SHUT YOUR FACE! Destiny Debates Actual Justice Warrior IRL ►ua-cam.com/video/1sYl91dqVLU/v-deo.html Destiny And Farha Get Into Actual Argument w/ Erudite And PlayingWithFire ►ua-cam.com/video/WjC3jc13N7I/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
Steven you need to explain the difference between "free market" capitalism to what we have now which is "crony capitalism". If the western world went back to that we would be much better. ( it will never happen since people and elites wont ever give back the power)
5 seconds in and we're at a trash argument. try looking up what "socialism" means before you just start whining that the soviet union and maoist china ought to count as at least imperfect versions of it. they're the opposite of it (all vanguardist movements inevitably produce the opposite of socialism).
For the longest time I thought destiny was a socialist and I've been pleasantly surprised how my view of you is more moderate. I think he's slightly left of a moderate democrat, slightly right of a market socialist. I make no bones about my support of capitalism and am not willing to entertain an opinion that can't refute the market efficiency principle.
If you can't admit the glaring oversights in economics (all forms) maybe ethics isn't that important? Or it is and greed is intoxicating? Either way we forgot about that whole concept of sustainability.
Yea it’s idealized because market socialism hasn’t been tried yet Lmao only state socialism has been tried. How can we argue for real market socialism when market socialism hasn’t existed
@@Swolidarity yeah but nobody knows the history and that fact that thats not even existed in the real world yet.. all they can do to cuck themselves for the sake of the zuck or bezos is cry about how living paycheck to paycheck for 80% of americans in the wealthiest nation in history is low key giga poggers
He's not searching for truth. If that was the case, he'd dive deeper into the historical and socieconomical context of socialism and try to seek truth as to why it has always failed to be applied ethically to function properly. He's doing what every socialist is doing which is throw a bunch of ad hocs thinking their criticism of capitalism justifies their own hypothetical application of socialism in the real world which fails to address why it would do better than the current system. He should have provided a better case as to why we should experiment with it without risking other people's livelihood.
Yeah, but he's there to argue a position. In a debate setting "I don't know" is about the worst response ever. You have to come up with something to defend the opinion you're representing. I don't think those watching understand the role of a debater. They are an argument, not a person open to being won over (even if they personally are convinced of the other side's correctness.)
@@fewfwefwe4626tru but “idk” is a start and it’s a whole lot more than everyone else who shit out their mouth for 2 hrs clearly not knowing wtf they’re talking about
He has something likable, but he's verrrry naive in a sense that he claims that all the bad examples are not "true socialism", but then he judges all of capitalism when you could also argue we've never tried true unchecked capitalism. Gov' interference, crony capitalism, and mixed economies w/social programs (aka socialist policies.) is not "true capitalism", but because it is more capitalist than socialist, he considers it straight capitalism. This is where his whole paradigm is both flawed and unfair, but aside from that I agree with you. He also started out very nervous, which is fine, but man, he just emanates that academic, theoretical vibe... he talks about enormous shifts and tasks like they will just simply "happen". Thats kinda easy to say, and how is someone supposed to really respond to that..."no it wont"? lol.
Why argue for either side when you can do both? Socialism is like kickstarter for starving families... We have kickstarters for video games without crying about it. Where is your heart? lol
Socialist guy is dreaming of the day Star Trek becomes reality. But until a replicator that will create anything we want out of thin air becomes a real thing then capitalism is better.
@@uUuWolf16uUu not knowing, and lying is different. Lying is when you know the truth, and you spread misinformation, spreading misinformation because you don't know shit is ingenuity.
@@renbowo if those were really a lack of knowledge, then he should have never entered this debate. Dude literally said that co ops perform better than capitalist corporations. Hint: there is like 1 co op in the top 1% of companies. And that one is not even really a co op.
@@uUuWolf16uUu This entirely depends on how you and he define 'performs better'. If you're defining it as total market value, and he defines it as providing the most benefits to employees while remaining profitable you're using two completely different definitions and each thinking they're correct.
@@uUuWolf16uUu how do you even determine top 1% of companies? some of the largest, most well-known companies generate less profit than a lemonade stand.
Destiny is so critical of socialism, likely because the proletariat seizing the means of production, across all industries, would reach the natural conclusion that the People would realize; that Destiny is ALL girls names.
i hate how the chat immediately harps on his appearance instead of just hearing him out, he wasnt being bad faith or a bad person at all, no need to be the people we are accused of being
Just from the opening statement, this guy seems like one of the more refreshing and honest proponents of socialism: structured, substantive, and reasonably logical. Of course, I disagree with him, but props to him and I hope he continues his intellectual engagement with debates, politics, government, etc.
Coming from a socialist country, I have no respect for people with a missing understanding of the dynamics of groups with power monopoly. It will ALWAYS end in dictatorship. Always! Also, what is the problem of the European concept of social market economy. It is already the answer.
Holy shit that opening quote goes so fucking hard, "I have to deal with the realities of real capitalism, while having to argue against Idealize socialism that does not exist anywhere" So fucking to the point.
Socialists from the Marxist school follow this prediction from over a century ago about how workers will seize the means of production. But the world has changed so much, and they still follow this old model that's never even been proven. It's like a religion. Capitalism slowly raises the standard of living for a many people as possible; Marxism brings the whole society down to the level of the people who have it the worst
@@feizo That's true but capitalism can lead to social programs whereas socialist destroys and hose same social programs with time because it is not sustainable.
The way this guy described capitalist countries not wanting to trade with a socialist countries is exactly how socialist countries treat capitalist countries lol.
As a blue collar worker (production welder) there's basically nothing I want *less* than _more responsibility_ at my job. If I can show up and do my work without talking to anybody then it was a perfect day.
@@sky-magnet getting paid more for less work devalues money under any economic system, not just capitalism. When McDonald's employees make $1M for an 8 hour shift then a Big Mac is going to cost about $100,000
At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”
@TonyCox1351 this may be a little besides the point but, there used to be 100% employment in East Germany. Literally no one was unemployed, even if it was pushing a broom for 8 hours, one day out of every month. Did they achieve a goal of eradicating unemployment? Sure but did they really?
The most glaring problem with socialism is it's ability to assume humans will always do the predictable correct thing to ensure it's moral eutopia continues as intended. It doesn't take an intelligent person to understand human behaviors are often not conducive for such a system medium or long term.
You can say the same or similar about capitalism too. You always assume that capitalism leads to innovation, it leads to meritocracy blah blah but in reality it either doesn’t or leads to bad outcomes Socialism isn’t perfect, anyone who’s good faith will concede that, but it’s better than capitalism. The question comes down to which system is more likely to generate better outcomes overall and capitalism is definitely the worse of the two
@@Swolidarity"It either doesn't or leads to bad outcomes" is just ahistorical lol Just need to look at the tremendous growth of the past 300 years and universal improvement of QoL. Capitalism with its flaws has this wealth of evidence, socialism doesn't, the "reality" of it doesn't exist.
@@SwolidarityI feel like I'm cheating because the video we're watching is proof enough. But you're just wrong. Late stage capitalism has been led by bad policy and people with power not working with the rules; IE monopolies. This can be fixed with a reset and good policy that's better enforced. Since we have a great idea of what late stage capitalism looks like, tell me in good faith what late stage socialism looks like? If not evolved into communism or worse.
@@SwolidarityCapitalism works with selfish and selfless individuals. Socialism can only work if there are selfless individuals. That's why the implementation of socialism so far in history often becomes tyrannical right away. Always requires authoritarianism to barely function by forcing people to be a certain way when they won't all the time.
The problem with capitalism is the abyss. It rewards the worst behaviors and locks us in to servitude unless you sell out and become a shark. No you don't need planned obsolescence and oligopolies to run a country.
Props to this dude, his diction drove me up the wall but he's the first person in a WHILE that I've seen that was civil, was open to changing his mind, and was generally good faith across the board. Good on him!
