does it depend on price. You shouldn't take fewer antibiotics if price goes up, and you are not going to take more if you get a good deal with a coupon. LASIC is a matter of choice and preference, just like TVs and computers are, but mending broken bones is not. If mending of broken bones becomes free, you are still not going to break your bones for fun. Nobody wants to consume healthcare unless they have to. There is nothing in logic, math, or nature that says that free market is a solution in all cases all of the time. Free market applies 99% of the time, but there is 1% where it doesn't.
@@hamobu no, capitalism didn't fail in healthcare. Never. Not once. The fact that a state forcibly monopolizes healthcare isn't proof that it works. It is proof that the state forces things to be that way. "Well for one, consumption of healthcare does not involve consumer choices and preferences." Wrong. Most of healthcare costs are NOT emergencies, meaning that you absolutely can shop around and negotiate and (if markets were allowed) compare. You're just wrong to claim that there are exceptions. You've not proven anything wrong with capitalism and markets in healthcare. Just nonsense talking points.
@@ExPwner If it was just one country then you might have a point, but healthcare was socialized in EVERY country. Even countries that are really opposed to Socialism, like Taiwan and South Korea, have socialized medicine. Nationalization fails all the time. British railroads used to nationalized and then they were privatized. South Australia had nationalized electric provider which was then privatized, etc. But not healthcare. And no, when you are sick, you can't shop around and compare because you are sick. That's just ridiculous! Just because you can somehow imagine it working, that doesn't mean that it does in practice.
@@hamobu no, it wasn't fully nationalized in every country. Universal systems are not the same as single payer systems. Many countries have a universal system that is still dominated by private insurance. People can absolutely shop around in advance through insurance providers and primary care providers. It's not ridiculous. You're just ignorant. Look at how much the state limits the supply of medicine through IP monopolies and the supply of hospitals and equipment through certificate of need laws. Just because you don't understand how much the state limits the supply doesn't mean that capitalism is the reason for the shortfalls, because it isn't. You haven't named one part of healthcare that is capitalist this entire time.
True socialism has never been tried so it's unfair to judge it. True capitalism on the other hand has been so we can. Even using this dishonest argument we must conclude that socialism is merely a theory that is impossible to put into practice. One is greater than zero so capitalism is better than socialism. End of debate.
Since we're social creatures, there will always be cronyism to some degree, regardless of the philosophy, because of the need for "some savior" aka the state that needs to exist in their minds. Even the idea that giving the population something that will "fix" their brain so they wouldn't be narcissistic is in and of itself narcissistic, since the politician might not give themselves this same substance because of their self serving ego that justifies their existence; thus, ego detaching substances are labeled as a "Class A drug". If even 10% of the population, including 50% of the politicians, had their ego detached, they would open the world to other solutions that might remove their own existence that was justified by the poisonous narrative that they perpetuated for centuries, including "communes" that focus on local economies with loads of villages as it was before highways stole our freedom by pointing people towards exploitative big box stores. The state fulfills the fantasy that citizens will somehow be protected from all the bad guys and that taxes paid at the end of the financial year is a way for the ultra-rich to "pay their fair share". In reality, the state primarily serves the megacorporations that lobby and influence them every day for us all to suffer. Not saying that every teen should get a "living wage" because they're at the point where they're getting experience, but if the local community thinks that this system would work for them, let them try it out without state interference. So long as "the state" (which is easily influenced by megacorporations) exists, there will come a time when civilizations fall and we'll have no one but "the state" to blame.
He lost in the very start, when he redefined both Socialism and Capitalism to match his delusional view, then went on to prey on base envy by pointing out how corporate chiefs made more than their employees.
Ben really should have pointed out that we don’t punish people held in slave labor or who are victims of workplace harassment. We punish their “employers.”
So, in Gene’s society, ben’s concepts could exist. In Ben’s society, gene’s concepts would be fined then ? then ?, maybe, possibly, eventually...jail. Yeah. I’ll roll the dice with Gene’s society.
Where... has... it... worked... don't give me that it hasn't been done right yet. If governments are run by people, then the failings are inevitable and history will continue to repeat itself.
Co-ops aren't more common because socialists are too lazy and capitalists just want to keep all the profits. Until this is overcome, co-ops will continue to be rare.
This argument seems to come down to one side saying "If you want co-ops or companies owned by employees, you can do that already." vs "We don't want any business to not be owned by the employees." One is clearly far more free than the other.
Let me get this straight, I risk it all to build a business, millions of my money, 18 hour days, and then I supposed to just let the people i employee take my business from me? thats a no from me dogg
It's the CEO that takes all the risk from IRS ...OHSA REGULATIONS machinery repairs interest from bank loans ....and yet employees feel they should reep the benefits..
@@mattgilbert7347 define "built". Did I have workers whom i paid a negotiated salary to in exchange for their labor? sure. did i have people put their money into the business and provide sweat equity, working as long and hard as me, who didnt take a salary for years like i didnt? hell no. Let me guess, you think just because you work somewhere, and get paid for that work, you think youre entitled to reap some sort of reward other than a paycheck if the business is successful, even though you risked absolutely nothing in creating the business, other than your tasks, you contributed nothing extra. you made no decisions that lead to the success. Let me ask you, if youre entitled to my successes, how much are you contributing monetarily to my failures. If you think you should have 50 percent of my business, then if i go bankrupt, its only fair you pay me 50 percent of my losses, right?
Listening to his argument of justifying political power forcing the economy... "Why didn't they use their power to only frequent businesess' that pay $15 an hour?" I think we know the answer... it costs more.
Not necessarily. You get what you pay for. If your workers don't have money issues and are more comfortable in their private life, then it's likely they will be more productive. Your revenues might even increase if you give people raises. If you look at historical data, minimum wage increases don't really cause inflation in the way you'd expect. This is a very reductive way of thinking that is unfortunately pervasive. It was dumb to outsource jobs in a lot of cases from the US. US workers tend to be the most productive per dollar of any nation on Earth, but we're squandering that and now we have tons of broken people.
How many of you can still remember Phil Collin's song 'A DAY IN PARADISE!' or stimulating fable 'THE LITTLE MATCH GIRL' who was found frozen to death on the Christmas day. "Oh!... Come all thee faithfulls!"
I don't understand the notion of "voting for (or against) socialism". You get to vote democrat, republican, third party or refrain from voting. I wish someone wouldve asked "how do you vote for socialism?"
For instance you might vote for the Communist Party USA. Or you might vote for people like Bernie Sanders who espouse socialism, thus pushing the Democratic party in that direction.
@@bulldogvillan Pathetic fail at having a gotcha moment, i know :) And holy batman! these comments are littered with the dumbest of the dumb. America is fkt, it's too late, even socialism can't save it because nothing can.
Really shocked by how flustered and unhinged Gene got after the 40 minute mark. Very confused by how he's debating points Ben never made as some sort of gotcha and making assumptions on his opinions? It's like he's debating the great ghost of socialism and not the man in the room with him, pretty dissapointing considering his performance against Richard Wolff where he at least managed to maintain composure. Ben was clear and articulate, Gene was speaking faster than he was thinking. With Richard it seemed Gene at least respected his opponent and the argument put forth but with Ben that doesn't come through at all. Actively saying he's not answering Ben's points to address the "larger" issue, most of which are claims only Gene was making this debate. Fully understanding Soho is a Libertarian majority group, but wow just a disrespectful debate from Gene's end, especially considering he showed more decorum in the last debate on this issue. Usually expect a lot better from Soho. The fact majority of these comments are just ad hominems and don't reflect the actual debate is just furthering the dissapointment.
“*It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.*”
― Thomas Sowell
GOLD. Absolute gold
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be 'cured' against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals."
--C.S. Lewis
"The welfare of the people will always be The alibi of tyrants. And it gives the added benefit of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience."
--Albert Camus
"There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want merely because you think it would be good for him."
--Robert Heinlein
"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain."
--Frederic Bastiat
Why those debates are always an economist vs a philosopher.
Because nobody who knows proper economics can be a socialist, and Marx himself was a “philosopher”.
@@paulnolack297 theory vs facts xD
@@marc4770 XD
Gene is both in my opinion
@@paulnolack297 Richard Wolff is a socialist economist who did a debate on this same forum not too long ago, and he’s still active, there’s plenty of socialist economists, sorry you don’t know about them.
Just from that thumbnail I know who the socialist is.
RIGHT?!
T-shirt + beard = socialist
9 times out of 10
@@averageblonde5496 Absolutely. They just whine and demand change from the world around them.
I was thinking the same thing.
The old wise man who's seen it's greatness in his lifetime?
For crying out loud put up a clock the speakers can see instead of disrupting their points. Or a clock the audience can see and instruct them to clap when time runs out.
Or both
Yes!
I’m 100% for a visual timer for debaters
I was just thinking this - We can't get a 5 minute $2 LED light? A cell phone timer? Anything?
"You have five minutes. Hey, are you listening? Hey! HEY! ...you have five minutes."
Ugh. Glad I'm not the only one who was put off by that.
First time I have heard this idea and I kinda love it
You have to make money in order to distribute it.
Money printer goes brrr
no, money doesn't even matter. You have to make goods and services in order to distribute them. Socialists are only looking at money, but not the actual goods. It literally doesn't even matter that some guy makes 100 billion dollars and another guy makes $100 bucks, if you take money from the rich and give it to the poor it doesn't create new stuff. It just increases the demand for already available stuff. And there isn't enough "nice stuff" to go around for everybody, some people can't get nice stuff either way. It doesn't matter how you distribute the money. We all want a nice house at the beach and a new car. But there isn't enough of those houses and cars for everybody, that's why we have prices on things that determines who get it and who don't
@TryllaTröllMaistre Fictitious Fables of Europa I don't even quite understand what you are saying, but those UBI checks didn't help anybody but the very rich, it just made everything more expensive. The poor is worse off than they were before the UBI. Unless you own assets like real estate you didn't get more wealthy from UBI
@TryllaTröllMaistre Fictitious Fables of Europa lol. Suppose you got 1 chocolate bar. If I ate that chocolate bar, how many chocolate bars left do you have kiddo?
