Socialism vs Social Democracy Debate w/ Peter Coffin
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- --Peter Coffin, author if "Custom Reality and You," creator of several UA-cam series, and postmodernist Marxist, joins David to discuss socialism vs social democracy
/ petercoffin
-Become a Member: www.davidpakma...
-Become a Patron: / davidpakmanshow
-Follow David on Twitter: / dpakman
-Follow David on Instagram: / david.pakman
-Follow the show on Instagram: / davidpakmanshow
-Discuss on our subreddit: / thedavidpakmanshow
-Facebook: / davidpakmanshow
-Get your TDPS Gear: www.davidpakman...
-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP
-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day, 6-8 stories! Make sure to subscribe!
Broadcast on July 31, 2018
You ask how one might enforce socialism, but one could also ask how one might enforce capitalism. I mean, is it authoritarian that we basically live in an oligarchy ruled by corporations who have the backing of a militarized police force?
David Lemke You can live in a commune in America
no one is stopping you from starting one
+God satan
That tired suggestion misses the point. Our current society is based on longstanding institutions like capitalism and statism. Technically you could start any kind of community you want. But you would still be subject to the structure of these institutions. So yeah, you could start a commune. But you would still have to pay taxes and engage in the system, which kinda defeats the purpose.
The only other option is to go off the grid and live out in the wilderness, completely disconnected from said society. But as Adam Smith feared, the division of labor has turned us all into morons. Maybe a hundred years ago you could start a sort of pre-industrial commune. But few people today would know how to survive like this. The hyper-capitalist machine has made us all infants dependent on the system as our mother.
Supernautiloid You only pay taxes if you make money . A commune doesn’t generate money .
+God satan
Income tax isn't the only kind of tax. And besides, for a commune to exist within a capitalist society, trading would be necessary at a minimum. That would mean the commune would have to generate money somehow, which might mean income tax. There are also property taxes and sales taxes that you might still be subject to. It's just not possible to completely disconnect from the system in this way. There is really no way around that. Not unless you move out into the wilderness and go off the grid.
David Lemke The idea of social democracy is to get rid of sad oligarchy.
Here In Sweden, Finland, Norway organizations are constantly being privatized. So nope, it is false to say we are any more immune to capitalism than any other place. You are just further along the path than we are.
Sadly, this is true
Yes, the Nordic countries are actually still part of the nations with the most economic freedom.
@@g2trashtxd781 the economic freedom index is shit the higher it is the more sooner you end up like USA.
Same goes for Austria (which for some reason is never mentioned) + 50 years ago most of the west including the USA was socialdemocratic, but it was all dismantled by big-capital and hierarchical politics. So the same social democracy he‘s advocating for is only used by capital as long as it suits its interessts. After that social democrats are beeing bought to privatize the whole society
You should really mention Peter’s name in the title of the video. I’m sure a lot of people in the UA-cam Left community would love to see discussions between our favourite personalities like this so making sure people know they’re happening is important.
kingofpointless I guess I'm hallucinating the Peter coffin in the video title then?
XD
Victor Thomas Wasn’t there when I made the comment. Daddy Dave P must have seen it and followed my suggestion.
Thanks..just found it today and that's why
What Peter Coffin describes absolutely has happened in Scandinavia. There has been a huge shift to the right the last 20 years, and so much welfare has been cut. Unions are also weakening.
Yep. Neo-cons were growing in Sweden just the same as they were in the rest of the world before the 2008 crash. With that said, though, the fact that we were very socially democratic means that we've still remained quite leftist compared to the rest of Europe
partytor11
Proof capital tends to crawl it’s way back after a while.
@@adamtrott78 No doubt.
@@partytor11 Gotta despise Neoliberalism.
Do more of these. With other point of views more offten. Love this. Helps me Learn
When David proposes that the socialisation of property against the wishes of capital is authoritarian, does he not consider that the existence of such private property, which was itself established only by enormous historical violence, and which only continues to exist because of further contemporary violence, is itself authoritarian?
his point is that to reverse this historical injustice, is there any way to do it without violent revolution? as far as i can tell, socdem is the most peaceful way towards that ultimate goal.
From a purely utilitarian perspective, given that the present system perpetuates and rests upon continuing and increasing violence, a sharp cut off to that via revolution would actually be preferable.
That said, I'm not a utilitarian nor a revolutionary, not because I disapprove of using violence to achieve political ends (because all politics is [class] war by other means), but because the appetite for it is pretty much nill and the organisational question for it allows far less room for error and experimentation.
it only "perpetuates" violence in the US military-industrial complex.
I'm a pro capitalist social democrat. What you call "gimme your shit" I call solidarity, of an attitude that we are all in this economy together and that when we look out for one another and help each other to improve ourselves; that only puts more people in a better position to grow the economy in a positive direction. If it didn't work the scandinavian economies would have tanked a long time ago but they haven't. And before you mention Venezuela... their economy was too reliant on oil and natural gas has taken over the market for energy and what happened to them could happen to any form of governance that relies exclusively on a single commodity like that. Republicans never seem to have a problem with our national military budget... They never ask "how are you going to pay for that military budget, where is the money coming from?" Well the money is being borrowed from China and the World Bank and it always increases our national deficit. But anytime talk starts of creating a health system that the rest of the western world has... oh no then all of a sudden it's "gimme your shit" and "how are you going to pay for it" even when it would cost a fraction of the military budget. Oh and Republicans don't seem to have any problems with corporate welfare or farm subsidies either... Hypocrites.
Wil224000 Where do you think capitalists got their shit in the first place?
7:45 I don't agree with David there because the needs of the many (workers) outweigh the needs of the few (capitalists). Workers should not be alienated from their labor and reap equitable benefits from it rather than be exploited by capitalists which are authoritarian. To exercise some level of authority for the many over the few is logically and morally justifiable. The capitalist class is literally destroying this world.
8:10 socialism doesn't mean equality absolutism or "equality of outcome" if that's what you're implying. It's more about freedom from authoritarian state control, it's about workplace democracy and self ownership.
Nageva The needs of the many (Whites) outweigh the needs of the few (Blacks)
God satan all races have same need qualitatively.
"Whites" and "blacks" are same because they are human. the needs of the common people of any group more importin then any racist people.
>an com
>real socialism
pick one
As someone who despises 99 percent of debates. I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this.
A very nice good faith discussion on socialist theory and praxis.
Also the comments so far have been a pleasure to read, and have made me put thought into areas I hadn't put enough thought into before.
Thank you both!
If you haven't seen any of his stuff Peter makes some good videos even if I don't always agree with him on political point of view. No one can be agreed with 100% of the time.
Would you ever consider a talk with people like Shaun_jen, Libertarian Socialist Rants, Anarchopac?