Extremely impressed with Destiny's charitability and characterisation of the opposing side. Especially near the end in the Q&As when he is steelman-ing and making fairly good points for democratisation of workplaces (or at least combating bad arguments against it). It certainly changed my own perspective on the matter. The socialist here was also very good-faith, I do feel like he lacked any real-world applications/experience for his ideas which make them difficult to agree with. However, it is clear that this individual genuinely wants to see positive change in the world and is open to alternative ideas and views. I commend him for taking on the debate and hope to see him again one day.
This was a far better conversation than generally happen in these debates. Both of them were able to actually hear each other instead of doubling down just to 'win' the debate. Awesome stuff. :)
Big ups for conceding and admitting when you don’t know something. I wish more people had their ego in check enough to manage this. If results in a conversation actually being fruitful and not just word games to see who can confuse their opponent
@@WhatsTheTakeaway You don't need to know every single possible rhetorical position of whatever group you are a part of. That is absurd, especially when someone produces a novel idea to counter it where then you haven't taken to the time to think it through properly. YOU do not know everything in all of your views either. Its much better for him to be honest and say he hasn't thought about it, than to lie, obsfuscate, ignore, goalpost shift, etc. And not thinking through every single detail of your belief does not indicate their belief is wrong or "failed". Someone can believe in heliocentric round earth, then when a person produces some random thing like olber's paradox, which you may not have researched before hand, that is then twisted into flat earth geocentric evidence, you are caught off guard. But, because you didn't HAPPEN to think about olber's paradox as a counter, then you have no counter for it. But it doesn't mean the earth is now flat and the position is automatically failed. That's an incredibly simplistic way to view debates and discussions, and is responsible for a lot of what is wrong in america with the us vs them mentality.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Thats just called not having a point. Not knowing an aspect or counterargument to a hypothetical/counter is not the same as having no argument to begin with. Don't be silly
im german and extremely glad that im old enough to have experienced one of the "best" planned socialist economy that ever existed: east Germany. not only did i whitnessed people being forced to work for NOTHING in return. not voluntarily: FORCED TO WORK FOR NOTHING IN RETURN. i have seen people saving up money for a decade to buy something that takes 16years to deliver (Trabbi, Wartburg). in one of the most prosperous socialist systems that ever existed. have you ever stood in line for 2 hours to look at an empty shelf? and on your way back you see the "Kaufhaus des Westens" that has full shelfs of stuff you never heard of and that you can't even afford becuase they only take westmark and no bank in your sh*thole of a country will exchange your worthless money for it because it gets more worthless every single minute? and you see the champagne socialists in the shop buying western toys for their children, the same ones that tell you to not trust capitalists pigs and hold you inside an open air prison where they can torture you in a blacksite when you express reality? well, i have. and i don't miss it one bit.
another funny anecdote: when you wonder why everybody was standing in line to see an empty shelf but nobody said anything, everybody knew that half of the people present were informants for the government. the moment you complain you land on a list. it doesn't matter if the complain was valid. if you were on this list your whole family couldn't travel, you could not exchange money and you were 1 complaint away from being tortured. nobody told you but you knew.
@@SabracadabrO yeah, its like: you don't even know where to start to explain really how sh*tty it was to live under socialism. instead of black and white TV i would say it was like living in darkness with no ray of light. its unimaginable for me now, how do you explain that to milennials that think free speech is fascism? you need so much context to really explain how bleak it was.
@@SabracadabrO im not so sure about that. the olympics were just another way to use propaganda and nationalism to show the "superiority" of socialism. by any means necessary: State prescribed Doping, concealing men so they can compete against women, only letting people into the stands that were faithful to the party line... even the Olympics were a big eye opener for me. yes, the end of socialism and the warsaw pact was inevitable. but there is a reason it worked as long as it has. some people profited greatly from it while most suffered. but most people were afraid of repercussions because every opinion, every action caused a reaction. when "they" told me something i would believe it because not believeing it had repercussions and they came in stages. shameful? absolutely. but i had no option, i couldn't trust my own family to rat me out. its a very powerful system in itself.
@@MrHellweasel im always glad when i hear that. that means they don't even know the horrors of socialism and i wouldn't wish my worst enemy to live under its rules. the blissful ignorance of an idealistic worldview that is not mainstream and the right to express your opinion. something that was unthinkable. never again, absolutely.
This is a really interesting evolution of "that wasnt real socialism". We've made it all the way to "socialism has never existed, and also nobody knows wtf it is or how it would work, it's impossible to guess what it would look like, but whatever it is it's absolutely way better than capitalism."
This is by far my favorite comment and I felt the same way through the entire video it’s like OK so this guy has absolutely no idea how any of the mechanisms or modes of motivation are that would ever solve any of the problems that Socialism says that it might solve in a capitalist society. He has absolutely no clue what it would look like or how it would work or how these types of motivations word manifest themselves. He has absolutely no idea what any of it would look like in any facet of any sort of economy ever and has no idea how to get any of them actually going in the direction that he wants to, but Socialism is totally better because
He also says it would be good to "force" socialism, a system that he claims will organically evolve it if the current system. I can't give credit to anyone actually debating something they know nothing about and can't explain without contradicting themselves. Debates are for ideas that can be articulated, I wouldn't have a problem with this guy expressing his hopes and dreams for humanity, but he's arguing that he and other ideologues would be morally right to use "force" on their neighbors in order to change the way things work.
My dad worked at one of the largest co-ops in America when I was growing up, and the truth of the matter is that worker co-ops are not that different than corporations in practice. They still have their corporate executive boards. Those people make all of the rules. They still make millions while the employees just 1 rank below them are only making hundreds of thousands. One of the biggest memes that leftists have is that worker co-ops will somehow bring us closer to socialism, when really all that it does is codify capitalism.
They always point to Mondragon, but it still has an overarching corporate structure. And one of the primary reasons that Norway's Statoil was successful during the economic/oil downturn in 07/08, unlike Venezuela, is that they have a corporate structure and diversified holdings.
@@aimless_aimer7936sounds like an excuse. We have to take reality as evidence in the debate. If worker coops can still be shit, then we can’t hold them up as a good standard when the corporation is so flexible and adept at getting results.
@@evelynashe8701 Which is why they're not entrusted with any responsibility at that age. They haven't lived enough even to realize socialism is a crock.
The thing about getting older, is you tend to stop viewing the world the way you want it to be, and start viewing it as it actually is. That's why people tend to get more conservative as they get older.
@@markzuckergecko621 People get more conservative with age, but people also get more wealthy with age on average, something that much more directly correlates with conservative party alignment. You're more likely to vote for lower taxes and benefits if the costs are coming out of your income rather than someone else's.
@@Dementia.Pugilistica This type of mirrored thinking is wrong. Capitalism has long benefited from socialist countries, and so have socialist countries with capitalist countries. There is not one can opt-in, and other doesn’t opt-in. Profit-incentive options have remained in-part with socialist countries, and you also have capitalists in socialist countries like China.
@mesh01550 of course you can opt in but not opt out of socialism. Socialism is controlled by the largest or most overarching jurisdiction that entities are required to follow. Socialist societies require the rules of socialism to be observed in all familial, commercial and communal structures, but under capitalism not all family, business and communal structures are required to be capitalistic. There is nothing preventing people in capitalist societies from pooling resources and running a community that has socialized prescriptions or internal rules, or a privatized company structure that runs like a defacto government within the constrains of the prevailing federal and lesser jurisdictional laws, or a family structure with social requirements to be part of the household. There are communes that do this all over the USA and Canada. There are CO-OPs. There are family structures that may follow a socialized form of internal government whereby parents decide to partition resources equivalently, decide tasks of the children according to top down decision-making, fund them the same, dissalow them from owning property, etc etc. The opposite is not be true because any of these smaller entities would be required under socialist guidelines to construct themselves under guidelines that are not encompassing of capitalist guidelines. I didn't make an argument that capitalist countries and socialist countries haven't benefited from or harmed each other and don't see how that's relevant to what I said. Profit-focused models of socialist countries may exist, but they exist to make profit for the state not the private individual or as pooled resources at best which has all the same issues pointed at capitalist greed perhaps more so because we are dealing with a collective greed, which are crucial non-equivalencies. China is a mixed economy and is not a good example of a socialist country as socialists argue for (idealized socialism). It is also markedly more corrupt than any western country...