Socialism always works until they strangle and kill off the Capitalist industries that paid the bills to keep it running. Even Communist China realized that only Capitalism could save them and used the Hong Kong laissez-faire model in over 20 provinces. China adopted Reaganomics in the 1990s, at the time the US abandoned it.
At least he's a socialist that has clear definition about what he wants - I'll give him that.
Richard Wolff, who is a Marxist economist which is an oxymoron, couldn’t even provide a proper definition of socialism against Destiny
@@sayebkhan8098 Richard Wolff seemed to want to make a point that what socialism meant to people varied from one group to another ever since the term 'socialism' was first popularized by Charles Fourier and Henri Saint Simon, then later Robert Owen and all of them had a more Utopian view of how the economy should be like as Karl Marx would point out. Karl Marx was a stronger advocate for workers being the ones to own and manage the production and distribution instead of private interest groups. This is now known today as worker cooperatives and statistically they perform better than their privatized counterparts. Destiny knows what Socialism is, his problem is that socialist have no answer for how to either incorporate or provide a better alternative to the capital market such as the stock market. No socialist has given him an answer on how socialism would deal with that yet and that's why he mostly seems like he's anti-socialist. Don't get your hopes up about him being your capitalist champion. You will get disappointed.
@@Hunterchuck To the latter points, check out his discussion recently with Sensible Socialist.
He’s worked with Richard Wolff and gave answers Wolff would’ve, but in a more charitable manner, in less of a “debate” setting, and they had a pretty productive conversation!
What time did he clearly define his policy? Timestamp please?
It’s 50 50. Yin and Yang. We both get what we want. That is if what socialism does. We may not like it, but we have to support it. If one gets extreme the others will not be happy and it causes anger which anger triggers violence and then triggers rebellions.
Socialist: "I want to limit the power a person has over another"
Also the Socialist: Give me all your money or else
Yes and that "or else" scenario is so vanishing small as to be worthy of dismissal because most people comply at the threat before the force - I guess is Ben's reply to that.
It seems a few of the key socialist assumptions and positions come from a combination of lack of imagination and pro govt takes on historical events.
I wonder if Ben has seen the work on slavery being made more costly and economically wasteful as farming tech and practices advanced. Surely a govt education would omit or downplay roles the private sector played in positive advancements the people have made through market action.
You got a timestamp for where he said the second thing?
As a moderate conservative, my views on economic policy are: Hayek at ordinary times, Keynes occasionally; Hayek as a whole, Keynes as a part. Moreover, the biggest problem of socialism is not to cultivate lazy people, nor to destroy the economy. It is that although the big left-wing government can give you everything, you must listen to what the big left-wing government says. If you don't listen to the government, if you dare to criticize the government, the big left government can take everything from you at the same speed as it gives you everything. Moreover, the big left-wing government can create the virus first, and then legislate to provide effective methods to control and treat the virus. These methods can turn your community into a prison for you. These methods can forcibly inject a certain formula of medicine into your body. These drugs may be harmful or harmless, but it must be the foreign matter that the big left government forces you to accept, forces you to trust, and finally enters your body. If no one has the right to object to the government injecting foreign bodies into their bodies, then the government can create the virus ahead of time, and then use the prevention and control of the virus as an excuse to do what the big left government usually wants to do but can't do, such as mailing votes, banning gatherings, and assassinating people with specific DNA. The low-end population on the right is always reluctant to wear masks, but at most they will only hurt themselves, not others. If the whole country can maintain a certain number of right-wing idiots, I will not feel lonely and helpless as a smart man who is extremely afraid of the government. Although I don't care what the news says about the current epidemic, I will always insist on wearing masks and not getting vaccinated. But I will always be grateful to those Rightists who never believe in science, authority or government. The right-wing fools are lovely, harmless and beneficial to society and others. The left always emphasizes that everyone must be exactly the same, which is very dangerous. If no one doubts what the left-wing big government and the left-wing big media say, then the left-wing big government can really create a virus first, and then detain all people, invade all people's bodies, and deprive all people of the right to March and assemble under the first amendment of the Constitution in the name of epidemic prevention. My imagination is very limited. I can only think of the leftist government that can assassinate people with specific DNA by means of vaccines, such as trump. As long as the big left government can force people across the country to get vaccinated through the vaccine pass policy, it is possible for the big left government to assassinate any American.
@@安徒生局部拆党还政于 Keynes was totally discredited in the late 1970's. In 1978 during the "stagflation" era, the Keynesians had their usual meeting at Bertton Woods and said that, under their system, stagnation and inflation could not exist together But there it was starting to touch double digits. They said they could not explain it. and in '79-80 it would be eating us alive with inflation reaching 18% and six quarters of "negative growth [for those of you who speak English; 'shrinkage]". Why they weren't laughed off the stage and sent home, I have no idea. They are an embarrassment
Contrary to claims, Socialism is very free-market oreinted. The market in corruption is a veritable wild west as persons seek and give special favors, breaks and subsidies to those who seek them. The phrase "It's not what you know, but who you blow" was big in the 1970's and will be big again in the 2020's as people seek relief from the tax and regulation onslught that will be engineereed by Commie-la Harris, who is running this administration
Props to Burgis for stating his case to a crowd where the majority disagrees with him! Both of these gentlemen were excellent.
Super brave and honorable even if he is wrong, mad respect.
@@nokiot9 he's not wrong. Socialist democratic countries are hands down "better" and more livable. Here in Australia we don't have medical bankruptcy.
I'd have to disagree. The capitalist was not excellent, just babbling and incoherent.
Congrats everyone our honorable Zachary Wallace & burgis said they were going to pay for all of us. Let's sit down and relax while these suckered who sacrifice their time pay for our equallateral lifestyle
@@MrDeano-eu9rg I'm Australian too and you're presenting a very disingenuous premise. Australian tax rates are quite high compared to other countries of similar populations and economic capacities. Namely personal and company income taxes, and also stamp duty taxes. High company income taxes disincentivise investors from investing in businesses which in turn results in lesser and lower quality production per worker in a business, which in turn results in lower wages.
Add on top of this the fact we have heavily regulated and increasing minimum wages in Australia and that makes it incredibly difficult for businesses to grow and contribute to the economy and to the very classes of people that "democratic socialists" claim to fight for.
Increasingly large income taxes for higher-wage demographics (Australia has recently ranked 2nd in the world for high income tax rates) discourage people from striving to make more money. Couple this with the fact Australia has incredibly high stamp duty taxes making it difficult for middle class entrepreneurs wanting to start an SME (small to medium enterprise) to buy property.
Altogether Australia has incredibly high taxes which lead to a greater income inequality and less entrepeneurship. You mentioned medical bankruptcy. Yes. And if we didn't have such a huge income disparity between classes due to extremely high taxation rates, there'd be no need for the Australian government to inject tens of billions of dollars annually into a fragmented and frankly very poorly organised public welfare and healthcare system.
"Believe it or not Im not an ideologue" - said the ideologue. These people have no self awareness and constantly redefine the meaning of words.
As a moderate conservative, my views on economic policy are: Hayek at ordinary times, Keynes occasionally; Hayek as a whole, Keynes as a part. Moreover, the biggest problem of socialism is not to cultivate lazy people, nor to destroy the economy. It is that although the big left-wing government can give you everything, you must listen to what the big left-wing government says. If you don't listen to the government, if you dare to criticize the government, the big left government can take everything from you at the same speed as it gives you everything. Moreover, the big left-wing government can create the virus first, and then legislate to provide effective methods to control and treat the virus. These methods can turn your community into a prison for you. These methods can forcibly inject a certain formula of medicine into your body. These drugs may be harmful or harmless, but it must be the foreign matter that the big left government forces you to accept, forces you to trust, and finally enters your body. If no one has the right to object to the government injecting foreign bodies into their bodies, then the government can create the virus ahead of time, and then use the prevention and control of the virus as an excuse to do what the big left government usually wants to do but can't do, such as mailing votes, banning gatherings, and assassinating people with specific DNA. The low-end population on the right is always reluctant to wear masks, but at most they will only hurt themselves, not others. If the whole country can maintain a certain number of right-wing idiots, I will not feel lonely and helpless as a smart man who is extremely afraid of the government. Although I don't care what the news says about the current epidemic, I will always insist on wearing masks and not getting vaccinated. But I will always be grateful to those Rightists who never believe in science, authority or government. The right-wing fools are lovely, harmless and beneficial to society and others. The left always emphasizes that everyone must be exactly the same, which is very dangerous. If no one doubts what the left-wing big government and the left-wing big media say, then the left-wing big government can really create a virus first, and then detain all people, invade all people's bodies, and deprive all people of the right to March and assemble under the first amendment of the Constitution in the name of epidemic prevention. My imagination is very limited. I can only think of the leftist government that can assassinate people with specific DNA by means of vaccines, such as trump. As long as the big left government can force people across the country to get vaccinated through the vaccine pass policy, it is possible for the big left government to assassinate any American.
If they're trying to redefine words then they probably know their wrong and seek to use culture as a weapon.
says the man who believes the us could magically have as good "free education" as the number one country in the world, and acted like we could have the good parts of the USR whatever those where, but without the bad.
Actually I think he's not an ideologue. If he really believed in socialism he'd tell the truth about it.
@@CarrotCakeMake The truth wouldn't help him. Theirs a reason socialist avoid particular truths.
Old Russian saying “I shit our pants”.
I am Russian, I never heard this saying. "Я обосрал нашы штаны"?
LOOOL
@@beybladeguru101 it's an American joke about Soviets being communists and believing in the group instead of the individual lol.
@@Deshift00 clearly a dumb bad joke, i didn't get it either.
I bet Reagan-era dad joke works well with the ladies /s/
“*If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the
tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race?
Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind?*”
― Frederic Bastiat, The Law
That is an absolutely killer quote. I’ve had the same sentiment with much less eloquence
And that point couldn't be more important. Not only that, but if the people are so bad that they need to be forced to be good, then how is the resultant cost of the enforcement, which is essentially the enforcement of behavior of an entire society in order to control the economy, not a cure that's worse than the disease?