That would truly be spectacular. I was actually shocked to see him talk to Peter. Seems Ocasio Cortez' win is actually a great way to push genuine socialists into the spotlight. (Not that she isn't necessarily a socialist, but her language and policies are far from it).
LightningSamus you must have discovered mutualism. The left is definitely socialism and that's the only way markets could ever be free. Benjamin Tucker Proudhon and Kevin Carson go into this well. And Mexie is great.
Anarchy would never work
Violent Gangs would kill the Anarchists
If there is no Police Force in Society
No ?
APE MAN That's funny coming from a statist. Government is the most violent gang there is.
there would stilll be a need for some kind of police under a libertarian socialist society(at least until we reach fully automated luxury communism) but it would look completely different!!! like in rojava
they have the women militia that deals with patriarchy in the area and helps with domestic issues.
and ofc both the women and and the male militias are used in military situations
It's kinda sad that they didn't tackle imperialism and neocolonialism. I mean, capitalism is inherently imperialistic. The ideology of liberalism was built around colonization and slavery. John Locke, for example, was a rich slave owner, and even more "progressive" minded liberals such as John Stuart Mill advocated towards a "benevolent despotism" of sorts on colonies. It's not as if there could be the Nordic model without exploiting Africa or the system that was called a capitalist approach to international politics (and, I would argue, liberalism in international relations altogether) without this power dynamics between what is now NATO (western European countries, the US, allies) and developing countries in Africa, Asia, Oceania and Latin America (where I live).
yh you can aslo talk about state socialism as having some of the same issues, i would argue less so, but social democracy wont stop the exploitation of the "3rd world" and of its own workers
People go on and on about Scandinavian social democracy and totally ignore the sweatshops used by H&M or Nokia.
mayrana2, yeah, that was my point, social democrats are still capitalists and still engage in imperialist practice.
"The ideology of liberalism was built around colonization and slavery"
This is incredibly misleading. It often made excuses for colonialism and slavery, but Enlightenment liberal principles were also used to demonstrate why slavery and colonialism were wrong. The fact these principles were formulated in times where slavery and colonialism were commonplace and accepted doesn't negate the principles in and of themselves.
Also, funny you mention Nokia. They've actually been the most vocal electronics manufacturer in attempting to end offshoring to sweatshops and use of conflict minerals like tantalum.
A note on the history of social democracy. In sweden where the social democractic party led the government for most of the 20th century it is no secret that the reason they got there was that there was a very real threat of a violent revolution if they were supressed. As that threat as eroded over the years so has the power of the social democrats to the current point were they are losing elections and continually moving to the right. Social democracy is a decent compromise that can be reached with capital so long as there is a strong workers movement and capital will always chip away at it.
Yep social democrats are losing royally now
It's funny how the workers seizing control is considered authoritarian, but when the Bourgeoisie took control of the previous feudal systems that's not considered authotarien even though they were. Our current liberal democracies we have now didn't originally allow members of the non capitalist class any particular rights, except the right to sell their labour. Even now it can be argued that the working class's rights are very contained under capitalism. The rights workers do have are from socialists and social democrats pushing for them.
Also, whenever a socialist country arises, Capitalism around the world attacks it. The USSR started out very democratic, but constant attack and invasion, coupled with the need to quickly industrialize lead to the USSR becoming authoritarian. If that move was justified can be argued, of course, all the same most liberal democratic capitalist states would have declared martial law under similar situations.
If a socialist government is elected and keeps the existing parliamentary system in place, as in Venuzela, and doesn't break the power of the capitalists then the local capitalists mobilize against the elected government. Again, Capital worldwide will, and does, bend to attack this country even though the economy of this country is capitalist and its political system remains a liberal democracy. The fact that the governing body is socialist is enough to warrant the attack.
So now, socialism is authoritarian is not an argument I accept in any absolute sense. We've never seen socialism work the way as intended because worldwide capitalism, including the richest and most powerful nation in history, doesn't let it.
>apologizing for USSR and legitimizing its authoritarianism
*sniff sniff* i smell a tankie
Butheadbros2 Fuck off. I'm doing no such thing. I acknowledge the atrocities of the USSR, I merely point out that the US, and capitalism in general, bears a large part of the blame.
it's well known that there were multiple stages of Russia's revolution, much like those of the French revolution. You could see clearly that those who ended up taking power were far more inclined to engage in violence and atrocities than those who initially were the power players in the revolution. Your argument is kinda like apologizing for the United States worse excesses during the cold war by saying "look they were afraid of a global communist revolution".
Butheadbros2 What are you on? I was saying that the USSR was constantly attacked. I also said that their choice to become authoritarian in response was arguably not the right choice. Many liberal democracies under capitalism have declared martial law for lesser reasons. In no way do I legitimize the choice the USSR made, but to ignore those facts is intellectually dishonest.
Steven Schneider but to downplay the ideologies and tactics of the revolutionaries in comparison to outside incursion is wrong.
Petersons worst nightmare. I can understand where he says there will be consolidation of wealth and money in some places, but those are few and far between and they arent as potent in social democracies where the government is on half of each corporations board of representatives. Overall the Scandinavian model has the best countries in the world based on 12 different indicators, so it's our best bet for now. If we work on that, idc what ideology it turns into as long as it helps the people more than its previous version.
It's so sad! /petersonsvoice
the problem is most americans think social democracy of sweden is the same as an authoritarian socialism of venezuela, when they are tow vastly different situations..
Venezuela is not socialist
@raidermax23 I mean you can apply this very rigorous definition of socialism where concrete control over the means of production exerted by the workers is the defining factor in which case you can look towards the Mexican or Venezuelan communes or you can utilize a more formal definition where the control that is exerted can be of a mostly formal nature. In that case you could look to the USSR and Maoist China for instance. However, whichever one you pick, the organisation under the Maduro regime doesn't fall under either of those umbrellas, at least not for now. Structurally speaking they're closer to Sweden.
aka social democracy.
Sweden and Venezuela differs a lot in economic ranking, also the political history is very different, with some events of unrest in Venezuela that cant be compared with Sweden. Though there might be some ideological similarities in the foundation of the social democratic parties of the two countries, but without context and how its done practical its correct to say its very different situations.
David doesn't realize that even the communist credo admits that there is no such thing as equality. "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". That statement proves equality is impossible. What socialism strives for is equity in reality. Not equality.
Sugar Shane exactly. Also when it comes to equality there is the question "how are we equal" not just we are equal. Equal in what?
People don't just want equality, and ideologies such as communism doesn't ask for that.