@@Dementia.Pugilisticain theory, yes you could opt out of socialism. In a socialist country you could theoretically have a commune that doesn’t pay into the system and doesn’t get paid out of it. Not saying it’s realistic, but none of socialism is realistic.
I tell you what. I may not agree with Leo, but he gets my respect for debating with decorum and didn’t try to sneakily slight and he didn’t use socially charged words. I appreciate that young man. Wish him nothing but the best
Firmly with Tiny on this one, but huge props to Leo - he’s an impressive advocate and did a great job articulating his points. Really enjoyed watching this.
I’ve watched about an hour and ten minutes into this and I’m left slightly dissatisfied. For those who believe and know capitalism to be the best economic system to date, here is how you argue it. Under socialism, money either loses some or all of its value. This has immense consequences and completely alters or eliminates incentive structures required in order to keep our society functional. The truth is, many jobs are neither fun nor fulfilling, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t necessary. Under a socialist system where the incentive of earning a higher wage is lost, certain essential jobs will never be filled. Who will work on an Oil Rig or in Coal Mines etc? These are jobs that nobody wants to do but are entirely necessary in order for our modern societies to maintain a high quality of life. The monetary incentive is what drives an influx of workers into these professions. When you disrupt that incentive, the workforce diminishes. This is one of the many reasons why “socialist” states devolve into authoritarianism. Essential jobs do not get done, the government recognizes this and forces people to do them. Not to mention that some people are better suited for certain jobs than others. Is it efficient for the government to assign work to an unqualified worker? The more you try to understand the ramifications of such a system, the more market inefficiencies begin to reveal themselves. I will confess that the potential for an artificial workforce makes things more complicated and a universal basic income could potentially be necessary. That said, I believe the ultimate goal of capitalism is to provide incentives in order to continue to raise our collective quality of life. AI, along with countless other technologies invented under capitalistic systems, have undoubtedly done exactly that.
Why does money lose its value under socialism? You seem to be describing a system with no inequality of income, but the labor theory of value doesn't remove that inequality, it changes how those incentives are determined and how resources are distributed.
@@humanmerelybeing1966if the 10’s of thousands of people working in the energy sector are engaging in profit sharing then there will be a vast amount of people with LOTS of money and if that is seen in other industries then the value of money will decrease and there would be high levels of inflation. That would need to be supplemented by heavy government regulation and well done you just made the precursor to every other socialist authoritarian government. If the energy sector has profit sharing why tf would you work for a small business, etc. it won’t work that way
That intro just clicked for me, because it summarizes EXACTLY the issues I have when debating against many socialists and communists online (I also debate other groups fyi). It's always the current existing and flawed capitalist nations and systems I need to defend or justify against theoretical and nonexistent communist utopias. They literally use the classic lines of "TRUE communism does so-and-so", while responding to me saying "But this capitalist system in America does so-and-so". This really opened my eyes. I'm gonna need to keep this in mind next time someone brings it up
As a socialists I see the opposite. Trying to conceive a system that will perfectly solve all the issues and will have to be as complex as reality. Its also called utopistic a lot because trying to do so pushes people to arguing for perfect system. While the capitalist can just point at the system and say "it works" we cannot as there was never a global socialist economy. What kinds of effect it might have is literary impossible to conceive, but somehow that is what people ask of us. Show us your world before we can make it. This also often happens in broad general discussions and not in actual conversations as you can simple ask what people accept. Is the capitalist arguing for the exact copy of the system in the USA? is the Socialist arguing for the copy of USSR? Most often they do not, making them both less dependent on the realities and more on theoretical explanations.
@@lexter8379 I think you just kinda proved his point, "there was never a global socialist economy" = that wasn't true socialism. The fact of the matter is we have seen the attempt to implement socialism and each time it has ended up in disaster.
@@Banisowicz What? That is a fact. Even if you say that everything ever called socialism was socialism, it was never global as is capitalism now. Also, my point was about how I feel from the opposite side and not much else. Also "trying to implement socialism" is pretty vague. To be more precise it would be something like this. "One of the socialistic ideologies that tried to implement socialism was Marxist-Leninism and failed to do so and instead created a none socialistic different system that a lot of other state replicated," There is a common misconception that all the ML states wanted socialism, no they wanted ML system (which was not socialism by definition). They didn't care about some ideals or "we will make it work" they simply wanted a system that rapidly industrialize and defends them from capitalist exploitation. You can use this argument against people who want ML type system. But its not an argument against worker control.
@@lexter8379I think it's reasonable to provide a strong argument for toppling the existing world order, yes. "Well we don't know what's going to happen because we haven't tried it" works fine for a controlled science experiment but when you are asking for a throwing out of an old order and establishing a new, yes people are going to want some reassurance. "It should work better" does not make me want to donate my private property to the neighborhood collective. Which is probably why most revolutions (all kinds, not just socialist) are so bloody.
Actually liberalism is not bad .Left wing liberalism sucks.But your classical liberal of free speech and freedoms that make America great are not bad Dave Rubin is one such individuals.
I like how whenever Destiny brings up the fact that under socialism workers could vote in favor of things that would earn them more money, even if it were to hurt the environment or just over produce goods, his response is that he doesn't think they will. As if all greed will just disappear under socialism, like its not a feature of human nature.
Right, because the underlying belief of socialists is that the only reason why people like money is because capitalism forces them to. When in reality, as the gentlemen from the audience asked around 1:18:00 or so, the desire for resources, even in abundance, is human nature. A socialistic system won’t magically make people only want what they need as opposed to taking anything they can get their grubby little hands on. Capitalism naturally evolved because it’s best suited to match the pursuit of resources. If socialism were to take hold, the pursuit of resources would remain the exact same, but the ability to do so would be hindered.
Appealing to human nature isn’t super effective imo but humans also have altruistic tendencies it’s not exclusively greed. It’s not an unreasonable opinion to hold to think that workers would vote for things that benefit society long term, especially in a more cooperative society by and large.
@@samuelbailey2000i mean, we could just look at the places that have moved in a more socialist direction and see what the outcomes were, and inevitably (see: every single time), greed and corruption actually seemed to exacerbate, not disappear. I know the western socialists response is typically to think "BUT IF I was the one leading the socialist revolution, we'd do it properly!!" but that's pretty short sighted. Especially since most western socialists emotional dislike for capitalism springs from a hate and jealousy of the rich, not a love for the poor. (Not saying youre like this, but many definitely are). The experiment has been run, unfortunately
@@martymcfly88mph35 Right, but the system he was advocating for didn’t include a revolution or a vanguard. I don’t think the argument holds up when the people we’re talking about aren’t holding more power than the people next to them. I do think that greed is more inevitable when small groups of people take control of the government for some sort of greater good. But that is not the argument. The point is that assuming workers would be willing to vote for things for the betterment of society on average. Which could be wrong, but I don’t think is an unreasonable or damaging assumption to make.