We can have public (elected) control or we can have private (un-elected) control...right now the private sector (Capitalists) controls both government and business...and somehow that's OK with you?
And yet you somehow want to continue to allow capitalists free rein to run everything, in the belief that nothing has gone wrong as a result. What utter nonsense.
@@ivandafoe5451 People are way more sensitive to and critical of corporate power than they are of their political leaders. That's why a market without politics is preferable. The primary destructive tool for corporations is politicians with too much power. And for some reason people think it's the corporations that are the problem, yet continue to support the mechanism that gives them power. That's only because people think if only they had the "ring of power," they'd know what to do with it, because the people in power have conditioned you to believe that someone needs to be in charge, and they've also convinced you that it's possible it could be you, or "the people."
Whenever I hear socialists describe their system I always question whether they have ever even met a human being.
If he tried to manage my workplace, I would not respect him.
Humans are pure of heart.
Have you ever met a capitalist?
@@HallyVee Met an Amarican?
Believe it or not, socialists think this exact thing about capitalists. If we all just learned to respect each other's opinions and stopped yelling at those with different ideologies, we'd be much better off ya know.
SPOILER: The capitalist won and rationally always should.
@ilya shapiro Socialism and Libertarianism can both succeed, in varying degrees, in a society where human beings are mostly rational (doesn't exist). Successful companies spring out, grow into enormous entities, and will work against the society which sprung it, and the it will be blamed on (Corporatism).
I'm not a socialist, genius. Try your mind-reading somewhere else.
Nuhh uh, the socialist defined his audience as not being the people who disagree with him, therefore he wins.
@Hellish Venezuela?? what about it? It was a mixed economy and a victim of colonial capitalism and forced embargo. many other post colonial nations with same economic condition also fell along with Venezuela at that time. Now u accuse Venezuela of some 'ideology'. If u check it's economic structure, it is much similar to that of Norway. Venezuela didn't even had the 65% government ownership over the means of production that Norway have today. I think Norway, the top most country in the world have more of that 'failed ideology' that u accuse Venezuela of.
@@jeevanjayakrishnan2707 Wow you are just brazenly lying. Norway's government owns roughly 35% of the working capital which is about what Venezuela had but there is a massive difference as to how it was handled. Although Norway has large government holdings in oil similar to Venezuela's system, Norway's pricing is set by the open market and has less regulation where Venezuela is more of a command economy to the point where they debased the Bolivar. Although Norway has a large and comprehensive welfare system it is dispensed equally to everyone at request and is paid for by a huge flat tax across all brackets, Venezuela on the other hand would expropriate property from the wealthy or political enemies. There was even a show called Alo Presidente where Hugo Chavez would dramatize the confiscation of property for humorous effect and rant about capitalism while getting medical treatment in Cuba. There is a clear ideological difference between the 2 countries not to mention the violence and corruption of the Maduro administration which has never been seen in any modern nordic system countries, I believe these factors would contribute more to the collapse then a trade embargo from the US.
In a capitalist society you can actually discuss the advantages and disadvantages of other systems.
that's one argument the socialist/communists can not deny against us capitalists...
@@saratjata Yes, we can. The socialist/communist societies that you speak of were in fact state capitalist, and yes I know this is a common response to this type of argument, but it is true. For example, the USSR used the Soviet ruble as a base of currency and not labour vouchers or calculation-in-kind both trademarks of a possible lower communist society. In fact, the vanguard party (starting with Lenin then continuing with Stalin) started shutting down democratic worker organization as soon as possible so the vanguard party just continued class relations of the former system, i.e., state capitalist.
Moreover, there are many instances where the phrase “you can actually discuss the advantages and disadvantages of other systems” does not apply. For example, in 60’s McCarthyism and earlier instances of the red scare (like after WW1) many supposed communists, socialists, anarchists, etc. were arrested for political dissent. Also, in many Latin American countries communist and socialist leaders who had a peaceful base of support or were elected democratically were killed or removed by the CIA and a right-wing dictatorship took control like Augusto Pinochet in Chile.
Yeah so you are also falling into a common trap that was laid by American propaganda. That trap is equating socialism/communism with authoritarianism. Socialism and communism is an organization of an economic system where authoritarianism can arise in left wing or right wing governments.
For instance: under capitalism in the late 1940s and 1950s people were jailed or even killed just because of the suspicion of leftist ideals. Seems like maybe we were not actually allowed to talk about other systems.
@@unendingfrost aah yes... The Stalin famine era. Great times!
@@AlanJWatkins ah yes, the death of million every year under the starvation wages of capital owners. Also reading, something you didn’t bother to learn. There’s a difference between a government structure and an economic system.
My economics professor in college grew up in the former Soviet Union and if try to tell him socialism works he will put your ideas in a wood chipper with his words.
Stalinism failed, we shouldnt throw out the idea out entirely
I am Chinese. It's almost an insult to me, if someone tries to tell me socialism works. And my roommate always do this by starting with I understand your personal experience but you are wrong about this. Does all liberals are scumbag like him? If so, this country is over.
@@memento1033 The core issue with both is the requirement to qualify human worth by quantity.
That's called anectdotal evidence. Most people in the former USSR when surveyed say they miss the USSR. The 90s was a free market disaster that gave rise to Putin.
@@harris4041 It's a powerful thing to only see one viewpoint that is often very skewed
If i had to negotiate with the rest of the workers instead of my boss it would be torture, it would be 2 of us working while the rest spent 30years trying to convince each other they are overworked and then try and get me fired for going outside the scope of union approved tasks. This neck beard needs to work out and try some manual labor.
Peaple are natrualy selfish they will tear apart the company and ever time they do. They don't care about the good of the company and there for the good of everyone just what's best for them.
@@culturalliberator9425 yeah basically, but they also inevitably they also help others trying to help themselves. If they work for a soap manufacturer, them working allows them to earn money to buy gold for survival while also helping the soap market and his entire company
This is why any socialist system requires an evolution of Consciousness in the workers. Meaning they need to understand that the product of their labor goes to them and theirs. What you are seeing is the result of Labor alienation and exploitation. You are watching humans smear s*** on the walls of their cage, try letting them out.
@@HallyVee Theirs a reason socialism fails. It's a poor system that lacks motivation or care. It all sounds nice but it's more hellish then you could imagine. If everything everyone then nothing belongs to you.
@@culturalliberator9425 if people are naturally selfish does it really make sense to follow an economic system like Capitalism that rewards them for being selfish and encourages other to indulge in that particular negative trait.
Quick answer: No, socialism isn’t better than capitalism. That’s like asking, is cancer better than a clean bill of health.
Well said. What an absolute waste having a debate like this.
@@thenewmayorofcrazytown7392 gotta prove it to them some how.
@@jeremyscungio16 Explain the reason there is a Third World is because of Socialism.
@@thenewmayorofcrazytown7392 exactly!
I grew up in the EXACT system that Ben Burgis advocates. Former Yugoslavia was a socialist country with market economy where every company was a worker run cooperative. As a result, the standards of living was much better then in centrally-planned communist countries , but there were still problems. My father achieved considerable success there, and then he came to US and started from the bottom. Even so, he is very critical of socialism and thinks that it was a rotten system. To be fair, there are others who are nostalgic about the way things used to be.
While I didn't work there as an adult, I remember some of my parents experience that you will not find in economic analysis of Yugoslavia. For one, worker-run in practice means huge unending political battles at every workplace over who deserves what. That was a huge source of stress for my parents. Unemployment was high and it was hard to get a job without without some sort of connection on the inside. A lot of time was wasted on coffee breaks and socializing because in reality it's hard to and risky to speak out and the responsibility for the enterprise was not on any one person.
Nothing is stopping people like Ben Burgis from starting a worker owned company and showing us all how its done. Of course, that's not the point of socialism. You nailed, "worker-run in practice means huge unending political battles at every workplace over who deserves what." That's the point of socialism.
Wait how was Yugoslavia a market economy? And why did your dad moved to US if things were so nice? Because they weren't. Old people who think life in Yugoslavia was better are brainwashed. Literally brainwashed. When they were kids they had to dress like little socialist pioneers in schools and say shit like "I swear I will study hard and be a good student and good comrade." Every building had have Tito's picture on the wall. Freedom didn't exist let's be honest. And those people remember former Yugoslavia as part of their youth. The life is better when you are young. Yugoslavian standard of living was completely fake (made out of big loans). And let's be realistic we made one of the worst cars ever created. 😉
@@iampavle3153
Q: Wait how was Yugoslavia a market economy?
A: Because each worker-run company decided what to produce, how much to charge, and who to hire.
Q: And why did your dad moved to US if things were so nice?
A: Things weren't nice, but eventually the country collapsed into 6 states and there was a war. This happened after communist party decided to end one party rule and multi-party elections were held.
Q: Old people who think life in Yugoslavia was better are brainwashed.
A: I think that old people everywhere get nostalgic about past. Here in the US, people get nostalgic about 60 because they forget that the world almost ended with Cuban missile crysis, that men were drafted and sent to fight in jungles of Vietnam, and that 60s social unrest made George Floyd protests look like a church picnic.
Q: Freedom didn't exist let's be honest.
A: This is true. Some things were said in hushed tones. My uncle got arrested and police beat the crap out of him because he got drunk and set Yugoslav flag on fire.
Q: Yugoslavian standard of living was completely fake (made out of big loans).
I remember the hype about national debt. People were saying that it was $20 billion. However, reading wikipedia today, I was surprised to learn that it was only 30% of GDP.
I do remember the inflation! People would buy German Deuche marks on the black market because currency was tanking in value.
@@hamobu I remember former Yugoslavia when I was a kid and Yugotours the travel agency where my parents booked the travel. It was in western Europe quite a popular destination in the 80s. I was very young but I can remember I had a good time and nice interactions with kids. I also remember buying a cd of a german band called modern talking. The people seemed so solidly bonded together, it's unimaginable how they became enemies of one another like in a heartbeat. Perhaps a good reminder for you to tell the Americans when I see how divisive the rhetoric is being pushed by the media and politicians. There's worse than war and it's civil war.