Sugar Shane it's far too common
Sugar Shane legit tho. Also trying to explain to "socialists" In America that you cannot have an economy that is both socialism and capitalism is annoying. You cannot be for private property and against it simultaneously. Honestly I'm glad socialism is becoming less bias in America but it's still tied to alot of liberal ideals.
Lugus Socialists call for the end of the domination of the economy and our economic lives by the circuit of capital, by the drive to make as much profit as you can. There's still private property under socialism. You can still call the police to remove someone for trespassing on your home. You can still start your own little store or restaurant and run it for profit. It is merely the most important, crucial industries that will not be run for profit.
ohmandamp there's a difference between private property and personal property. The case you gave could easily be personal property, if the property you're referring to is your house or something.
But no, socialism calls for the end of private property.
I wonder if some of the discontent some people feel with a social democratic capitalist system is that even if they are being paid a fair wage, they feel that they don't have much of a say in the workings of the company they work for. They work hard and earn their wages but they feel like they are just cogs in a machine, like they are just another piece of equipment in their company. For some workers, this is demoralising and leads to lacking a sense of purpose. The principal reason they stay in their jobs is because they need the money, so they're willing to be just another "piece of equipment" in the company.
I understand the appeal of worker cooperatives in this case. In a worker cooperative, workers have more control over the direction and running of the company than in a traditional company, and I think this sense of control and participation would be quite heartening for a worker. If they get to share in the profits of the company of which they are an integral instrument in, (and not just by minimal increases in wage), such workers would probably feel a greater sense of satisfaction and purpose. As in, they feel like they're actually doing something worthwhile, and not just being another cog in a giant machine.
However, in social democratic capitalist systems, aren't people already free to form worker cooperatives? Why aren't more businesses worker cooperatives? I'm going to assume it's because if you own a business, you're not going to want share ownership with the workers you've employed. YOU'VE worked hard to set up the business, YOU'VE invested heavily in it- it's YOUR business. And you've employed people because your business requires human labour in order to have a chance to be profitable.
So such a business was only really your own project to begin with. That's fair enough. But why don't more people start businesses as worker cooperatives from their very inception? This is an important question that needs to be answered. If businesses aren't forced to be worker cooperatives by the state, then worker cooperatives have to arise organically. So why aren't there more? Considering the benefits for workers in worker cooperatives, you'd think such companies would be more common.
I don't understand any justification for the private ownership of capital and of the means
their is none.
it's tyranny
You have to explain this worldview to me lol private property is freedom. Socialism is forced expropriation of earned wealth from people by the state, that isn’t freedom. What’s the justification?
I think the pure socialists are missing a very big point... Working for someone is not a great evil, nor is a paycheck = exploitation. Private ownership of capital is fair game, provided that they have done most of the work.
Case in point, Maersk was build largely by two guys investing in, and then running successfully a shipping company, and today it is one of the biggest shipping company in the world. That is one of the good things about capitalism, and a decent society should allow that kind of thing to happen.
But there are plenty of areas where the state/public run enterprises will be better than a pure capitalistic setup, and there it should be use.
But there are no reason to go to extremes, and claim that there are no justification for the private ownership of capital... It is simply not true.
bandholm Working for someone or something is perfectly fine, so long as the workers own the means of production (and invest as a unit) and there aren't a few individuals in that system who own most and take a majority of the profit accumulated to invest into themselves only, acting as capitalistic parasites. Meaning for example 10% for a thousand workers 50% for growth of the company and 20% for 20 leading positions and 10% just for the owner as private property.
This is what capitalism ultimately leads to - very few owning almost everything and many owning almost nothing. This is already the case (1% own more than 50% of the worlds wealth) and it's only getting worse.
Other than that I don't see your point. Simply stating that something is or isn't true doesn't make it so.
Less than 8k away from 500k. Shout out to the Hatriots.
Here here!
This is like a weird crossover. Like my liberal UA-camrs being mixed with my socialist UA-camrs. I would have never thought they would meet one another.
I like Pakman, but I only look at him and Kulinski for the liberal/social dem take on news.
I have my own, but want to see how far they'd go.
I know right, I wish Kyle would make a video with contrapoints.
Kinda like when Contrapoints went on Destiny's stream.
Jamer TheRamer Why wouldn't they meet?
“Leaves the door open...” - you can deal with that via regulation. Regulations against cronyism, regulations against nepotism, regulations against Wall Street, etc. But these things have to be done proper, they can’t just be removed by some fuckwad a few years down the road.
I've found the right way to describe myself. I'm not a "socialist", not a fan of Communism. Fascism = obviously not good. Unchecked Capitalism without giving a F about your people (crying about your tax dollars going to help the poor) = shit. Social Democracy sounds like the right path.
A proper education is a necessary prerequisite to libertarian socialism. The rest just flows naturally.
And a proper education in economics dispels any of the silly ideas of socialism
Thanks for having Coffin on!
I disagree with both of you guys in this discussion. Peter’s point about social democracy being worse because it leaves the door open for capitalists to privatise things like healthcare made no sense to me. I live in a capitalist country and that hasn’t resulted in any privatisation of our healthcare. That was this weird slippery slope argument. It certainly has resulted in a reduction of the effectiveness of our socialised healthcare, and as a social democrat myself, yes that’s a problem. But it hasn’t prevented our healthcare from being socialised and it doesn’t in numerous countries.
I think a better argument might be that capitalists try to erode systems that help everybody, which is true, by corrupting politics with money and spreading propaganda against robust taxation, social programs, etc. but social democrats are not for capitalists doing those things. They want changes, particularly progressives.
Socialists are obviously against those things too, but I find Peter’s rhetoric about it a little magical, like, saying you are against capitalism is the silver bullet here. How does saying you should get rid of capitalism magically result in capitalists ceasing their abuses vs social democrats trying to reform and change the rules, which is an actual practical step in the right direction.
You don’t snap your fingers and boom magically capitalism is gone and you have all the robust systems you need to avoid capitalism ever eroding anything. No you start with getting money out of politics, you start with pushing social programs, you start with changing the culture to something more concerned with social welfare.
I find my socialist friends get very absolutist about how bad reformism and gradualism is, and how incompatible capitalism is with socialism, without ever being able to explain an alternative way to move towards socialism. I think social democracy combined with progressivism could be a more effective way to move towards more collective ownership. I am not scared of socialism, and would be pro socialising a lot of things, but don’t think I could call myself a socialist as I’d still believe in some sort of market and currency.
With Dave, his point about “forcing collective ownership” being “authoritarian” made no sense to me. How is it authoritarian for workers to be given a stake in what they put their labour into? Er wot? Lol.
So I disagree with some of Peter’s rhetoric on social democracy and socialism. I also disagree with Dave’s slightly knee jerk reaction to socialism. While being a social democrat myself.