@@samuelbailey2000 You still see greed happen when ballot measures are put out and people vote to expand spending even when the state or city does not have the funds for it. The size of the group does not change the jealousy or greed. If all the coops were paid the same, why would one coop not vote to work less hours? If the coops are not paid the same, then why would the people that wanted more try to go to a different coop or start a different one? I would argue history showcases humans tend to be greedy and jealous, and I think the reason why capitalism works as a system of economic organization is because it harnesses those aspects of human nature to further efficient production. If humans were not greedy or jealous, then capitalism would not be as effective at running markets as other systems of economic organization. If human nature was as this large assumption stated, I think capitalism would not exist and I would use the success of capitalism to reject that assumption.
I was worried the comments on him were all gonna be shitting on him for getting 'stumped' like the chat was during the stream. It's nice to see people are supporting him for saying 'I don't know'. I think political conversations would be a lot easier if more people were comfortable saying those three words
I think he means that if you put out things like universal healthcare and other socialist solutions - given democratic support - then the public will be less dogmatized against it and be open to more. That’s an organic rise. There are alot of Americans who are open to a Medicare for all for example, especially when it is broken down to them. Just like how the NHS cannot be removed, only improved bc the UK public wants it despite being staunchly anti socialist for decades.
@@TriggeringOpinionsandFacts I see no reason why universal healthcare would be considered socialism at all. In a capitalist society having clear and established rules that make markets predictable and making working in a capitalist society worthwhile is a very capitalist thing to do.
@@CrestOfArtoriaswell it isnt but any actual socialist system would have nationalized healthcare. It's like saying that lettuce is not a burger but it's still a necessary part of building a burger if that makes sense
Socialism won't happen "organically", just like how democracy has never happened "organically"....it will require some sort of upheaval to overthrow the status quo.
Something I always notice in these more formal debates is destiny's opening statement is always super concise. I think it makes him come across much better.
The reason i'm not a socialist is because we don't need to make capitalism illegal for socialism to exist. Nothing is stopping socialists from getting together and forming coops, there's nothing stopping socialists from existing in the current system. But more often then not they choose not to, and in many cases popular advocates of socialism are some of the most ruthless capitalists.
As a "tech worker", who makes a healthy six figure salary, I can say I do think about these things, and I'm 100% happy with our capitalist mode of operation.
I don’t think socialists realize how much of an insult it is to say working class people don’t have time to think about what’s best for them so I’ll do it
As if we dont think during work either. Like the 98% of working class people from doctors to warehouse workers wakeup, turn on work consciousness, and then black out for 9-10 hours. Then when we get home, we switch on our other consciousness, get overwhelmed with life, and me no think no more, me go to sleep, and maybe me think on weekend. LOL He just cant assume people just reject your system, and are in no way shape or form interested in your pipe dream. Hasan and Vaush have both made similar statements of you just dont know any better, sometimes hoisted with the language of also just theyre too busy to think. Its condescending and idiotic. I dont work in a coal mine. Im listening to audible and podcast for 8 - 10 hours a day at work. Im fortunate, but its not some super upper working class job I have (Doctors for instance have for less time to just enjoy listening to frank sinatra at work than I do. lol). All I do is think think think think think. It drives me nuts. I wish i could activate a consciousness that just goes on autopilot, does everything right in life, and every 4 months i can pop back in and fuck around. LMAO
I disagree with both of you on the idea that people should be forced to provide for others that are either unwilling or unable to provide for themselves.
Biggest crossroad in the socialism vs capitalism debate. Socialists think they are entitled to survival, even if that means someone else has to fund it. Complete insanity that so many people think that way.
My favorite critique of socialism is Thaddeus Russell's. The main problem of socialism is that no one would want to show up to the meetings. There are always going to be try hards but as someone who is in a union, most people don't care, just want to do their job and go home and not vote on company policy.
Exactly and then eventually it would end up like an HOA, where there is a couple of hard-core prominent and influential people, dictating the rules and regulations over the entire system over all of the employees who supposedly have an equal and fair say, but like you said in a union a lot of people don’t care and don’t show up to the meetings so the people that do it will dictate policy just like in a capitalist system a CEO, CFO, and other executive titles would do. They would be a select few people at the top making decisions for everyone else and I feel like 50 or 100 years down the socialist economic ladder. You would see the exact same problems that capitalism has because humans inevitably will make decisions that are better for them and worse for others.
I learned some things during this debate..it’s nice to see to reasonable guys defend and concede there positions…vs a Hasan Piker and Matt Walsh spewing generalizations,hyperbole and insults at each other
Opening statement: "Owning private property is only a 300 year old idea" "Labor theory of value" "Nationalize everything" "Capitalism isnt evil" "Capitalism guarentees the starvation of 7 million people annually" Well congrats Destiny on winning the debate before it starts
We are not seeing capitalism cracking, we are seeing statism cracking. If capitalists are not overproducing food, then when disasters happen that cause shortages, people starve. A lot of people starve around the world because of dictators in their country. Environmentalism is also not a market failure, in fact it's quite profitable to preserve resources.
I wish more socialist and communist would give their ideas for certain topics and discussions. Instead of them reffering to pre made definitons like marxist ideas. Saying you don't know is a better option then saying something stupid, but the best option would be to have atleast some general idea of how you think things should work.
Exactly. He’s been getting a lot of praise for saying I don’t know (rightfully so), but it’s quite a problem if the advocates for socialism are unable to answer CORE economic questions such as “how would janitor unions advocate for themselves against the interest of other unions” to paraphrase. I’m glad he was honest, but to not have a solid answer to that question is quite worrying. Under capitalism it’s as simple as “pay what you’re willing to, and if both parties agree that’s that.” Socialism seems to want to add a layer of ‘fairness’ to this, but it’s utterly ineffective to attach an economic system to something so subjective.
Again, how can he simultaneously argue that change by force is necessary and that his preferred economic system (again, implemented by force) is more democratic? 🤯
My guys, you gotta start by defining capitalism and socialism. Especially in the case of the latter, as socialism-apologists always rely on definition-creep, and usually get away with it.
There's a co-op near where I live. They sell a number of organic naturally sourced foods and are very conscientious of their impact on the environment. I thought they were a fantastic store. A little while ago however it came out that one of the multiple owners had SA'd a female employee of theirs, and because he had an equal stake in the company as everyone else, they decided to cover it up instead of addressing it and firing him (like what would have happened if it were a capitalist company.)
See, and that is another problem with Socio markets, and that is FA majority of that cooperative market are doing some thing that is detrimental to not only the market in existence, but the society as well absolutely nothing will change because majority rules, and if the majority are looking out for their own best interest which all of human history says that humans do then nothing will change, but in a capitalist top down authoritative company that society can choose to basically forced against the majority change
With his first sentence, I could tell that the socialist was unprepared. He began by defining capitalism as the economic system in which the means of production is owned privately. The problem is that labor is part of the means of production. So, if socialism is a system where the means of production is not owned privately, then, in socialism, our labor is owned by someone else. From the jump, he is saying that socialism is slavery. A capitalist would certainly agree with that assessment, but the socialist is supposed to (somehow) create a pro-socialism argument.
What strikes me as odd about the whole socialism debate is the fact that no one is stopping anyone from doing any of this. Look at the Amish as a very real example of how extreme you can go if you really want to. The part I hate is where others try to force others into their system. If it works and it’s so great, it will of course succeed to the point where it overtakes worse forms of economic systems.