@@iampavle3153 he didn't said Yugoslavia was great but it was better than east Europe socialist countries. And it was still bad that's why he immigrated to us
By the way co-ops are just as capitalist as any other business
@ilya shapiro
Absolutely they are, you're selling your labor for a wage, that's capitalism. Capitalist don't care if you want a co-op, but socialist want to force all companies to be a co-op.
@ilya shapiro I'm a free market capitalist and I'm Pro Co-op, but not for me.
They are if they are voluntary. Otherwise they are just another form of slavery.
Capitalism "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state" I guess... but the "private owners" also being the employees would represent a pretty significant break from its history.
@@colinmcc8564 not really, worker co-ops exist all over capitalist nations. I worked for one for a few years in Vancouver Canada.
1:28:05 "Concentrated wealth always leads to concentrated political influence."
Yes, Ben! ...and concentrated political influence ALWAYS leads to concentrated wealth.
That's why giving government more economic power leads to the very problem you're trying to solve, whereas eliminating political power entirely solves both problems. (Eliminating economic power, on the other hand, leads to mass starvation.)
You didn't have to kill him like that
Not all socialist governments are Authoritarian you know... 🙄
@@rexsoloman6874 yes because people with influence love being on the same level as the bottom. It’s unrealistic to think society cares about others. The, “pandemic” or any other inconvenience should make it apparent the true nature of human. Self preservation.
@@IL_Bgentyl Well that's the fault of shitty systems of government. Not any particular economic system. Capitalist countries also have narcissistic, self-serving leaders.
@@rexsoloman6874 all socialist governments become authoritarian.
Props to ReasonTV for having Ben Burgis on! Regardless of your position, this is a sign of intellectual honesty--to have competent, capable socialists on for an open debate. Well done.
If afraid non of them are but he's better then most.
@@culturalliberator9425 yeah I get that. How would you debate the proposition and on which side?
@@culturalliberator9425 lol sure buddy, people that think capitalism works are the same ones that cry about the elites owning everything.
@@falsificationism
Ben absolutely demolished.
I would suggest you listen to Richard Wolff.
@@boilingsnowwater2121 Oh ok opposed to socialism where the government owns everything because the government isn't full of peaple or elites.
You are stuck in a cult and a fair tail land. Good day you are not worth my time or effort. Good bye.
The socialist argument is frankly baffling. All this talk of owning the means of production. Thanks to price competition, this guy has the means of production sitting on his lap, and it’s thanks to capitalism that he does. That foldable piece of aluminum and silicon is the modern day means of production.
Also, why is it that they always have the luxury brand (Apple) laptop and phone?
I mean technically speaking it is the result of technological advancements that has occurred as a byproduct of the enlightenment & industrialism. While capitalism was the the means in which we incentivized that labour, it is quite plausible to consider it's existence within other systems.
@Peace Out Thank you for asking! :D
These are legitimate concerns & I wouldn't want to advocate for a system where more specialization isn't properly incentivized. While some people acquire these skills out of sheer passion, I agree that proper rewards are in order. I don't personally view socialism as a thing that can be quantified as a percentage relative to alternatives. (heck I'm not even a socialist myself :o) It's a bit vague, to be honest. something workers owning the means of production (whatever that means) It's also a common, yet completely understandable misconception that socialism requires or even advocated for state control. Heck, Marx didn't even care about the state gaining more power. Whatever your perspective on some old fashion "handouts", I want to give you the assurance that you probably wouldn't depend on a government to give you, your fair share. While there are different brands of socialism as it's an evolving critique of capitalism, the funny thing is that many of its newer variations have a lot of the things you expect to be absent aren't. (crazy :p)
-Commodities still exist
-Markets still exists
-Wages still exist
-Inequality exists (maybe less)
-Private business still exists (maybe it's more limited, I dunno)
-Co-ops join in for some fun
-Profits still exist
-Capital still exists (kinda funny tbh)
At the heart of socialism for many, is that of a democratic workplace. Some people want workers to have a say in what they create. It's founded on the idea that labour should be guided by democracy for the needs of the community instead of capital alone. Ownership is shared, but hierarchies still exist. So if you have some skills to bring to the table then you would interview as normal. Except instead of a top-down approach, it's bottom-up.
If you have any other questions I'd love to answer them.
Simply put, socialism can't be implemented without violating peoples constitutional rights. That's enough for me.
Haven't all genocides been done under capitalism?
@@criticalthinker3262 no and free market capitalism has nothing to do with genocide. It's a economic model. Free market capitalism is the absence of the state in the economics. Genocide by government is usually caused by government and government and corporation uniting for a common agenda. That is socialism, like what the nazis had. They were not capitalist. They hated free markets because they wanted to control businesses to make sure they are aligned with the interest of the state. So socialism could be argued to behind genocide more than free markets.
@@luciddream2033 The Nazis were absolutely capitalists. As were those responsible for the genocide in Indonesia, and Chile, and Spain, and Argentina, and so on...
@@FromTheFens219 you are wrong and woefully ignorant. No scholar even debates this. Only ignorant leftwingers.
Did nazi Germany have a state planned economy or a free market? Were businesses allowed to do as they please or were they required to carry out state agendas? What happens to those businesses that don't follow the state agenda is nazi Germany? Did the state control the prices of goods and commodities? There is little to no free market mechanism within nazi Germany. Even private ownership was at the direction of the state.
@Joseph Sedgwick
The Nazis were socialists.
People hate capitalism because it takes real responsibility over your own life to achieve something. Much easier to complain then take responsibility.
Some winners capitalism are just lucky.
Not really it's because the very wealthy and powerful companies are able to exploit such as become oligarchies to manipulate the market and lobby to change laws to benefit themselves. I often hear people talk about lowering taxes for business but not for individuals, in every way the individual suffers.
All those kids that die from lack of food, clean water, or housing just didn't have that hustle mindset
@@AnarchyRules17 sadly people just think it's all about laziness which is really sad. Shows they dont have a realistic perspective of the world
My friend was is foster care his whole childhood. He now runs his own business and is kicking arse. Why should he give away his capital and resources to those who don’t want or intend to work nearly as hard as he has in his life?
define socialism
It's hard to distinguish those who can't work, like the disabled, etc from those who don't want to.
What? No it isn’t
@@beemo9 That's a fair point. What I take from Bens Burgis' argument is an expanding model of the community any one individual may be a part of. I'm from a large rural town were there are people who are truly deserving of welfare (I have no issue with them recieving a part of my tax dollar.) and people who are lazy and don't seem to be interested in contributing. It's the latter group that worry me when the ideas of ubi or worker controlled production are spoke of. I'm not sure how in a federal system that these two groups are differentiated.
@@youngmachiavelli7625 Greater government control over business, dictating how and by who any company may be ran. As well as central planning in order to decide what individuals within a nation require. Socialist leaning programs such as welfare for needy or out of luck people and some form of public health care are good examples of positive outcomes. However I become extremely uncomfortable with the idea of the redistribution on wealth, I see no end of such a move that doesn't end in blood shed or collapse of business/financial systems. The phrase " You need to break a few eggs in order to make an omelette" makes my deeply suspicious of the mental stability of the speaker.
The socialist is professor on philosophy
The capitalist has a career in economics
Who understands economic systems better I wonder?🤔🤔
🤔🤔🤔
🤔🤔🤔🤔
Not to mention, this economist was a Marxist for much of his younger life
Trick question. Before 2008 I would have gone for the economists
Let's spin a question a different way to figure out whether or not this question and way of thinking is valid.
The advocate for Democracy is a teacher.
The advocate for the continuation of totalitarianism in North Korea has a career in the government.
Who understands governmental systems better I wonder? 🤔🤔
my god how can there even be a debate about the topic of socialism after the repeated failure in every corner of the globe, next debate is nazisim preferable to capitalism, looking forward to that one, god were fucked its gonna sideways bad very soon
Because we have freedom of speech
Ben Burgis is exactly what I picture a Democratic Socialist to look and dress like.
What he certainly isn't is a social democrat.
Lol he even has a macbook
God the sad part is I tried not to judge people on dress but my god did he have to go borderline stereotypical
Very acute observation. I did notice that too. He is wearing a t-shirt. And that I think is vaguely disreputable.
He's part of the reason education is so bad.
Also China has better education results not because of their curriculum or spending, school is 9am-7pm or 10pm for high school and they have what they call 'tiger parents'.
Criticising the appearance of Ben Burgis isn’t really an argument.
it isn't like if he didn't come to the debate looking like mama's overgrown basement dwelling boy he would have won the debate
@@maxwell2231 hmm just seems like if he’s arguments are so bad then wouldn’t it be easy to just go after thoses? Seems like an emotional reaction to an attachment to some pro capitalist worldview that is being criticised. There are great arguments to be had against him why not make them folks.
@@Soundsofanetwork gene epstein did, that's my point
@@Soundsofanetwork I dont argue with people that look like they are homeless bums.
Governments have the Midas touch, except whatever they touch turns to crap...
ur phace
If you’re really worried about making another four bucks an hour while working you should want to get rid of income taxes and payroll taxes
No, because without taxes I'd have to pay for private roads, private schooling, private fire departments etc etc. In the current system, those services are funded by everyone based on their ability to contribute, so the taxes are far less burdensome for a minimum wage worker than paying for privatized versions of all the essential services provided by taxes would be
@@AnarchyRules17 ~50% of the federal budget = social security + medicare + medicaid
~15% = military
~8% = interest on debt.
"But muh roads" is a red herring.
@@AnarchyRules17 Roads are paid for by tax added in fuel prices. Schools, police/fire is from property taxes. Those are taxes you pay based on decisions you make. What Adam D is referring to is payroll taxes. This is tax taken from your pay before you make any decisions yourself.