Enjoyed the conversation though. A fan of both people.
I think David meant "forced participation" in the ownership of the means of production. If say under a socialist system the factory I work at wants to make some changes they come to me to ask my opinion on said changes, I respond that I don't care what they do I'm just there to work get a pay check go home. They then take issue with my apathetic attitude toward my labor. The forced collectivism may itself be tyrannical in assuming that I want to more of a say in anything relating to anything beyond my income.
A+ comment, keep up the good work
David Pakman's a class act.
Really happy to see Peter on here! Good interview
"The Conquest of Bread" audiobook is free on UA-cam
The Conquest of Beard
If you got enough testoserone to grow one
Thanks for having Peter on. I have been enjoying his work glad to see it being picked up by others I respect.
Social democracy doesn't end exploitation through wage labor, maintains private property rights and leaves an economy where capital accumulation for individuals is still the end goal. In other words it is still an economy incentivizing robbery and coercion. Workers may be more in charge of their destiny, as they are not forced by treat of death to take any dehumanizing job at any condition, but the underlying problem remains. The workers are no more in charge of their actual work, and their labor does not belong to them.
Is it better? Absolutely! Should it be the end goal. No!
What does that mean? In charge of their labor, that is.
slyfer60 - The basis of capitalism is that workers need to sell their labor to their employer, rather than actually owning their labor and having power over it. We have been decentivized to this as it has been the norm for a very long time, but this is not a mutual exchange on equal terms. The worker is neither an associate, nor partner, and had to forego all rights to their labor and the value of the product/service they produce. This is accepted by society on the basis that it is "voluntary", but reality is that it is not voluntary in any meaningful sense of the word - workers sell their labor because they need to live, not because they really wish to serve and enrich capitalists rather than themselves.
(This lack of power even includes the management of working conditions, though strong unions and workers' rights have been able to change this, at least in part. However, the workers still have little to no say on how their organization is run. It is worth noting that Germany, Norway, etc. have laws ensuring workers spots on the board of directors, but I believe Germany is the only country with a 50% demand)
To contrast this with systems involving worker ownership and workplace democracy, which is what most socialist ideologies argue for, power and/or ownership rests with the workers.
We can use a worker co-op as an easy example. Here each worker is a co-owner and share in the profits. Decisions are made democratically. Bosses can either be elected by the workers, which fundamentally changes the dynamic as the boss serves the workers rather than the other way around, or they elect a board of directors who then hire bosses - if a more traditional structure is preferred. The workers have direct and proportional say over the company structure, and how they work, and they all share in the spoils - this does not mean equal pay mind you - the co-op may select any standard they may choose, from a pay scale, to a more performance focused system.
Of course, every enerprise does not need to be a co-op. Many socialists argue for contracts based on mutual aid. This means an agreement that is mutually beneficial to all parties involved.
Companies today actually do make agreements like this when working together - say a construction company, a decorating company and a realestate company makes an agreement to develop property they may decide on a cut for each, and share the profits. This is actually a fair way of working. You need something from others and you make an agreement that benefits all. Many socialists, especially on the libertarian side, would like to see this be the norm for smaller associations and general trades, replacing the employer/employee relationship with associates or partners. In this way, if you need help with your bakery, you can bring in an associate, who will make an agreement with you deciding on the cut he or she may be worth based on their services. This may sound very similar to the employer/employee relationship, but the dynamics are entirely changed, as the new associate still owns the product of their labor. It may however not be as extreme a shift as many anti-socialists claim.
@@Kraisedion I can see that on the small scale ie; your Baker example. But when I try to imagine that on a larger scale it gets harder to see things in the same sense.
slyfer60 Yes, on a large scale Co-op structures make more sense.
David, why do you assume that non-ownership of capital would need to be "enforced" in an "authoritarian" way? Actually, it is the OWNERSHIP of capital that must be enforced in an authoritarian way, through the implicit threat of violence. If no one owned factories.... do you really believe there would have to be an oppressive, authoritarian force in place to prevent one person from coming into the factory and saying "Hey guys, sorry, but I alone OWN this now." ? I realize that I am speaking in broad, generalized hypothetical terms with this example.... but my question is, how does it follow that collectivization MUST be MORE authoritarian than the authoritarian system in which we currently live? (Because Stalin/USSR?)
Awesome debate! It's always great when you have respectful and intelligent people on!
I like Peter but IMO David made a much better argument for social democracy than Peter did for socialism in this video.
Why do people debate socialism, when they don't even know, what it is?
Holy crap, David! Thank you for having Peter over!!
Enforcing collective property -- as opposed to workers' use -- of means of production as autoritarian is a good indictment of state socialism, but it also is a good indictment of capitalism itself, because private property also has to be coercively enforced through the state (one could even say it's the main role of the modern state, though some libertarians still argue for some sort of market feudalism).
As for alternatives, people should resist ideology and utopianism; Coffin is absolutely right to point to bottom-up self-governance and self-determination, beginning with resistance to the dependance on private capital and eternal economic growth for well being, which is admittedly easier said than done depending on local culture. Discussing where it goes from there is interesting, but obviously extremely speculative. Chomsky's discussion of the subject is I think worth looking into in this regard.
Why do the Socialists
Not just start their own Company
Prove they can establish a Socialist Industry
Socialists Rats just want Free Dick Cheese
The answer is pretty obvious if you understand what the current contextual constraints are. You can't start a society from scratch, especially with a utopia in mind as I already stated. But I don't think you're interested in intellectual honesty considering your tone.
Why didn't you talk about Rojava when talking about whether or not socialism has worked?
Because Rojava is not a society on the same scale that Peter would like to see socialism enacted. Also, there are rumours that they are an anti-trans society, which is not great.
Tyler Graham I think being "anti trans" is a very weak point to make considering the fact they are in an active civil war and still have islamist guerillas killing their own people. It's not good by any means but the fact they have achieved an anarcho-communist society and are winning a civil war is far more significant, especially in this modern age.
Niguarua is Socialist
Now Socialist Revolutionaries
Are a Fascist Mafia killing the People
This always happens with Socialism
The point about Sweden is false. Health care, schools etc have been privatized to a large extent. And we are suffering for it.
Peter Coffin is so full of BS it is amazing. He really demonstrates almost zero understanding of economics. When asked “why prefer socialism” he says “because capitalism is bad”. When asked “has true socialism ever turned out well?” he laughs and says no. So, your idea has never worked well anywhere in the world at any time, but YOU have the golden version that will work this time. You, Peter Coffin, are smart enough to figure out how to make true socialism work? BS
I really liked this debate. No trying to "own" the person you are having a discussion with, no personal egos just honest discussion and open minds for a better future. I'm personally in between Social Democracy and Democratic Socialism but definitely lean towards Social Democracy more and seeing talking points of each wrapped up like this was very nice.