Because none of them wants to be the one who actually bothers enacting change. Now, there's arguments to be made about the fact that the model we have now will become untenable in the pong run, and will require some collectivization of resources. But the truth is, all these supposed socialists on the internet are the literal spawn if late stage capitalism in action. And by that I mean they are comfortable, middle class people who don't kniw what hunger looks like, who had all the privileges of high education, who know take their existential boredom of the modern age due to not having actually concrete problems to fix for themselves and take comfort and self satisfaction in criticizing systems built and sustained by others, without any intention of staking their own comforts and lifestyle on where their mouths are. They elevated it to an art. Just say "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism" and then proceed to live exactly as you are now because apparently that doesn't make you a hypocrite. They don't want to enact socialism, they want ti have something to wail against, si they can feel like good people for fighting the good fight, but it has to be something big enough for them not to be held responsible to do anything themselves, like the economic system of the entire bloody world. They want someone else to come up with rhe way to do it, they want someone else to get their hands dirty in doing it, they want someone else to suffer the consequences and bear the burden of their idiot ideas, they want someone else to fix all the problems that they were too busy ideologuing to actually figure out would inevitably come up. The only socialist revolution any of them would actually enact is one where one day they're sitting comfortably at their desk living like capitalist pigs scrolling their phones made from slave labor, and the next day they walk out the door into a magically premade, already working utopia where every single problem of the human condition has been already fixed and where they can now take their place in the elite intellectual class that has brought on the revolution, where they can go on living the same privileges they already had before. That's what they want. Those that aren't just straight up grifting at least
Right, socialists argue that the only reason why people desire profit is because capitalism forces them to. But people have ALWAYS (and likely will always) wanted as many resources as possible. Socialism isn’t going to magically make everyone think “oh I’ll just take what I need, and more more thanks”.
"rather than fix the fixables of capitalism I propose we try something that is shown to be rotten from the outset and devolves very quickly into something that has people running back to capitalism!"
You’re all praising him for saying “I don’t know” but that was the most critical part of his proposed solution. It’s commendable to admit not knowing but him not knowing had no impact on him. His confidence in the position was unchanged. That’s not truth seeking. That’s arbitrary ideological attachment to an idea.
Not necessarily. I disagreed with him as well but you can have support for an idea where there are still things to be figured out. Not exactly the same but kind of like how I might support green energy even though it still has a lot of unknowns and needs more eyeballs/research/development before it’ll be ready for prime time.
@@Finallegend_right, but if the thing you don’t know is integral to the system itself, that’s a big problem. It would be like if I proposed a new classroom style where all of the students get to decide whatever they want to learn to ensure everyone is engaged with their learning, and someone asked me “what happens if they decide to not learn?” And your solution to that was “I don’t know”. That’s how I personally see how this conversation went. Not knowing every fine detail is expected, not being able to answer how the economy would function when two unions with competing ideas of fairness would interact is a big problem.
I've always found capitalism vs socialism to be a weird discussion topic. One is an economic system, while the other is somewhat of an economic system, but mostly a political system. The discussion should be liberalism vs socialism.
I would argue that socialism, as debated in contexts like this, is largely an economic system but would require political movement. In other words, I think capitalism vs socialism is a more direct debate topic to what people actually care about as opposed to liberalism vs socialism.
I don't know much about economic systems and I haven't read shit on Marxism or anything. Finally I hear a socialist talking where I don't immediately know that my limited knowledge is more than they can comprehend. I've heard so many Hasan type arguments etc, I legitimately think this is the first time in my life that I've heard a socialist go "capitalism isn't evil and has its advantages". He also quoted some ideas from Marx, but he didn't quite them as some appeal, he used it to explain his own position that was influenced by Marx not pretending like the other person just has too agree with him. Idk who this guy is, but he's more intelligent and more honest than 90% of people I hear online even outside of economic systems, props to him
As soon as 2 laborers are making the same wage no matter how hard they work, there is no incentive to work harder than the other and they both start in working each other until all progress stops.
I love how people think greed isn’t a traditional human trait and that people won’t find ways to game ANY fucking system they are placed within, including those implementing and enforcing the rules. You can’t negate human falacy, all systems will have breaks and loopholes regardless of what we feel like the ideal system is. It will be gamed to benefit some more than others.
Yea, I've been shutting socialists down with this for years. Climate change, for instance. What would stop a group of like 100 people from deciding that they could make money much quicker by ignoring the damage they're doing to the environment, and vote to do it? Honestly, the convo is starting to bore me, just because it often ends with "well, I'm not even really a socialist". Fucking lol.
So far I haven't seen a single debate where an educated capitalist and an educated socialist debate each other, without the socialist inevitably lacking an adequate answer for "how" their ideas can be implemented and maintained. There's always an important detail they cannot account for.
It’s because none of them will ever just say “we will force you at gunpoint to be socialist” because they all try to act like hippie power of the people assholes
The premise of the debate itself doesn't make any sense. If the debate was about specific concrete policies such as preferential treatment towards worker cooperatives, labor rights, nationalization of industries, etc. the debate would have more substance, but instead, the debate devolves into the socialist side making broader philosophical and ethical critics about the current state of capitalism and the capitalist side acknowledging those critiques but dismissing them because its not practical to achieve those ethical goals in the real world.
You don’t think the problem of answering “how” existed under feudalism for capitalism? It’s difficult to answer such a question for a relatively new economic system idea.
Steven needs to brush up on critiques of democracy. Democracy is not an inherent good. In most of life we do not want democracy, we want private decision making over private ownership. You don't want your neighbors deciding very much over what you can do. This was the heart of classical liberalism, that people ought to be free from coercion in their own lives.
I love the way all nuance evaporates in these discussions. No society is solely capital or solely socialistic. There’s a blend and the blend lines are where we should debate. A better investment from and in workers is definitely required to make working conditions better. The best jobs tend to have unions. Unions tend to be socialist.
During the debate I asked a question (57:35): "Question for Destiny: why do you support unions if they are inherently anti-capitalist?" Destiny's answer was not clear from my perspective
@@alelzarterl212 yeah it’s interesting. If I was gonna steelman him I’d say that he sees the unions as not anti capitalism but as push back within the capitalist system. That might be unions but it also might be individual wage demands or entrepreneurs or collective bargaining via boardroom takeover etc etc. the trouble is the capitalism n it’s purest form doesn’t figure any push back. The push back comes from opposing ideologies so that I think you’re correct in questioning destiny’s seeming and uncharacteristic lack of nuance here. He seems to dismiss the socialist movements influence on unions and the fact, imho, that without socialism injected into the free market model you don’t get fair workers rights. The best example in history I can give is the British workers arc from 1860 to 1960. 1860 workers were seen as expendable and if they lost their lives they were relaxed by another desperate human being. Kids were used for jobs so dangerous that the result of an accident was being mashed and diced inside of a mechanical loom. By 1960 the input of socialism had almost reached a point where, men at least, had a healthy wage and their lives were generally held in a higher regard. This wasn’t solely socialist in its evolution but it was the biggest proportion of influence. Manchester (U.K.) science ad industry museum is such a great source of history for this. Combined with the slavery aspect you ca fail to come away realising that in human beings are left without regulation then they do the most heinous acts and that religion and capitalism can be the justification catalyst and the fuel to commit them.
@@schenksteven1that’s not true. Planned economies and communist economies can have unions. These types of economies have the same possibility of abusing workers rights. You can’t really have unions in a dictatorship if the dictator is a tyrant. “The All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is the national trade union center of the People's Republic of China. It is the largest trade union in the world with 302 million members in 1,713,000 primary trade union organizations. The ACFTU is divided into 31 regional federations and 10 national industrial unions.”
@@Theactivepsychos Sorry, I should have been more precise... you are technically correct. What I should have said is that "unions that have any functional power are not possible in a marxist society." Obviously you can have groups called unions in a command economy, they just can't have any actual negotiating power, otherwise it's not a command economy, de facto.
@kabine1 I have concussive evidence as of watching further. If you skip to just before 59.00 you will see the true perpetrator trying to cover his shame with a cough. Unfortunately, it's not destiny.
I want to ask Leo what the incentive is to invent anything under his system. Democratic ownership of property means that anything you invent cannot be used for your own profit, but will immediately be seized in order that the benefits accrue to mostly everyone but the inventor. Why would any inventor want to live in such a system?
The food market is one of the most regulated and subsidized, perhaps that's why overproduction occurs and perhaps food being a necessary element to survival effects the overproduction of food because we get a psychic benefit from having extra food.