@@o11k as a human who plans to age for as long as possible, social security and medicare are absolutely other examples of something I want publicly funded. In the original hypothetical, as a minimum wage worker, medicaid is also clearly something I want publicly funded. I would be in favor of abolishing the US military, so I'm not saying the government spends my money perfectly, but there's no question as a minimum wage worker I get more out of being taxed than is taxed away
@@edgarbm6407 payroll taxes are the second largest source of revenue for the federal government. Without them, they would have much less money available to fund all sorts of things that I want and would otherwise have to pay for on the private market, undoubtedly for much more than the tax burden of a minimum wage worker
I'll save you 2 hours of your life: No.
Thank you
Socialism will win
Socialist defeats his own argument in his opening statement because he changes the definition of socialism 🤣
The Left always creates misleading definitions in order to stack the deck. He changed the definition of Capitalism, as well...
or, maybe your definition is incorrect?
@@FromTheFens219 that would mean the dictionary’s definition is incorrect 🤷🏻♂️. Happy to debate it civilly any time.
@@AreteMedia Dictionaries of common usage are rarely correct -Naziism and Fascism are just variants of Socialism. The Soviets spent millions of dollars annually to distance Communism from Nazis even though they were just competing franchises selling the same products.
@@hawaiianknight6004 Respectfully I disagree. You said it yourself, dictionaries of common usage. If we can’t agree on the meaning of words, there’s no way we can have a productive discussion. Perhaps that’s the problem. I would point to the practices of the Soviet Union as a reason FOR dictionaries.
Is there a single example of a successful, long term socialist economy? There are dozens of examples on the capitalist side.......... is there 1 on the socialist side?
Yes. Utopialand it exists in the hearts and minds of soyboy socialists
No, because they either turned into dictatorships, puppet states or got crushed/destabilized in some other way.
If not by very corrupt people abusing new-found power and breaking their promises of a better state, it happend through US "intervention" for example. Sometimes even on the behalf of corporations.
Is it just me, or was Gene just arguing against democracy as a concept the entire time?
Democracy isn't ridiculed enough
@@aidanaldrich7795 We should vote on that.
In my opinion the entire concept of democracy is socialist. Equal bargaining power over the government=the ability to exercise CONTROL and collective management over the resources of economic production which equals socialism. The real definition of socialism is "public rather than private ownership or CONTROL of property and natural resources" (emphasis personally added), which is what democracy is by definition. Thus the foundation for a democratic society is socialist.
To my knowledge this isn't recognized a lot by libertarians and conservatives when they talk about the economy and even when they express opinions on civil disobedience.
@@randomguy1283'Civil disobedience' today is a flowery way to describe soft terrorism. Actual civil disobedience would be refusing to be 'locked down' by an authoritarian govt and going about your day, or not being forced to cover your face like an oppressed woman under Sharia Law. Committing crime to harm or agitate other ppl until they bow to your demands is terrorism, although it's fluffy and ppl know they are dealing with ppl with mental issues.
Yes, he absolutely was. It's kind of insane how wildly authoritarian every capitalist argument is, while simultaneously pointing to socialism and calling democracy authoritarian because it forces freedom on the slaves who "may not want it". What absolute nonsense.
01:38:10 So the only reason people will pay these finnes are because they fear being put into prison. This is where he lost the debate in my opinion. Putting people into prison because victimless crimes is unmoral.
I think the whole point Ben was making is that there is a victim, who is the person making out with less in the wage labor arrangement. In the marxist analysis of wage labor, the capitalist only engages in the activity if they can personally profit from it. In a system where both parties are making out equally, a marxist wouldn't consider that to be a wage labor arrangement.
@@gtbrings who decides when a trade is equal ? the Marxist or the people who are negotiating for a trade ?
@@transon6655 Most probably the one with more bargaining power or cpacity
Socialism facts
1. Free does not actually mean free.
2. You were not entitled to someone else is hard earned money . . . EVER.
3. You cannot tax a nation into prosperity
4. No one is responsible for your financial situation but you.
5. Socialism leads to communism always.
Capitalism encourages innovation. There is no incentive within socialism. I do believe we fundamentally want the same thing, (to help people), I think we just differ on the method to do so. I believe the best way is a thriving and free economy so people can help themselves and have equality of opportunity, instead of the alternative, equality of outcome (Socialism). I believe its not only inferior but dangerous to have a dependence on the government.
You deny the reflexivity of identity? That is a hot take
I find it morally reprehensible when someone embraces the idea of forcefully redistributing (Stealing) the hard worked fruits of ones labor to those who are more than capable but have put forth no time or effort into themselves or the world around them.
Income tax
what about those that aren't capable?
@@star.soaked.wanderer Most people are much more capable than they think. It's mindset more than genes.
@@star.soaked.wanderer Each case is different but those who are willing to help should and those who don't shouldn't be forced to at the point of a gun.
@@TheXarus that's not the case anymore we are in a time where the ultra wealthy are squeezing all they can and pushing out the middle and lower classes.
SPOILER WARNING: With Ben Burgis having such a low percentage in the beginning - I thought he was going to win. I'm muckstruck by the outcome - weird.
I believe it was honestly largely due to his composure. Remember the old radio presidential debates where people believed the person with the nicer voice won? Yeah, that was this, except body language, was a factor. Ben showed himself to be emotional during this debate, a big mistake given that people take more than just the arguments being given into account.
I've worked for below minimum wage before (I was having trouble getting a job and I appreciated the pay over no pay). This is just an anecdotal story and I wouldn't take this too seriously, but I felt like mentioning this.
Millions of other people have been in your se situation. Including me.
As have I when I was younger. People completely neglect how many more jobs can exist naturally when minimum wage is either far below inflation or removed outright
Inflation!!! INFLATION MY POOR AMARICAN DOOLAR! WHY! WHY!
The social democratic solution to wages is to let industry representatives and unions negotiate collective agreements. No minimum wage, no job market regulation. It's a market approach.
@@rumble1925 Not what this guy said. You're going to jail. Also unions get corrupted very quickly it's not hard.
Ben couldn’t be bothered to dress appropriately for a formal debate. Jeesh
Well, that's actually a good sign. The act of dressing for the occasion can be seen as a mental manipulation since most humans are influenced by trivial matters such as clothing. In fact, science demonstrates that many humans are so weak minded that they attribute skill or knowledge to a person merely due to trivial features like attractiveness and, in this case, formal attire. Him dressing as a "casual" leads me to believe he couldn't care less about those kinds of things or in manipulating us with anything less than an argument. Or....
He's mind screwing us and he double manipulated us into thinking he's like us! Get him boys! lol
Who cares how someone dresses? Conservatives are so shallow they can't even see past appearance, sad.
@@Captain_Kel" hurr durr conservatives mean" he looks like shit and its a telling aspect. Boo.
@@AR-ne9xx Skin color, clothing, accent, etc., only conservatives judge people about that shit. Just say your narrow minded and move on.
@@Captain_Kel Literally nobody talks about all of those things you mentioned more than liberals. Case in point is you very randomly bringing them up now, even tho I was only talking about THIS guy and his hideous orange SHIRT. Exposed your damn self. Reaching is for the disingenuous.
"No socialist ever gave a thought to the possibility that the abstract entity which he wants to vest with unlimited power - whether it is called humanity, society, nation, state, or government - could act in a way of which he himself disproves." Ludwig von Mises
"A socialist advocates socialism because he is fully convinced that the supreme director of the socialist commonwealth will be reasonable from his - the individual socialist's - point of view, that he will aim at those ends of which he - the individual socialist - fully approves, and that he will try to attain these ends by choosing means which he - the individual socialist - would also choose."
"Every socialist calls only that system a genuinely socialist system in which these conditions are completely fulfilled; all other brands claiming the name of socialism are counterfeit systems entirely different from true socialism. Every socialist is a disguised dictator. Woe to all dissenters! They have forfeited their right to live and must be "liquidated." The market economy makes peaceful cooperation among people possible in spite of the fact that they disagree with regard to their value judgements. In the plans of the socialists there is no room left for dissenting views. Their principle is Gleichschaltung, perfect uniformity enforced by the police." Ludwig von Mises
That’s obviously not true. Jfc.
@@countthemoon4956 oh what a rebuttal!
@@Blkglssjw there isn’t really any reason to debunk an obviously false statement.
5:12 False. People do not resort to "peeing in bottles" at an Amazon facility. Utter bollocks. Working conditions today are almost incomprehensively better and easier to deal with than ever before.
Bezos only demands productivity quotas because the PEOPLE demand it. If you want the product to come in on time, then you want the workers to haul it. So you're the one demanding it.
You’re telling me the socialist began shouting over his fellow interlocutor when he began to lose the argument?
I am shocked! LOL
I'd really be interseted how you'd react when your interlocutor is spitting out lies and disinformation.
Is bad better than good? Is death better than life? Is sickness better than health? This “debate” has been over for decades.
Then what about the bengal famine
Like both are horrible and how done horrible things
Pure Socialism can only give you bad or worse.
Capitalism can give you good or better.
@@understorymainchannel8326 I’ll see your 3 million and raise you 50 million (great leap forward). It’s not a question of perfect but of best.
@@FlyingJay117 well said
@@understorymainchannel8326 isn't that colonialism's fault?
The Q&A was so disappointing. Could have been a much better debate if Gene had addressed Ben's points more directly rather than flirting with straw men and ad hominem.
destiny got destroyed in this debate
great arguments and manners from both sides of the debate!!!
Nobody relevant in America is socialist. Bernie Sanders even only uses policies from capitalist European countries.
There is no argument in favor of socialism
smoke weed erey day!
@@blackout07blue I will tell you one thing about Bernie that is note-worthy. I am from Norway, I have lived in 6 European countries, the US and Hong Kong. I currently live in Switzerland, where I have been living for more than 4 years. Bernie would be considered a socialist in Europe. here is the catch that u are almost right about, but ur quite off. Almost all European countries have a multi-system. This makes it so that the niche parties gets very few votes. I would put Bernie in the category of a little further to the left of most European labour parties. However, in Europe, none of the left-wing parties gets enough votes so they are forced into working with the parties that are considered moderate. Here is also the issue with Bernie. And that is the fact that the policies he is proposing are all too much at once. If you look at European political policies over the past 50 years. we will see that Bernie's policies are more policies that have been done for the past 30-40 years in Europe. ALL AT ONCE. And naturally, the socialists won't have enough with their cake. So they want even more cake. Bernie is especially this type of politician... Therefore Bernie IS considered a hardcore socialist in my opinion. You should also consider a lot of Bernie's fiscal policies would wreck the entire world economy. The funny part about government regulation is the fact that the countries with the most regulations on corporations always see the most amount of crashes, meanwhile, the countries with the least amount of regulations always see the fewest amount of economic crashes, and rarely ever see sector crashes... So there is that you will have to consider if you are a Bernie bro.