Actually swedish healthcare is a mess right now (I should know since I'm swedish and in need of multiple treatments some of which I have had to turn to private sector and pay out of pocket for). Largely in part to the increasing presence of privatized healthcare but also because of mismanagement from social democrat and right wing politicians.
Hey, sociology student working on grad degree here. 👋🏼 Hope you’re all well.
Just wanted to drop my 2 cents: The point he makes after 14:20 is super interesting. Organized human life, institutions, culture, economies etc. really do all evolve much like biology does. You move from one past state, through change over time, to a future state that was contingent upon the previous state. You can’t just jump from arms to wings, or gills to lungs. Similarly you don’t just jump from communal village to free-market capitalism; you don’t go from feudalism to social democracy; and you don’t go from capitalist straight to socialist (at the very least without *much* trial and error). Zeitgeists and large-scale human organization trends over time, making little leaps here and there along the way.
TLDR: the point that he makes after 14:20 makes a lot of sense from an social evolutionary perspective.
Thank you David Parkman. You are the only person on youtube that can tell the fucking difference between the two concepts in your title, apparently.
6:05 David said that privatization hasn't been happening in Sweden but they have gone from the top ranked eduction system in the world to somewhere in the teens due to their privatization of the education system.
i have to say david is kind of swaying me to social democracy
This is like watching two cats gear up for a fight only to play a delightful game of patty cake, and I'm so happy for it.
Excellent interview. Happy to see social democrats and socialists conversing nicely in the comments, too. Though our perspectives may be slightly different, we share a lot of the same values. We should be allies!
I really appreciate discussion videos like this that aren't just two sides trying to "win." All I get out of that is at best a sense of smugness if "my side" "won," or at worst I get misinformed about one or both sides.
Was a bit antsy seeing the video have the word debate in the title, but it turned out better than I was expecting. Good stuff, thumbs up emoji.
Lol It appears our friend David doesn't know what the Paris Commune was. Otherwise that mixed economy statement afterwards made no sense unless I missed something.
I feel like the main point of contention is also the "authoritarian" argument. Seems he says it every time he talks about real socialism. Which I must admit, I find very odd. How is people self organizing and self governing more authoritarian than capitalism or social democracy??? It can't be by it's very nature. It's always argued as if it's a zero sum situation but most of us are just asking for the opportunity to do so. If it fails, it fails. If it's somehow worse we'll change up. But there's nothing more authoritarian than being trapped in an inherently exploitative system that you cannot escape where any alternative is squashed by force.
Now the tankies and Soviet apologists are absolutely authoritarians and .ost will admit as much. But I don't know any socialist that wants to force Socialism on anyone at all. If force was the cost then most of us would be out. It's a non argument. Love ya Peter but I'd have slapped back on that.
I agree completely. But am very heartened by the fact that David has liked other comments making the same point as you.
Alternative ownership structures such as co-ops are allowed to exist in a capitalist society. Capitalist enterprises are completely forbidden in a socialist society. That's the difference.
Yes, which is inherently authoritarian.
@@soarel325
A tolerant society cannot tolerate intolerance. Just how we as proponents of democracy must undemocratically topple undemocratic systems.
Also your arguments, especially on other comments seems to imply that you think capitalism is the natural way of things is funny. How do you think private property and its laws are enforced? How do you think workers not having any say in their labour or workplace happens naturally?
I respect that you both argue in good faith. Produces the kind of discussion where you can get answers, rather than rebuttals.
David, pleeeeeease refrain from interrupting your guest. It's annoying.
Peter COFFIN! ? OOOkkaaaayyyy.... Capitalists should be cautious around him.
This is a great example of why we need to ignore Trumpist's and talk to each other. Lefties have reasonable ideas to debate and I love watching videos like this. Trying to talk to Trumpist's has become a waste of time.
It's great to see peter having a conversation with the very inventor of Pac man himself! He's moving up in the world.
I'm learning so much from these videos and the comments.
As an example of the neoliberal capitalism dismantling the advances of social democracy you can look at Finland. The political project of the current government is to dismantle the Nordic style welfare state and privatize as many functions of the government they can (including healthcare). They are using the tactics described by Naomi Klein: create the sense of urgency and panic to gain support for unpopular policies.
another awesome interview. big think tank for me. looking deeper into socialism now. kuos
If it’s too complicated for you think of it this way: in Capitalism a small percentage of people own everything. They’re called stockholders. In Socialism everybody owns everything. If you want to call them stockholders go right ahead.
Total equality is not desirable because then there is no extra motivator for an individual to excel. Maybe in an ideal world, individuals would not need money as extra motivation - they would work for the good of all. But that isn't how reality actually is - many people are motivated by the desire for wealth and it would be detrimental to completely remove the possibility for them to earn greater wealth. But limits should be placed on the amount of wealth they can accumulate. It is ridiculous that some people can accumulate so much wealth that they will never be capable of spending all of it in their lifetime - unless they spend it on absolute decadence. Most of it will be given to family members when they die - family members who did nothing to earn that wealth.
I like unions, I simply don't know if absolute Socialism (as opposed to Social Democracy) will work.
A great topic, but this needed to be way longer. You briefly touched on very interesting points, without having the time to discuss them. I hope that there is a way for you two to get back together in a different extended format.
David Pakman is wrong on Scandinavian healthcare. Finland has an increasingly worse health system.
I really appreciate this conversation between Pakman and Coffin. I hope the left coalesces like this more often. 💯
Co-opts people. Mondragon is the future!
+EGH181 💯
Dave, thank you so much for this conversation! It's so refreshing to see a debate on socialism that is intellectually engaging. This also helped give me a better understanding of where a social democrat would come from. I think pragmatically speaking, making America much closer to something like the Scandinavian model and restoring bargaining rights is a much more immediate and attainable goal for a country like the US than workers taking complete control over the means of productions.
I also think the idea of workers having ownership of the means of production would be a system that most, if not all, workers would want that ultimately, no worker would want to go back to the former. I guess a similar analogy would be that once a society successfully establishes democracy, the general population would NOT want to return to a form of feudalism or monarchism. I think in order for any kind of socialist system to be successfully implemented the workers, and society as a whole, would want to advocate for it. In the US, obviously that's a hard sell. Ultimately I think trying to implement social democracy may warm people up to a more socialist future in the same way that the FDR administration made the idea of liberal/progressive ideas much more attractive and appealing.
Surprised that Coffin actually mentioned worker cooperatives, which to me are the only plausible unit of a socialist economy.