@@EricTitansSmith The online left is like a big social group that follows left ideas, and alot of the time they act in ways that are insane. Its easy to want to regect the group and move away from it due to this, and thats kind of what destiny has done, however that has nothing to do with how valid the ideas themselves are. If the ideas on the left are the best ideas, but the groups that hold them are insane, its really important to have sane individuals defending the ideas while condemning the groups for their irrationality and bad actions. Alot of conservitism rides on the idea that people on the left are insane, and that we should therefore go to the right where people live in reality. Destiny kind of hacks this by also focusing on the insanity of people on the left, but then subverts this with the alternative narrative that the left is actually the correct side, and that leftist groups are crazy and we should fight to make them better by making good examples of ourselves while condemning/exposing other crazy leftists.
@@damx9385 Online left is an idea that can be put to rest. 300k people didn't show up to the capital screaming from the river to the sea online. BLM weren't torching virtual businesses. Also, the left have some ideas I love. Why should that be where I align politically. Does execution mean nothing? Does the ability to preserve what already exist not a factor? I would deduce that if the only thing you like about their politics are ideas, maybe take those ideas to whever competent non activist human are.
I feel bad for this kid. He seems to have nothing of substance to work with. Destiny's audience is so sweet too. Very generous with the credit (which is deserved at a lower magnitude than I've read here). It seems to show that people are just starved for people who don't speak in bad faith.
@Destiny 1 complaint. The mics of debators were well caliberated. But the mic used by the anouncer/live-audience wasn't, kinda the same problem you pointed out with L-Asan's mic, where it cuts off in the middle of speaking, I don't remember the technical term, but the mic is less sensitive or something like that. You guys prolly didn't have problems listening, cause you guys were in the same room, but very bad experience for the internet viewers.
"5 million die of starvation every year" reminds me of that insanely dishonest meme that socialists like to toss around where literally none of the citations reference capitalism as the source/cause of deaths related to hunger, starvation, of thirst. The real fact of the matter is that areas without strong property rights, ie. capitalistic regions/nations, tend to lead the world in spades in these kinds of deaths.
"I don't think people under a socialist economy would be chasing profits." Based on what evidence do he have for this statement? All of human history suggests otherwise. lol Everything this guy says is hopes and dreams. For anything he's predicting it would literally require all human nature to change. For people to want less, be nicer, give more. That's not going to happen magically.
Yeah, socialists seem to be under the impression that we only want money because we’re worried we’ll die otherwise, so if we fix that no one will care about money anymore. Humans have always pursued resources-and always more than what they need. It’s not like if a farmer has 100 acres of land he’ll say “oh I only need 10 acres to feed myself, so I’ll just not plant any more seeds than that.” All economic systems function to generate resources, and distribute excess resources. Socialists seem to think that they’ll magically produce exactly what they need and no more, and everyone will be happy with that.
"It's a tad ironic to refer to it as a more democratic system when certain ideologies are not only necessarily incompatible with the state, they would be banned from certain forms of economic participation as well." - Destiny Right, I forgot that when we made it illegal for people to murder one another we became a less democratic society.... Spot on logic, Destiny.
Damn, i see so much of myself in this guy. It feels like I'm watching myself 2 years ago trying to debate market socialism before finally swallowing the liberal pill on things. I think if he keeps on track to pursuing intellectual honesty over idealism he'll come around to seeing just how much better liberal economics is over any of the 31 different flavors of socialism or whatever that exist.
Curious, what pushed you to that realization? Was this a single moment or a gradual process? Particular thinkers or particular issues? Fascinated how that process works if you would indulge me.
Elementary bs aside, which I consider the majority of the subject, I struggle most with the dissonance near the end regarding the "overproduction of food". Unlike a mechanical line wherein it's conception, operation and product is an output of multi-layered calculation, organic growth is inherently the wood to this marble. With all our sciences and chemical manipulations in effect, there is still by natural laws anomalous variables restricting the precision factor. One grows an orchard, one must collect the produce. We would not hinder the bounty of the harvest only to maintain agreeable figures as this should be expected to compensate for a productive deficit elsewhere. Unsure of where to find academic information on this specifically, I'm sure some university is being paid to conduct the research; overproducing would be a factor in propagation of biomatter contributing to a nutrient economy at surface level, more seeds, more wildlife access to discarded units, biodegrading compost to sustain healthy bacteria and molds, etc. One could make an argument for efficient storage and consumption of higher-chain dietary options, possibly a surtax on un-eaten portions when eating out (I have seen this at some sushi places). Overproduction is undeniably systematically the sensible option vs famine so the if the issue is waste, controls on production are a fallacy as we had seen in post-soviet perestroika, and the improvements are to be made in preservation and distribution. No we will not grow pineapples in Maine, so the transit in produce is unavoidable. At the face level, we also cannot deny people calories they need in prescribed rations without cause; no matter how women rationalize, working men require more food and among them, some more than others. Access to food, and the harmony at which which it is efficiently consumed is therefore a highly complex problem beyond political argument hopefully technological progress will have the breadth of computation to solve. Governmental imposition on the food supply chain should only be in effect of an AI nutritionist/grocery assistant/cooking instructor connected to a smart itemization of the contents of your refrigerator to employ a better culture of food preparation and utilization. Optional, but adequately proficient in reducing spending on food which will not be eaten in due time. On a side note, after many years of consideration on the subject of landfills, I can't shake the possibility there is an undisclosed reason for the generation of waste. I no longer view paper products as trash as much as litter. The amalgamation of waste would require a proportion of matter conducive to it's degradation, so perhaps the millions of napkins, the millions of tons of lettuce and tomatoes and bananas are a more clever way of tilling designated dump sites than most understand. Da Urf will be a much better natural actor in absorbing discarded matter than we will arguably. inb4 muh planet!; if you halfwits were interested in ecology as you feign, you would recognize the unfathomable effort in reversing the pollution of the seas with it's exponentially grander molecular density. To filter out contaminants in place of "lolcarbon" which never was shit to spook you with a percentage amplification which still isn't shit, which would boost foliage growth, which would be a greener land you may then find uncomfortable in your ignorance. As we do not control the sun - God in most iterations of religion - the ruse to condemn you to less because you may accept it is all on you. [The last statement assumes you can bring yourself to accept solar radiation is the paramount factor of climate change, that we are ants or smaller in scale of planetary vegetation, and you will allow yourself to feel as insignificant as you really are, respectively].
Debating against the idealistic viewpoint of a system is impossible. Every system works in theory. The problems come when the system is actually applied. Every example of socialism applied has failed miserably. Everyone loving each other and sharing money sounds great, but when applied it’s failed every time.
I feel like if I believed what this socialist believes, I would just sit back and wait for socialism. Since you can't force it, you don't know what it will look like, we are bound to evolve into it, and the incentives aren't currently there for it now.
The quote about privilege and equality should absolutely NOT be applied to factory workers vs engineers. Engineers frequently put in years of work to get to where they are. You can typically train a factory worker within a few months. There's a reason the work is more valuable and the workers are more valued and thus compensated more highly. If the factory workers want to make more money, they should develop a skill.
Not sure if this comes up, since I’m at 1:05:10 right now, but the transition from feudalism to mercantilism to liberal capitalism was not always peaceful and organic, and I’m surprised the socialist debater is letting that point go considering how important the concept of revolution is to Marx.
Government policy like the enclosure acts in England was important to the development of industrial capitalism (the system Marx was responding to.) Additionally, from a socialist perspective, I’m surprised the “bourgeois revolutions” haven’t been brought up at all yet. I’m not a socialist, but I think the socialist debater is not putting the best foot forward for socialism on these points.