Freedom doesn't mean you get whatever you want whenever you want at any price you want. Sometimes you do work a job you'd rather not work, but not prefer to NOT work over not getting paid.
Owning my own business is more free than working for my previous employers. Some days I work and don't get paid or I bid a job wrong and make no money (even lose money 😬). Some days I make in a day what I made at my previous jobs in a week or more. Even if the pay was less than I could make working for someone else though I would still want to be self employed. Sometimes I just hang out with my customers lol. I quoted a job for an acquaintance and then we shot bow and arrows in their back yard. Another friend of a friend made me a sandwich and then showed me their guitars (we both play). I couldn't get away with that before but now there's nobody to say I can't and if I don't have a job scheduled there's no reason I shouldn't. Work doesn't even feel like work to me anymore. I just help people with problems. That is the beauty of freedom. I imagine how much happier I would be if the government wasn't in the way or so many goals.
Cool, not the argument _at all_ nor was it literally ever.
As simply as possible, the system is inherently unsustainable. Adam Smith, the "father of capitalism himself" pointed this out extensively with the same points that Marx uses, but these require an attention span more than that of a housefly so I'm going to make this meme-ified and edgy to get anyone to understand this...maybe...idk we'll see what happens.
Capitalism is the division of class via the base material organization of ownership and control and importantly to the "libertarian" folk (of which I was one for most of my life to be clear so I get all the dumbass points), _this relationship is protected by the state_ . The police protect first and foremost, say it with me, private property. Gee, it's like that's why they're the only union allowed to exist in the US or something. Anyway...here you guys pretend to like data right?
scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
tldr; economic elites influence the vast majority of government policy whose outcomes benefit and align with the interests of the capital class (shocker).
You can have capitalism or democracy, not both. The class distinction that fuels production at the base of how we organize material reality under capitalism relies on an inherent power disparity and class tension (the one that implicitly coerces the working class to work while simultaneously incentivizing capital to cut wages to increase profit) that over time has allowed the capital class (particularly finance capital or "fictitious capital" as Marx appropriately called it) to entrench and reify this disparity and consequently the scope and reach of their control and influence toward almost entirely capturing the very institutional tool intended to mediate these class antagonisms in the state.
It'd be crazy if people pointed this out like 200+ years ago and were brutally suppressed for even trying to change it, like the optimates of Rome crushing the populares movement of the Gracchi bros and later Caesar, all of which of course literally murdered by the senate...oh wait...
Anyway, it's not like any of you give a shit, but for the few that might be interested in the non-strawman understanding of socialism, the one had I known about earlier would have presumably made me less of a pretentious jackass promoting this "divine right of the entrepreneur" bullshit while the world literally burned around me behind the American imperial curtain to provide me the arrogance to suggest this (as it continues to do and intensify doing):
www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/sw/index.htm
Also relevant regarding US empire, and how we sustain this bullshit - can elaborate more if anyone wants, Lenin extending Marx and being entirely correct about the trajectory of the next century (woah predictive power, crazy right?):
www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc
Oh yeah I guess you'd have to have some awareness of this grotesque bullshit too:
www.wikiwand.com/en/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change
Also check out like literally any of the CIA and their history. Vincent Bevins' recent book the Jakarta Method has some absolutely disgusting details but the CIA itself are quite open about all of it and its main mission to protect US capitalism (can't get much more clear than Pinochet and the ousting of Allende in Chile, that dude _loved_ "free markets" oh and throwing people out of helicopters - see: Operation Condor).
I'd recommend the book "bullshit jobs" to put that argument in another perspective.
@@Bisquick " The police protect first and foremost, say it with me, private property."
Wrong. The state exists to prop itself up. Private property has not ever been the primary focus of the state. You're a moron.
"tldr; economic elites influence the vast majority of government policy whose outcomes benefit and align with the interests of the capital class (shocker)."
Oh wow, it's almost like having a massive state is a BAD IDEA! Wonder why the capitalists in all of these debates are advocating for less of a state and the Marxists are advocating for more of it??
No one is coercing labor, and no amount of your faux moralizing makes Marxism better than capitalism. Ignoring the massive human rights abuses that preceded said regime changes is not only idiotic but still pales in comparison to the atrocities of socialists around the world.
Even if it did, it's literally impossible. We live in a world with limited resources and limitless demands and "wants". Everybody wants a sports car, but it's physically impossible to give everybody sports car, because there are more people than sports cars. That's why socialism doesn't work. You need prices to determine who gets a sports car and who don't. Because EVERYBODY cannot get a damn sports car. This goes with any "nice thing" that billionaires can get, but normal people can't
Ben brings up Jim Crow as if that supports his point on consumer action being a force for change. Does he not know that Jim Crow is an example of the tyranny of the majority working through the ballot box? Fewer businesses would have segregated were it not mandated by the government. I don't think it supports his argument.
Capitalism has more achievements than socialism. Fact
Apparently the line was too long at the People’s Bureau of Professional Attire.
how easily you are conned by a guy in a suit
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 it’s true. Better that nobody should be allowed to wear suits so nobody can get conned, right my guy?
@@lordsharshabeel Seems to be working on 99% of this simple audience LOL. SEE! He must be a serious person, he has a suit on! All of these dog sht wages businesses have been paying, the outsourcing, the crumbling roads and buildings all around the midwest for the past 40+ years, it was the specter of socialism this whole time and NOT our dominant mode of economic production capitalism! naawwhh couldn't be! /endsarcasm
@@lordsharshabeel you self-serious dumbfks are the best, imagine putting on a suit for a youtube video hahah /cringe
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 which do you consider more dominant, capitalism or the nation-state?
Socialism lost yet again.
how is this still up for debate
AND THE ANSWER IS... no
One question I would have liked to see Ben answer is in his "worker owned co-op" how do you fire unproductive workers, when that worker is literally an owner of the company?
Hiring and firing is usually done democratically. I worked for a cooperative for 7 years once. I am a pretty introverted person so for me it felt like I had a bunch of bosses instead of just one.
@@soulfuzz368 You can't fire an owner. If that were possible then the employees are NOT ACTUALLY AN OWNER. Otherwise they are just merely stock holders in a worker coop, which is no different than Amazon employees who get Amazon stock as part of their compensation.
The same Amazon that those who support the worker coop nonsense state that the purpose of worker coops is to prevent the Amazon's of the world.
@@waynespringer501 lol why are you arguing with me? I’ve worked for one and I’m just telling you how it was there. Semantic disagreements are useless.
It is completely different from amazon because every worker has say in the wage structure, hiring process and basically every business decision. Low ranking workers and Amazon have zero say in any of this. This is why cooperatives usually don’t grow or do it very slowly, the decision making process is tedious. I think cooperatives are best suited to service based companies like restaurants and daycares but work poorly for companies that need to innovate and grow to survive.
Think True Capitalism, not Crony Capitalism. Crony capitalism is what we are experiencing now.
I wonder if it ever dawned on Ben that the people in that room voted against his idea TWICE.
It’s an inherently libertarian audience, they were always going to biased against him. I don’t think it dispels the idea that the broader work force could be swayed by the idea of having greater autonomy in their places of work.
@@reggiewatts1926 dude he lost people from his own side to capitalism. Sorry but you missed the point.
@@heathkitchen6475 his point about giving people the right to autonomy in their workplace wasn’t the singular point the crowd were voting on
@@reggiewatts1926 cope.
@@ExPwner galaxy brain response
This argument has been won by capitalism over 75 years ago.
about 150 years ago, by vom Bawerk
Not if we're still debating about then and voting for them into power
@@mikolowiskamikolowiska4993 There is nothing new under the sun. People never learn from mistakes unless they’ve made those mistakes themselves.
The thing that neither ideology can change is the greed of the human individual
True but socialism links that greed to the power of the state.
“All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible.” - Frank Herbert
Greed is inevitable, but capitalism disincentivizes exploitation or corner cutting because you’d risk not receiving a major profit.
Is he seriously insisting that people don’t get penalized or thrown in jail for hiring people under the table? And that the threat of prison and financial penalization for doing so doesn’t exist?
In his mind:
(Government) no pay people small moneys
(People) okie dokie
That pissed me off too. There are stories of people being seriously threatened just for doing hobbies (like making wine) because of minimum wage laws.
Clearly you both missed his point he was implying that new employment laws will not be hard to implement like the ones we have already
@@Andwhatson420 clearly you missed the point that we made that employment laws send people to jail if someone breaks them
@@Andwhatson420 The point is that he is trying to sell socialism as a self help program when it is actually a policy to classify certain actions as crimes. He's trying to get away with the "it is good for people" argument which is irrelevant when it comes to deciding whether to treat someone as a criminal or not. That why market advocates are always smashing socialists by telling the truth "hey you are talking about sending people to jail." And socialists always respond with some pissant weak reply like "oh we'll start with small penalties not jail" or "people get sent to jail all the time what's the problem".
Apparently he's also anti-sex work. Why should it be illegal for your boss to ask for sexual favors?
How to argue like a socialist:
1. Lie
2. Lie
3. Obfuscate
4. Shout over opponent
How to argue like a capitalist:
1. Dont debunk any arguments from the socialist
2. that's it
Jesus, this is right down the road from me. I wish I had known so I could have attended.
So sorry, Sam and I tried to get the word out as much as we could I believe there are other debates going on in the area, check out the soho forum website to see
@@estebansuarez7278 I'll keep an eye on the website. Thanks!