A lot of these so-called “socialists” and “communists” talk big on supposedly being those things, but never actually talk about workplace democracy or democratic management. Even here Coffin only briefly mentions it, instead preferring to talk about “common ownership”, which is extremely vague and often refers more to state socialism (state capitalism).
That's because there are different wings of socialism/leftism. Syndicalists, unionists, anarchists/libertarian socialists and plenty of democratic socialists push workplace democracy, even Lenin pushed it - though state socialists in general are not interested in this. Among "state positive" socialists the push was possibly the biggest amongst the Fabians, and I would recommend reasing GDH Cole (who is tragically overlooked by many these days)
I'm familiar with Cole.
I wouldn't put it down to diversity, but rather a lack of logic and imagination.
I'm grateful for the debate, but I think the same questions with Noam Chomsky would be more productive, simply because he seems to have a more mature position on the matter. Another guy who would be interesting for having this debate would be Kevin Carson, but that's because his socialism seems to be non-communist even in the long run.
As a kid, I visited the GDR several times. And I have seen the comparison in between West and East Germany.
And I am with David the Social Democracy is the way to go.
To me, it seems all the philosophical discussions are missing the point. It just won't work. If you guarantee an equality of outcome some people will cheat the system, not the majority not even half, but this minority will spoil the system.
Actually, a socialistic system is similar to a big company it does not reward honesty or hard work. You can use the Dilbert Strips to describe a socialistic system just by renaming the "pointy haired boss" by "boss of the combine" and the "CEO" by the "commissioner for ...". This strongly reduces Efficiency and the willingness for progress. And this is the reason why large companys slowly decline (despite all the economy of scale) making place new startups.
Wow. I'm so disappointed that I didn't call into the show to discuss this yesterday. I'm going to try to call next time you take live calls and explain why this well-intentioned gentleman absolutely dropped the ball in debunking your two key arguments (socialism is authoritarian & socialism forces equality of outcome), which I've already refuted in comments on your "Why I'm not a Socialist" video. Please take live calls tomorrow so I can resolve this misunderstanding for your audience asap. Prof. Wolff would not appreciate you misrepresenting his extraordinary work 😁
Yo David, it would be awesome if you could get the boys from Chapo Trap House on your thing.
What a pleasure to see a political debate of differing views done in a respectful way. People dont have to agree. Open minds, the ability to change a point of view when presented with new information, respectfully agreeing to disagree if that is the case, finding compromise instead of stubborn "my way or the highway". Wouldnt that be nice..
Well I invite him to Venezuela. I'm living with 2$ per day with captchas when the Minimum Salary is 1$ at month (I'm rich).. you cannot be a socialist until you have lived in. Go Social Democracy guys, I wish we were like scandinavia countries.
PD: You can find apartments at 3.000 - 7.000$ in these days. is good to invest if you live outside. Excuse my english guys >.
I find this talk about how private ownership is being forcefully upheld by the state an absurd conversation to begin with. The right to own things is the most natural thing in existence. If I have spent my whole life building a house for my family, of course I claim ownership of that house. If state doesn't protect my right to own that house, my fists will. Having government enforce people's right to own stuff is the very foundation of a civilized society.
Social democracies have proven themselves to be a practical systems of government, under which income equality is not rampant and all citizens have all their basic needs met and therefore have the means to build happy and prosperous lives. Workers should strive to strengthen unions and use their collective power to improve their existing social democracies instead of dreaming about utopias where the basic human drive for self-interest has somehow been abolished.
Its still possible to be pragmatic and have an ideology because ideology is the eyes that guides the hands.
Ideology is for Idiots
It often ignores hard facts
APE MAN everyone has an ideology to some extent whether they admit it or not.
APE MAN if you have no ideology, you are blind.
I have the Power of Logic
And the Heart of a Savage
Marxist Rat
No Free Cheese
You will get Nothing
You will Never have Power
I don’t know if you read these comments David, or anyone else who works on the show, but I hope you do even if this is a long comment.
To your first philosophical/moral argument against socialism (@7:35) as the common ownership of the means of production. While you conceive that enforcing such as authoritarian, i.e. the compliance to an authority at the expense of freedom, I think upon closer inspection of both capitalist production and notions of freedom, which both social democrats/liberals and conservatives/libertarians share in believing, fail in constructing arguments against the common ownership of the means of production.
Firstly, I want to point out that my arguments aren’t original. G.A. Cohen, one of the most prolific political philosophers in the 20th century, originally put forth the arguments I’m about to present in his essay Freedom, Capitalism, and the Proletariat (I recommend whoever is interested to read that essay to get the entire force of his arguments, which I find really convincing).
Under capitalism, workers own their own labor power to sell on the market. Moreover, the freedom workers have under capitalism to freely sell their labor power is compatible with not being free to not sell their labor. For example, Australians are free to vote in elections while also being not free to not vote (given voting is mandatory is Australia). One cannot do what one is not free to do. Similarly, one cannot be forced to do what one cannot do. Therefore, one is free to do what one is forced to do. Logically it’s as follows: before you’re forced to do A you are, unless in unusual circumstances, free to do A and free not to do A. Force only removes the second freedom, not the first one.
Marxists assert the working-class are forced to sell their labor power for a wage while, at the same time, capitalists say that workers are, instead, free to sell their labor power. Nevertheless, both are true. For the Marxist, the worker is forced to sell their labor power and this unfreedom isn’t incompatible with the capitalist’s assertion that workers are free to sell their labor power. For example, when an immigrant’s work permit is denied or expires, they are deprived of a freedom. If the worker isn’t free to sell their labor power, then what freedom is the immigrant whose work permit is removed deprived?
It’s a common understanding, both shared by social democrats/liberals and conservatives/libertarians, that capitalism is essentially a more comprehensively free society compared to other societies. While social democrats/liberals, unlike conservatives/libertarians, justify a mixed economy in terms of valuing equality, they nevertheless understand and recognize that capitalism embodies a more free society even if they understand their own mixed economy as limiting freedom by weighting other values.
However, I think that while social democrats/liberals and conservatives/libertarians recognize freedom which is intrinsic to capitalism, they overlook the unfreedom that necessarily accompanies capitalist freedom. While there are arguments justifying how limiting one’s actions, i.e. limiting freedom, as a necessary component of social and legal constraints are couched in a rights definition of freedom (in the essay Cohen lays out how a rights definition of freedom is untenable), on a normatively neutral account of freedom private property necessarily accompanies the unfreedom of nonowners. For example, the freedom that farmers who own orchards have necessarily accompanies the unfreedom of nonowners have, e.g. it’s workers who labor in its fields, to pitch a tent or to use such land in any way they themselves see fit.