Yeah really like this guy’s willingness to admit his side’s shortcomings. I think the issue is that like any other economic system, capitalism has immense problems, but has the unique advantage of being able to sustain itself for a long time without requiring tons of authoritarian influence to keep it going. It does so because it just generates so much wealth. The biggest problems for me are the political instability created by large inequalities even if the overall standard of living is higher, the fact that it seems very hard to make it environmentally sustainable, and the fact that it depends on people indulging in often unhealthy desires, and not discriminating between desires in any way apart from which desires generate the most profit. This creates a perverse incentive where firms are often being incentivized to cultivate addictions and unhealthy habits in people (social media, cigarettes, etc.) which in many cases degrade and even destroy people’s lives. Capitalism is clearly superior to any form of socialism that has actually been implemented, but these all seem to threaten to be genuinely catastrophic and seemingly unavoidable problems in capitalist societies. I’m not saying socialism is the answer, but I suspect we will ultimately have to move beyond capitalism into something different over time, and it will probably have a lot of socialist elements.
I guess my problem with Leo's position, is that by his own logic we shouldn't be doing anything. When Destiny asked why nobody tries to transition to market socialism and why those who tried fail, Leo said that it was forced in the past and currently nobody thinks about it. But somehow society will evolve naturally to ebrace socialism in the next 150 years without it being forced or working class caring about it? Then if it's inevitable why even debating it? Just let the natural thing happen, no?
Right, it sounded to me like Leo was asserting that socialism was inevitable and we just need to sit back and let it happen. But in actuality his belief is that we should SLOWLY force socialism as opposed to all at once. He wouldn’t call it “force”, he would say something like “incentivize”, but the ultimate goal would be to eliminate capitalism and make it illegal. He seems to be hiding in the gradual nature of his advocacy.
SHUT YOUR FACE! Destiny Debates Actual Justice Warrior IRL ►ua-cam.com/video/1sYl91dqVLU/v-deo.html
Destiny And Farha Get Into Actual Argument w/ Erudite And PlayingWithFire ►ua-cam.com/video/WjC3jc13N7I/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared
Steven you need to explain the difference between "free market" capitalism to what we have now which is "crony capitalism". If the western world went back to that we would be much better. ( it will never happen since people and elites wont ever give back the power)
5 seconds in and we're at a trash argument. try looking up what "socialism" means before you just start whining that the soviet union and maoist china ought to count as at least imperfect versions of it. they're the opposite of it (all vanguardist movements inevitably produce the opposite of socialism).
@@anarchodave7997 thank fuck, somebody actually read a book here. Good on ya big cheese.
For the longest time I thought destiny was a socialist and I've been pleasantly surprised how my view of you is more moderate. I think he's slightly left of a moderate democrat, slightly right of a market socialist. I make no bones about my support of capitalism and am not willing to entertain an opinion that can't refute the market efficiency principle.
@@AroundTheBest slightly left of a moderate democrat is still a right wing nutter.. your lack of awareness is profound
Idealized socialism vs real Capitalism is such a true point.
If you can't admit the glaring oversights in economics (all forms) maybe ethics isn't that important? Or it is and greed is intoxicating? Either way we forgot about that whole concept of sustainability.
Socialism cannot just overtake a capitalist system. It has to happen in a brand new country or it will never work.
@@promethiac2641yup
Yea it’s idealized because market socialism hasn’t been tried yet Lmao only state socialism has been tried. How can we argue for real market socialism when market socialism hasn’t existed
@@Swolidarity yeah but nobody knows the history and that fact that thats not even existed in the real world yet.. all they can do to cuck themselves for the sake of the zuck or bezos is cry about how living paycheck to paycheck for 80% of americans in the wealthiest nation in history is low key giga poggers
HUGE CREDIT for the Socialist guy admitting when he doesn't have an answer to something instead of pretending he does and stunt locking the debate 🎉🎉
Stun*
Or you can use other terms like running out the clock.
Always better off not pretending to know something you don't know. Bro just wants us all to have better lives, what a king.
Destiny never admits he doesn’t know something, that’s how you know he doesn’t engage honestly, it’s impossible for him to always know everything
@@StillElias like when JP says 'well its not entirely obvious to me'
@@NickGhale
pretty sure destiny does
I love that he says "i don't know" .This guy is searching for truth not looking for a win.We need more like him.
He's not searching for truth. If that was the case, he'd dive deeper into the historical and socieconomical context of socialism and try to seek truth as to why it has always failed to be applied ethically to function properly. He's doing what every socialist is doing which is throw a bunch of ad hocs thinking their criticism of capitalism justifies their own hypothetical application of socialism in the real world which fails to address why it would do better than the current system. He should have provided a better case as to why we should experiment with it without risking other people's livelihood.
They why can't he live in reality?
Yeah, but he's there to argue a position. In a debate setting "I don't know" is about the worst response ever. You have to come up with something to defend the opinion you're representing. I don't think those watching understand the role of a debater. They are an argument, not a person open to being won over (even if they personally are convinced of the other side's correctness.)
@@fewfwefwe4626tru but “idk” is a start and it’s a whole lot more than everyone else who shit out their mouth for 2 hrs clearly not knowing wtf they’re talking about
Yeah but it was a pretty basic question he should have known the answer to. But the reason he didn’t have an answer is because there is no answer.
This is the best socialist debater I've ever seen. He's not bat crap crazy, and just admits when he doesn't know something. Kudos to him.
Bat crap😂😂😂😂
Bat crap 😅
The best of the worst
What an honor!
He has something likable, but he's verrrry naive in a sense that he claims that all the bad examples are not "true socialism", but then he judges all of capitalism when you could also argue we've never tried true unchecked capitalism. Gov' interference, crony capitalism, and mixed economies w/social programs (aka socialist policies.) is not "true capitalism", but because it is more capitalist than socialist, he considers it straight capitalism. This is where his whole paradigm is both flawed and unfair, but aside from that I agree with you. He also started out very nervous, which is fine, but man, he just emanates that academic, theoretical vibe... he talks about enormous shifts and tasks like they will just simply "happen". Thats kinda easy to say, and how is someone supposed to really respond to that..."no it wont"? lol.
"capitalism has only existed for 200-300 years".
Bruh that's a gross concept error
First good faith socialist debater I’ve seen, kudos to him for his earnest compassion and intellectual honesty
Why argue for either side when you can do both? Socialism is like kickstarter for starving families... We have kickstarters for video games without crying about it. Where is your heart? lol
Socialist guy is dreaming of the day Star Trek becomes reality. But until a replicator that will create anything we want out of thin air becomes a real thing then capitalism is better.
does he know.
This the same guy who says nobody represents the left and the left are the "good guys"
He’s such a lovable nerd
The socialist guy is at least intellectually honest as far as 20 mins in to the video. I respect that and wish more of them would follow his lead.
Disagreed. He lied like 30 times in the first 10 mins of his speech.
@@uUuWolf16uUu not knowing, and lying is different. Lying is when you know the truth, and you spread misinformation, spreading misinformation because you don't know shit is ingenuity.
@@renbowo if those were really a lack of knowledge, then he should have never entered this debate.
Dude literally said that co ops perform better than capitalist corporations.
Hint: there is like 1 co op in the top 1% of companies. And that one is not even really a co op.
@@uUuWolf16uUu This entirely depends on how you and he define 'performs better'. If you're defining it as total market value, and he defines it as providing the most benefits to employees while remaining profitable you're using two completely different definitions and each thinking they're correct.
@@uUuWolf16uUu how do you even determine top 1% of companies? some of the largest, most well-known companies generate less profit than a lemonade stand.
Destiny is so critical of socialism, likely because the proletariat seizing the means of production, across all industries, would reach the natural conclusion that the People would realize; that Destiny is ALL girls names.
Lol
And we can’t have that!