"All these arguments could be used on minimum wage"
Yes, minimum wage is also bad
Socialism Vs. Capitalism
When I hear the word “socialism” I want to gag. Having been born in a socialist country, I have plenty of real life experience stories that stuck with me over the years. All I remember is being poor and unable to get the nutritional products and had to have them shipped to us from the UNITED STATES. Parents standing in line waiting for bread. Sending packages from the US to needy relatives who were unable to buy certain things. You had to work a month to purchase a pair of shoes. A car? Forget about it. No one had cars. Most people lived in small concrete apartments. The only way you could “make it” was to join “The Party”. Scarcity was the leading problem with socialism.
First of all, there’s no such thing as equality. We are ALL different, with different skills, aptitudes and abilities. I used to hear around the table “ Whether you sit or stand you get paid the same.” So much for equality. Where is the incentive to work? None. No incentive no productivity. No productivity= EMPTY SHELVES.
You know the definition of Democracy? Two wolves and a lamb deciding what’s for dinner. We are a REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY. Thank God!
Socialism is a breezeway to communism, where you are monitored and have no future of ever owning property. Property is for the Socialist politicians who skim off the top of the working class, give it to the workers and KEEP THE REST FOR THEMSELVES.
Freedom of speech? My father used to listen to “Voice Of America” to get real news. We couldn’t wait to escape from the claws of poverty and raging censorship.
So you can debate this all you want but in my life’s experience the Marxist is a Godless tyrannical System making everyone a slave of the state. It is the LOVE OF MONEY that creates slavery to those who don’t have the privilege. Socialism is ALL about privilege, the control of manufacturing based not on incentives but based on duty. While those who have no incentive to contribute because why work harder if everyone is treated equally. You can sugar coat this any way you want but the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It was the tyrants who infected our money system with the Federal Reserve so they can come across as creating philanthropy, using it as a mask to steal from the masses and make capitalism a sham and a scam because the Marxists took over our government over a hundred years ago. If you knowing that a 100 million people died in the Bolshevik Revolution when they tried their Marxist Communist Agenda. If you are in favor of all these wars which both capitalists and communists support, then maybe a death wish is at hand. At best: a cradle of corruption because regardless of what model we use: THE LOVE OF MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO CONTROL IT. Carefully examine who the money grabbers are: their names and their origins. It will answer all your questions.
What country are you originally from? I'm an American and I agree with everything you said. We need more people like you here and we want people like you to come here. People who respect America and it's economic systems.
Excellent comment. But to be clear, worker owned co-ops are not the same as state owned enterprises with sick incentive structures in place. The co-ops are just more egalitarian.
I would love to see a debate forum where a socialist and capitalist switch places and try to argue for the opposing viewpoint.
I like you already
What about the average worker in a co-op and they own 2% equity in the company he works for a year and the companies unprofitable and he makes no money that year
Very less workers would like that
Even Communism, as a 'THEORY' Makes it's Points - BUT IS an Absolute Nightmare in 'PRACTICE!'
Not even a theory makes point as Austrian economists pointed out. It cannot ever be more efficient than a capitalistic economy.
A few words from Marty Robbins always come back to me in moments such as these, Ain't I Right?
@luna66 it's not illegal if you have enough guns
@luna66 *shoulda used more*
@luna66 you're*
@@TheGateShallStand remind me, who won again?
@@theojudice5609 nobody won that war, *mostly because we didnt use enough napalm,* but in the end it was a loss for both sides
It’s always a philosopher with piss-poor experience in running an economy who’s a socialist, against an actual economist who runs things for real who’s a capitalist.
Ivory tower v.s. Reality. Guess what? Reality always wins.
'A Government endlessly on the prowl...'
I'm always blown away that Jacobin Magazine is a thing that is just out there with little push back. The Jacobins slaughtered 10s of thousands of innocent men, women, children, and old people and these guys are just like "yeah we wanna be them". I suppose it lets you know who you're dealing with at least.
Imagine that here in China, Mao is on the currency and his image is plastered all over the place. After all, he *only* killed 45 million of his own countrymen.
@@censorshipbites7545 well that's fairly standard for communist dystopias to be fair
@@wuvs2spooge True. I can picture a poorly groomed 30-something American sporting a Che T-shirt and Mao pin carrying a copy of Jacobin with absolutely no sense of the irony.
By that logic you should feel worse about identifying with american values, considering the bloody history of Native American genocide, slavery, the toppling of sovereign regimes of south america and the middle east, sanctions on countries that amount to starvation for their poor citizens, tacit/direct support for ethnic cleansings etc etc
@@meddlesomemusic Nope, not even slightly comparable. A nation's entire history is not the same as the actions of a political party that existed for 5 years and when they were in power slaughtered innocents.
Why is this even still debated when socialism has never worked anywhere?
Have you ever noticed that most everything you like in your life, your home, clothing, food, neighborhoods, jobs, products, services, universities were created by democratic vote rather than free people?
Really? I didnt know China had democracy! Thank goodness the owners of Walmart only buy from such great exemplars of moral good!
Those of favour of socialism, have never experienced it.
If you want to know exactly why socialism, when implemented with any consistency, always leads to an oppressive, corrupt dictatorship, I recommend searching Google for this video: "Why Socialism is Always Oppressive, Dictatorial and Corrupt".
That's what America has now, but you can't even be bothered to notice.
@Ivan Dafoe
Yeah, mostly due to socialists (leftists) and socialists-lite (conservatives). It's not because of a free market system.
I wonder why my biases are proven right. Watch the video about my biases being right
If a publicly owned company made more money for all workers then people would flock to create them. Under capitalism you can make that happen. Voting to receive other people’s money is easy to convince someone. Large government is always a problem. We should not take away the right to private property.
I can tell who the socialist is just by their look.
Fat
I love how you can tell who the socialist is just by looking at them.
Remember, the Grapes of Wrath was banned in some locslities in the US because it was deemed "Communist propaganda".
Yet The Grapes of Wrath was also banned in the USSR because it showed that under capitalism even the poor could afford a car.
Wow, book bans are bad. Next
10:35 Burgis says that "capitalism" has done a bad job with healthcare. The problem is that our government won't let our healthcare system anywhere near the free market. Everything is buried in a mile of red tape and regulations, all of which bear a compliance cost that is forwarded to the customer ... which is why it is so expensive. Just look at the actual market for healthcare. Where you have the least government regulation, you have the lowest prices in the market. Lasik eye surgery, for example, has been going down in price for the last 30 years as the technology has improved year after year. Why? Because it's not covered by insurance and barely touched by government regulation. In order for Lasik offices to remain in operation, they compete based on quality and price for the most customers. This keeps quality up and price down without the need for government intervention. Take a minute and look up Direct Patient Care (also called Direct Patient Services) which is a health-care model in which a patient pays a doctor's office a direct monthly subscription fee of $50-$75, which entitles him to unlimited access to the doctor's office and services at no additional cost. Why is it so cheap for unlimited service? Because by rejecting 3rd party payers (insurance/medicare/medicade) they step out from under that mountain of regulations and can just help the customer without having to jump through a marathon of hoops on the back end.
10:50 Finland has all public schools. Okay, but that's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. They have a small homogenous population and they don't deal with a lot of the social stuff we do that rolls into the school systems. Additionally, it's not America's private/charter schools that are failing. It's our public schools! How is the solution to our education problem to get rid of the schools that work so that we can force EVERYBODY into the schools that fail? How exactly does that help?
Going back to the guy with the insulin problem. The problem, again, isn't that the free market failed him. The problem is that there is no free market for insulin in the U.S.! There are basically two companies who have a government protection racket that prevents any other competitor from joining the market to force down prices. Insulin is cheap in every other country in the world because none of those countries grant monopolies to the insulin manufacturers like we do. Shocker, I know ... create a government-granted monopoly and you end up with monopoly pricing! Who could have possibly have seen that coming?! The obvious and easiest solution here would be to simply revoke the monopoly on producing insulin and let the market deliver competitive pricing just like every other country in the world.
13:00 He brings up Spain as the example of how to run an economy and manage businesses. Spain's unemployment rate has bounced between 14%-47% for the last decade. Their economy is abysmal ... and we know why! Their socialist policies don't work.
16:50 "In a society where you can lose your health insurance if you lose your job." This is a relic of Herbert Hoover and FDR's manipulation of the economy in the Great Depression. It is because of the government, not the free market, that insurance is primarily employer-based today. If you'll notice, the vast majority of problems socialist claim are caused by the free market are actually caused by the government, usually while attempting to implement some form of socialist program.
23:10 Notice how Epstein has, from the start of his segment, has been talking nothing but real number and real events. Burgis was nothing but platitudes and false-equivalents with no real-world substance. Even when he tried to create real-world substance, it worked against him, such as by invoking the name of Spain which has some of the worst unemployment in all of the EU.
34:10 Epstein brings up Burgis' Democratic Socialsim. I just wanted to point out that the notion of "Democratic Socialism" is a complete and total myth, nothing but propaganda generated by Marxists to pretend it isn't what it very clearly is. Search "Democratic Socialists of America Constitution" and look at their charter. The very first line under their Purpose says "we reject an economic order based on private profit." That's a rejection of the entire free market system! Burgis and those like him are constantly saying that they don't want to eliminate the free market so that you won't be afraid of the brand of socialism he's selling ... but once you peel back the wrapper and see the product, it's the same exact socialism that crashed the USSR, Venezuela, Cuba, and every other socialist nation of the last century. Burgis is LYING to you. He is a liar. He is dishonest and untrustworthy and if you're taking anything he's saying seriously, you're exactly the kind of useful idiot he's hoping you'll be.
43:30 Burgis brings up segregation of public businesses. Let's not forget that those Jim Crow laws were passed by Democrats and that it was the Republicans who fought to repeal them. Further, let's acknowledge that segregation of businesses was a top-down government push into the private sector. Businesses and the public as a whole didn't necessarily want segregation. They didn't need to forcibly de-segregate anything. They only needed to stop prohibiting integration. Integration would happen naturally on its own as most business owners don't really care what color your skin is so long as your money is green. Those who chose not to integrate would soon put themselves out of business and the problem would be solved without coercion of any form.