Socialism, i.e. the common ownership of the means of production, at the very least, shifts the parameters that distributes both freedom and unfreedom instead of lessening its scope which is typically assumed by most social democrats/liberals and conservatives/libertarians. The authoritarian charge, i.e. the compliance to an authority at the expense of freedom, is no more revealing within socialism than it is within capitalism. Even within anarchism, one is subject to the rules of the collective/commune/federation that distributes both freedom and unfreedom.
The question, therefore, becomes: is freedom better enhanced under capitalism or socialism? Cohen gives an answer in his essay, but I won’t here since this comment is too long already (I again recommend reading his essay to get and understand not only his answer to this question but his very clear and rigorous arguments overall).
I don't personally see this as so much of a debate as a discussion, but a great discussion nonetheless. I will definitely link to this whenever some Sea Lion needs an introduction to the concepts of socialism and social democracy.
Great educational debate!
that's ironic david would use sweden as an example when in fact if he had any clue into what's been happening in sweden over the past 40 years, it actually totally undermines his argument and proves coffin's point about the erosion of social democracy, as sweden has undergone a MASSIVE neoliberal transformation since the 70's and 80's, as well as the swedish social democratic party. the sweden of today and the social democrats of today are a faaar cry from the sweden and social democratic party of olof palme. i'm baffled david would say it hasn't happened in sweden, i guess coffin wasn't informed enough to push back at him on that point.
The right wing parties governed Sweden from 1976-1982. Then the social democrats came back with Olof Palmes second term in minority government up to Palme got murdered in 1986, and after that with Carlsson. The big changes came with the finance crash in 1990-1994 during the right wing government under Carl Bildt. In 1993 the tele communications government was reformed to a stockmarket company. In more recent years right wing governments have made lots of income tax changes, however its still different from the US economy. Some changes has been necessary for the state to exist in a capitalist system, other changes have only dived rich and poor. The global economy have shifted a lot since the 70s so its complicated to say the social democrats of Sweden have eroded or adapted or clings to whatever they can save. The current political situation is blocked into minority government working on the budget of the opposition.
Great exchange between you both! Everyone who enjoyed it should subscribe to Peter Coffin's channel, he constantly pull out great content.
Old video but I think it's great that David is favouriting the comments that contain good responses to some of the claims he made during the debate.
hmm, this Coffin guy seems really wobbly in his arguments, which is what I see critically in many proponents of actual socialism. They have good arguments when they criticize current systems, but then get super vague when positively describing what they want to see instead
I am a fan of you overall, but this and your previous video on the topic of socialism vs social democracy have very much disappointed me. You have chosen to strawman socialism by calling it inherently authoritarian while creating a utopian idea that social democracy is the solution and best of both world. The reality is that any revolutionary change is probably going to be authoritarian in nature. This has been true for every revolution in the history of the world, including the American Revolution which even the right wing holds up. To achieve a true social democracy will almost definitely take authoritarian measures to take some of that power away from corporations. Maybe it will allow a more fair playing field between the people and capital, but maybe it just pisses capital off and we see a fascist backlash like in Chile. Lastly, our current system is inherently authoritarian in the maintenance of capitalism. When it comes down to it I cannot tolerate the idea of refusing change that might be imperfect. This is just utopian fantasy for me. Any major change, be it socialist or social democratic will come with that downside, and it will almost definitely take the power of the state to enforce. The primary difference being that in a socialist society we would eventually remove power from the reactionary forces entirely. In social democracy you just try to make them fight fair. In a global scale I don't see that working.
As for really existing socialist states I do have to say we need to look at it from a nuanced perspective. Yes, there were flaws, and yes most of them could be considered authoritarian. However, most of them were no less authoritarian than capitalist countries of similar economic development. At the same time standards of living increased rapidly in almost all of them. A modern example being Cuba which has a top 10 ranking in the Human Development Index in North America despite being under a trade embargo. Should we look at these countries as the model for our future society? Probably not. However, we should absolutely take the positives and look to correct the negatives when building this future society. Just dismissing all of it would be a dreadful mistake.
One area where we may find common ground however is that I think ultimately we will have to achieve social democracy first. This doesn't mean I necessarily subscribe to incrementalism, reform, or whatever. I think it could even be done in a revolutionary manner. However, I don't think the Soviet style of abolishing all private property is feasible in modern society, and it unfortunately will cause a reactionary backlash much sooner, rather than later. However, I do think we could start by socializing major industries and essentially removing the huge corporations that truly control the economy while maintaining privately owned small businesses. This actually is very similar to ideas expressed through Vladimir Lenin's NEP model. The Chinese also have done similar things, be it in there own way. Then as time goes on I would like to see more and more socialization of the economy, preferably through the democratic will of the people. Marx and Lenin both described socialism as the democratic ownership of the means of production. That is ultimately what we should all strive for.
I came to this with my mind open, but even half way through it became apparent that it’s once again theory and nice idea over reality and actual plan.
7:40 Slavoj Zizek would agree David. He says communism small “c” when imagining the far future of human economy-to avoid the dangers in “socialist” dreaming.
I literally have this type of debate inside my head every single day; so fascinating to actually listen to it outside of the confines of my own mind. Ultimately I think that whether you're a social democrat or a democratic socialist, we can all agree that issues like combatting climate change and political corruption and advocating for universal healthcare and a living wage (among other issues obviously) should be our primary objective as leftists. What we do once those policies are achieved is (at least in my opinion) not as important in the context of today.
East German here.
Democratic socialism is not stable.
Social democracy much more so.
I think the fuzzy line between social democracy and democratic socialism is just the line between an economy of private corporations (shareholders included) and an economy of worker-cooperatives. If a full social democracy crosses that line, be it by the workers eventually buying out the capitalists, or by an incrementally increasing regulatory requirement of union representatives being placed on administrative boards, then it becomes a form of democratic market socialism. From there the market economy could be phased out.
Whether this trajectory is _likely,_ on the other hand, is another matter altogether. But there _is_ always the alternative method of just being _very disobedient._
One question that rarely gets asked in these types of conversations is "What is the scale of these imagined political communities"? Is it local, is it regional, is it national, or is it global? Is it the resources of the entire planet that are to be brought under collective ownership, or will smaller units suffice for the purpose of distributive and social justice? Obviously, the larger the scale, the harder it is to achieve unanimous consent on how resources are utilized, so it seems to me local is preferable just on practical grounds. Unless consent is not an essential requirement for your just regime... but then that starts to look a little like paternalism or coercion.
Very interesting to listen. This video perfectly boils down the difference between Rawlsian and Marxist ideas concerning egalitarianism
David, here are some examples of relatively successful large scale libertarian socialism: Revolutionary Catalonia (1936-1939), modern day Chiapas, Mexico, and modern day Rojava in Syria.