57:20 Burgis talks about outlawing voluntary labor contracts, yet he still claims to be on the side of freedom and liberty. If you aren't allowed to decide for yourself how you will engage others economically, how can you consider yourself free?
1:00:00 Burgis starts talking about labor contracts where people have to agree to sexual harassment. This is a nonsensical argument that attempts to conflate sexual harassment with voluntarily accepting a wage for labor.
At this point, I've given up on breaking this down. Burgis just goes on and on with various nonsensical rants that don't add up to anything, and the vote at the end bears that out.
Capitalism failed in healthcare, not just in the US, but in every advanced economy. All the other economies went with socialized medicine decades ago and none went back. I think that capitalism works 99% of the time, but at some point you have to recognize the reality when it comes to healthcare.
Why did capitalism fail with healthcare? Well for one, consumption of healthcare does not involve consumer choices and preferences. If you need to take antibiotic for 7 days to cure an infection, that is not a choice you made, nor does it depend on price. You shouldn't take fewer antibiotics if price goes up, and you are not going to take more if you get a good deal with a coupon.
LASIC is a matter of choice and preference, just like TVs and computers are, but mending broken bones is not. If mending of broken bones becomes free, you are still not going to break your bones for fun. Nobody wants to consume healthcare unless they have to.
There is nothing in logic, math, or nature that says that free market is a solution in all cases all of the time. Free market applies 99% of the time, but there is 1% where it doesn't.
@@hamobu no, capitalism didn't fail in healthcare. Never. Not once. The fact that a state forcibly monopolizes healthcare isn't proof that it works. It is proof that the state forces things to be that way.
"Well for one, consumption of healthcare does not involve consumer choices and preferences."
Wrong. Most of healthcare costs are NOT emergencies, meaning that you absolutely can shop around and negotiate and (if markets were allowed) compare.
You're just wrong to claim that there are exceptions. You've not proven anything wrong with capitalism and markets in healthcare. Just nonsense talking points.
@@ExPwner If it was just one country then you might have a point, but healthcare was socialized in EVERY country. Even countries that are really opposed to Socialism, like Taiwan and South Korea, have socialized medicine.
Nationalization fails all the time. British railroads used to nationalized and then they were privatized. South Australia had nationalized electric provider which was then privatized, etc. But not healthcare.
And no, when you are sick, you can't shop around and compare because you are sick. That's just ridiculous! Just because you can somehow imagine it working, that doesn't mean that it does in practice.
@@hamobu no, it wasn't fully nationalized in every country. Universal systems are not the same as single payer systems. Many countries have a universal system that is still dominated by private insurance.
People can absolutely shop around in advance through insurance providers and primary care providers. It's not ridiculous. You're just ignorant. Look at how much the state limits the supply of medicine through IP monopolies and the supply of hospitals and equipment through certificate of need laws. Just because you don't understand how much the state limits the supply doesn't mean that capitalism is the reason for the shortfalls, because it isn't. You haven't named one part of healthcare that is capitalist this entire time.
@TryllaTröllMaistre Fictitious Fables of Europa nah, OP is being truthful. You just don't like it.
True socialism has never been tried so it's unfair to judge it. True capitalism on the other hand has been so we can. Even using this dishonest argument we must conclude that socialism is merely a theory that is impossible to put into practice. One is greater than zero so capitalism is better than socialism. End of debate.
Since we're social creatures, there will always be cronyism to some degree, regardless of the philosophy, because of the need for "some savior" aka the state that needs to exist in their minds. Even the idea that giving the population something that will "fix" their brain so they wouldn't be narcissistic is in and of itself narcissistic, since the politician might not give themselves this same substance because of their self serving ego that justifies their existence; thus, ego detaching substances are labeled as a "Class A drug". If even 10% of the population, including 50% of the politicians, had their ego detached, they would open the world to other solutions that might remove their own existence that was justified by the poisonous narrative that they perpetuated for centuries, including "communes" that focus on local economies with loads of villages as it was before highways stole our freedom by pointing people towards exploitative big box stores.
The state fulfills the fantasy that citizens will somehow be protected from all the bad guys and that taxes paid at the end of the financial year is a way for the ultra-rich to "pay their fair share". In reality, the state primarily serves the megacorporations that lobby and influence them every day for us all to suffer. Not saying that every teen should get a "living wage" because they're at the point where they're getting experience, but if the local community thinks that this system would work for them, let them try it out without state interference. So long as "the state" (which is easily influenced by megacorporations) exists, there will come a time when civilizations fall and we'll have no one but "the state" to blame.
When I heard him say he wants to nationalize a few banks I immediately tuned out. You've lost.
Yep, that is exactly where he lost me, too.
He lost in the very start, when he redefined both Socialism and Capitalism to match his delusional view, then went on to prey on base envy by pointing out how corporate chiefs made more than their employees.
Explain exactly why that's a problem, we all need a good laugh.
@@hawaiianknight6004 You're an indoctrinated follower, got it.
@@ivandafoe5451 Find a mirror. Got it...
Ben really should have pointed out that we don’t punish people held in slave labor or who are victims of workplace harassment. We punish their “employers.”
THANK YOU.
So, in Gene’s society, ben’s concepts could exist. In Ben’s society, gene’s concepts would be fined then ? then ?, maybe, possibly, eventually...jail. Yeah. I’ll roll the dice with Gene’s society.
@ReasonTV 🧐🧐
@@TobermoryIscarabaidX That's a spammer spoofing the channel name.
1:06:09 squatting is not illegal . squatting on private property is
huge difference.
I can only wish debates are structure like this
Where... has... it... worked... don't give me that it hasn't been done right yet. If governments are run by people, then the failings are inevitable and history will continue to repeat itself.
Bad times create capitalists, capitalists create good times, good times create socialists then socialist create bad times.
Co-ops aren't more common because socialists are too lazy and capitalists just want to keep all the profits. Until this is overcome, co-ops will continue to be rare.
This argument seems to come down to one side saying "If you want co-ops or companies owned by employees, you can do that already." vs "We don't want any business to not be owned by the employees."
One is clearly far more free than the other.
Let me get this straight, I risk it all to build a business, millions of my money, 18 hour days, and then I supposed to just let the people i employee take my business from me?
thats a no from me dogg
It's the CEO that takes all the risk from IRS ...OHSA REGULATIONS machinery repairs interest from bank loans ....and yet employees feel they should reep the benefits..
You built this hypothetical business single-handed?
@@mattgilbert7347 define "built". Did I have workers whom i paid a negotiated salary to in exchange for their labor? sure. did i have people put their money into the business and provide sweat equity, working as long and hard as me, who didnt take a salary for years like i didnt? hell no.
Let me guess, you think just because you work somewhere, and get paid for that work, you think youre entitled to reap some sort of reward other than a paycheck if the business is successful, even though you risked absolutely nothing in creating the business, other than your tasks, you contributed nothing extra. you made no decisions that lead to the success.
Let me ask you, if youre entitled to my successes, how much are you contributing monetarily to my failures. If you think you should have 50 percent of my business, then if i go bankrupt, its only fair you pay me 50 percent of my losses, right?
Theres a saying that they arent mutually exclusive. "Capitalism without Socialism is Fascism. Socialism without Capitalism is Communism"
I've yet to see Burgis win a debate.
Listening to his argument of justifying political power forcing the economy... "Why didn't they use their power to only frequent businesess' that pay $15 an hour?" I think we know the answer... it costs more.
Not necessarily. You get what you pay for. If your workers don't have money issues and are more comfortable in their private life, then it's likely they will be more productive. Your revenues might even increase if you give people raises. If you look at historical data, minimum wage increases don't really cause inflation in the way you'd expect. This is a very reductive way of thinking that is unfortunately pervasive. It was dumb to outsource jobs in a lot of cases from the US. US workers tend to be the most productive per dollar of any nation on Earth, but we're squandering that and now we have tons of broken people.
No, it isn't. Saved you two hours.
How many of you can still remember Phil Collin's song 'A DAY IN PARADISE!' or stimulating fable 'THE LITTLE MATCH GIRL' who was found frozen to death on the Christmas day. "Oh!... Come all thee faithfulls!"
All she had to do was knock at the door or the window.
@@druoleary Well, did it take place in Russia or Amarica?
I don't understand the notion of "voting for (or against) socialism". You get to vote democrat, republican, third party or refrain from voting.
I wish someone wouldve asked "how do you vote for socialism?"
For instance you might vote for the Communist Party USA. Or you might vote for people like Bernie Sanders who espouse socialism, thus pushing the Democratic party in that direction.
I really enjoyed Ben's Apple laptop on his lap throughout the Q and A session.
Show all the capitalists who lived in the Soviet Union were secretly communist?
this dumb line of reasoning has been debunked countless times. of couse you can have laptops and cell phones under socialism
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 haha
@@bulldogvillan Pathetic fail at having a gotcha moment, i know :) And holy batman! these comments are littered with the dumbest of the dumb. America is fkt, it's too late, even socialism can't save it because nothing can.
@@p.chuckmoralesesquire3965 PaTheTic fAil aT HaVinG a GotChA mOMeNt
Really shocked by how flustered and unhinged Gene got after the 40 minute mark. Very confused by how he's debating points Ben never made as some sort of gotcha and making assumptions on his opinions? It's like he's debating the great ghost of socialism and not the man in the room with him, pretty dissapointing considering his performance against Richard Wolff where he at least managed to maintain composure. Ben was clear and articulate, Gene was speaking faster than he was thinking. With Richard it seemed Gene at least respected his opponent and the argument put forth but with Ben that doesn't come through at all. Actively saying he's not answering Ben's points to address the "larger" issue, most of which are claims only Gene was making this debate.
Fully understanding Soho is a Libertarian majority group, but wow just a disrespectful debate from Gene's end, especially considering he showed more decorum in the last debate on this issue. Usually expect a lot better from Soho.
The fact majority of these comments are just ad hominems and don't reflect the actual debate is just furthering the dissapointment.