The debate shouldn't be framed as, "Social Democracy vs. Socialism". It should be framed as, "Social Democracy vs. Industrial Democracy". Social Democrats wish to maintain the capitalist structures that kill and exploit millions year after year. While Industrial Democrats wish to replace these tyrannical structures with workplace democracy. A modern example of a sucessful libertarian socialist society is that of Rojava, where the population is 4.6 million (as of 2014).
great discussion
At one point David asks Peter for examples of successful socialist societies. It is my understanding that, until colonialism hit North American shores, that many Indigenous tribes lived in societies that we would consider to be socialist; and they did so for thousands of years.
7:42 talk about Orwellian rhetoric. Socialism is about the liberation of people, not their oppression. *The current system is the authoritarian one!* What we call for is the democratization of the economy, which is currently under an authoritarian mode of organization. The owner class gets to dictate over the rest us, they tell us what to do, how to do it and who keeps the profits of our labour. But don't worry, David is not a socialist because "something something entrepreneurship."
David what are you on about??? the EXACT same thing has happened (privatisation) not only with the swedish healthcare system but also with the swedish school system with disastrous results .
US goverment spends more on healthcare than Sweden so don't think that statement is true. www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries/#item-relative-size-wealth-u-s-spends-disproportionate-amount-health
Well, look at ownership through the transition lens, the co-ops and market socialism approach. You could do something like Wolff has suggested and pass an amendment barring the hiring of wage labor. Which would remove the possibility private ownership for anyone other than the self-employed. Or you take Schweickart's ( _After Capitalism,_ Rowman & Littlefield ) approach and have a network of public investment banks be the ultimate owner of workers' co-ops. The banks would be a silent parter which keeps the co-ops from being sold to private interests, but would allow space for private entrepreneurs to start their own companies. However, those companies would compete for workers in an environment where co-ops have at least as much access to capital as the private owner does.
Exactly, and if that is too hard to sell, do it in stages. The liberals (and even social democrats) will fight the abolishing wage labor directly, but passing laws guaranteeing company shares (accumulating the longer you work there), or a percentage cut of the profits, should be easy to swallow.
Other potential victories:
- Increasing levels of co-determination (Germany has 50% in companies of 2000 employees or more, this prepares the workers for self-control and allows for an easy transition process, + it is tried, and has worked for over 50 years within a capitalist economy)
- End inheritance rights (at the very least of capital, and of course it should exclude commodities - if fought it should even be easy to make compromises with the socdems as they already believe in steep inheritance taxes)
- Abolish the stock market (Harder sell, I'll grant you, perhaps further down the line)
As for banks or other forms of collective backers, including the government/state I am somewhat on the fence, and could go either way. I do believe it is safer to have a separation of state and labor, as suggested by GDH Cole and others, leaving a smaller state to look after the consumers and general civil matters (I wouldn't mind separating the consumer council from the state).
I do however believe there should be general standards and guarantees for healthcare, schools, etc. and this would likely be best served by a partially or largely centralized unit, which is the collective ownership of all.
I would support a best of all worlds mixed socialist economy, combing centralized/decentralized collective ownership of welfare, and a combination of fully collectivized enterprises, guild socialism and mutualism within a market socialistic economy for commodities. (Though obviously the market will be insufficient even then, hence the fully collectivized enterprices, which could be under a labor council, or similar entity)
This is basically the same type of society envisioned by Gar Alperovitz. If you haven't seen his work yet you should check it out. It's all about decentralized forms of democratic ownership within a pluralistic society. The goal is to keep power at the lowest level possible and only expand when the situation calls for it. For example, local food production can be handled within each community but highways and schools can be handled at a higher level of governance. And just like you mentioned, there would be market socialism for commodities but more centralized forms of control for the essentials.
What a great conversation!
Peter is actually correct about Sweden though, in the era of COVID 19 private health care services have started putting extra strain on our health services.
I'm somewhat of a socialist. I think socialism should be the end goal, but I don't want it until government can prove it is competition, transparent, and accountable. If you nationalize the means of production before then, you are going to get a nightmare. Running a business is really hard and most businesses fail. We need to figure out how to get the right people in the right positions first. That means changing the voting system to something like top two approval voting so we have competitive elections.
"Well, actually, Communism is a stateless egalitarian free society--you know, that thing that no Communist movement has ever resulted in. It's not the situation of a state-centered planned economy, which is the situation every successful Communist movement has aimed to create."
shouts out to Peter Coffin, great channel
great dialogue also
Peter Coffin ought to have pushed back a lot harder on the Sweden counter-example.
1) Inequality has steadily been growing in Sweden and the welfare state has in fact been undergoing a slow bleed the past couple of decades. Privatization and deregulation, while not as advanced in other countries, has been a thing in Sweden too. It's just not until recently that the cracks, underreported in the Anglosphere, are showing more and more clearly.
2) Sweden (and Europe as a whole) has demonstrated the bankruptcy of social democracy. It's been giving less and less back to its citizens every year for decades now, and we see how it offers little more than bootstraps and the law of the jungle when it comes to refugees fleeing the very imperialist wars in which Western democracies are complicit. The growth of the xenophobic far-right Swedish Democrats is symptomatic of this.
3) We've also seen the Social Democrats in Sweden take a beating electorally recently. Again, this shouldn't be happening unless it weren't symptomatic of the structural inability of social democracy to effectively cope with the drive to austerity, nationalism and militarism that is imposed by capitalist globalization. The capitalist nation-state everywhere in the world buckles under the pressure, and it is precisely the most vulnerable in society who are consistently the first to feel those strains. Sweden is no exception.
4) Sweden doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is a capitalist nation-state that participates in and benefits from the imperialist world system. Like, where did you think Ikea furniture is actually built? Its well-known armaments industry also ought to more raise a lot more eyebrows on the Left than it has so far. The 20th (and now 21st) century has consistently shown that social democracy generally means "nice shiny welfare state" for enough of the population to maintain hegemony, and table scraps for the disenfranchised. But also a reminder that the Swedish police have a Roma registry in place... which aside from being blatantly racist and proto-fascist, is also illegal. So that's domestically.
Foreign policy wise? There, you have active complicity in the crimes of imperialism. Even under a more "neutral" foreign policy in the postwar period, this was the case for Sweden. That too is changing. Another reminder: Sweden has troops in Afghanistan.
You can't tame capitalism, you can only kill it.
tl;dr - the rest of imperialism does a lot of the heavy lifting so that Sweden can save up to have its welfare state. but Sweden still does some lifting of its own too. even with all that, the "Scandinavian model" has (somewhat more slowly than elsewhere to be sure) undergone the same global trend of growing austerity, inequality, privatization, deregulation, militarization, nationalism and xenophobia. social democracy is shit.