Destiny being a black women, makes sense she has a womens name
Cheesin Heckin Awesome 😂
Under Kollektiv Ownership, Destiny is OUR girls name.
i hate how the chat immediately harps on his appearance instead of just hearing him out, he wasnt being bad faith or a bad person at all, no need to be the people we are accused of being
thats gotta kick chat dgg lmaoo
@@garywebb2432 dgg chat always unhinged
It's a Livestream chat for a political streamer. Expecting it to be rational and even handed is peak delusion
Just from the opening statement, this guy seems like one of the more refreshing and honest proponents of socialism: structured, substantive, and reasonably logical. Of course, I disagree with him, but props to him and I hope he continues his intellectual engagement with debates, politics, government, etc.
This was literally one million times more valuable than the trump biden debate
@@andrewferguson6901wdym we learned a lot from that debate. We learned that Joe is sleepy and Trump is a meanie.
@@tongpoo8985 you only learned that this week?
@@andrewferguson6901 oh I thought you meant the debate between trump and Biden
Coming from a socialist country, I have no respect for people with a missing understanding of the dynamics of groups with power monopoly. It will ALWAYS end in dictatorship. Always! Also, what is the problem of the European concept of social market economy. It is already the answer.
This felt like a genuine debate.
Holy shit that opening quote goes so fucking hard,
"I have to deal with the realities of real capitalism, while having to argue against Idealize socialism that does not exist anywhere"
So fucking to the point.
Socialists from the Marxist school follow this prediction from over a century ago about how workers will seize the means of production. But the world has changed so much, and they still follow this old model that's never even been proven. It's like a religion. Capitalism slowly raises the standard of living for a many people as possible; Marxism brings the whole society down to the level of the people who have it the worst
One is a tool, the other an ideology. One has a specific systems, the other has only empathy.
@@KneGros-nc1ss Is it even empathy, most socialist I know are leaning towards narcissism.
@@KneGros-nc1ss Both are ideologies. There's no 100% capitalism nor 100% socialism.
@@feizo That's true but capitalism can lead to social programs whereas socialist destroys and hose same social programs with time because it is not sustainable.
The way this guy described capitalist countries not wanting to trade with a socialist countries is exactly how socialist countries treat capitalist countries lol.
As a blue collar worker (production welder) there's basically nothing I want *less* than _more responsibility_ at my job.
If I can show up and do my work without talking to anybody then it was a perfect day.
How about more money and less hours?
@@sky-magnet not going to happen in blue collar work without resulting in massive inefficiencies that negatively impact society.
@@sky-magnet do you _want_ Snow Crash style hyperinflation? Because that's how you get Snow Crash style hyperinflation.
@@the_inquisitive_inquisitor Under capitalism sure.
@@sky-magnet getting paid more for less work devalues money under any economic system, not just capitalism.
When McDonald's employees make $1M for an 8 hour shift then a Big Mac is going to cost about $100,000
At one of our dinners, Milton recalled traveling to an Asian country in the 1960s and visiting a worksite where a new canal was being built. He was shocked to see that, instead of modern tractors and earth movers, the workers had shovels. He asked why there were so few machines. The government bureaucrat explained: “You don’t understand. This is a jobs program.” To which Milton replied: “Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If it’s jobs you want, then you should give these workers spoons, not shovels.”
I think it was India
That’s a cute story, but with shovels you get jobs and a canal. A spoon gets you jobs but no canal.
@@TonyCox1351 Spoons give you canal too.
@@TonyCox1351 Bro, India really had an employment program where they made people dig up dry wellls for no reason, just for employment.
@TonyCox1351 this may be a little besides the point but, there used to be 100% employment in East Germany. Literally no one was unemployed, even if it was pushing a broom for 8 hours, one day out of every month. Did they achieve a goal of eradicating unemployment? Sure but did they really?
The most glaring problem with socialism is it's ability to assume humans will always do the predictable correct thing to ensure it's moral eutopia continues as intended. It doesn't take an intelligent person to understand human behaviors are often not conducive for such a system medium or long term.
You can say the same or similar about capitalism too. You always assume that capitalism leads to innovation, it leads to meritocracy blah blah but in reality it either doesn’t or leads to bad outcomes
Socialism isn’t perfect, anyone who’s good faith will concede that, but it’s better than capitalism. The question comes down to which system is more likely to generate better outcomes overall and capitalism is definitely the worse of the two
@@Swolidarity"It either doesn't or leads to bad outcomes" is just ahistorical lol
Just need to look at the tremendous growth of the past 300 years and universal improvement of QoL. Capitalism with its flaws has this wealth of evidence, socialism doesn't, the "reality" of it doesn't exist.
@@SwolidarityI feel like I'm cheating because the video we're watching is proof enough. But you're just wrong. Late stage capitalism has been led by bad policy and people with power not working with the rules; IE monopolies. This can be fixed with a reset and good policy that's better enforced.
Since we have a great idea of what late stage capitalism looks like, tell me in good faith what late stage socialism looks like? If not evolved into communism or worse.
@@SwolidarityCapitalism works with selfish and selfless individuals. Socialism can only work if there are selfless individuals. That's why the implementation of socialism so far in history often becomes tyrannical right away. Always requires authoritarianism to barely function by forcing people to be a certain way when they won't all the time.
The problem with capitalism is the abyss. It rewards the worst behaviors and locks us in to servitude unless you sell out and become a shark. No you don't need planned obsolescence and oligopolies to run a country.
Super generous of Wendigoon to show up in the front row for support.
😂😂
Research for the debate iceberg
@@juice.giygasan iceberg of debate topics that have come and gone in the online space would actually be based af
Props to this dude, his diction drove me up the wall but he's the first person in a WHILE that I've seen that was civil, was open to changing his mind, and was generally good faith across the board. Good on him!
Extremely impressed with Destiny's charitability and characterisation of the opposing side. Especially near the end in the Q&As when he is steelman-ing and making fairly good points for democratisation of workplaces (or at least combating bad arguments against it). It certainly changed my own perspective on the matter.
The socialist here was also very good-faith, I do feel like he lacked any real-world applications/experience for his ideas which make them difficult to agree with. However, it is clear that this individual genuinely wants to see positive change in the world and is open to alternative ideas and views. I commend him for taking on the debate and hope to see him again one day.
Agreed that it was good to steelman, but to me at least his arguments still fell pretty short for socialism imo
This was a far better conversation than generally happen in these debates. Both of them were able to actually hear each other instead of doubling down just to 'win' the debate. Awesome stuff. :)
Which is also surprising as that is usually Destiny's thing: win. Im basing this off of him saying so directly, not to bad mouth him
@@avastone5539 im 90% jekyll
Props to the socialist guy for showing up. Many people on that side of the argument don't believe in debate. Held his own respectfully.
Easily the most I ever learned from one of these. I feel fortunate to have found this.
Thanks a lot
Big ups for conceding and admitting when you don’t know something. I wish more people had their ego in check enough to manage this. If results in a conversation actually being fruitful and not just word games to see who can confuse their opponent
@@WhatsTheTakeaway also opens the door to a new position
@@WhatsTheTakeaway it’s also the pathway to an informed opinion. You have to admit you’re wrong in order to learn what’s right
@@WhatsTheTakeaway You don't need to know every single possible rhetorical position of whatever group you are a part of. That is absurd, especially when someone produces a novel idea to counter it where then you haven't taken to the time to think it through properly. YOU do not know everything in all of your views either. Its much better for him to be honest and say he hasn't thought about it, than to lie, obsfuscate, ignore, goalpost shift, etc.
And not thinking through every single detail of your belief does not indicate their belief is wrong or "failed". Someone can believe in heliocentric round earth, then when a person produces some random thing like olber's paradox, which you may not have researched before hand, that is then twisted into flat earth geocentric evidence, you are caught off guard. But, because you didn't HAPPEN to think about olber's paradox as a counter, then you have no counter for it. But it doesn't mean the earth is now flat and the position is automatically failed. That's an incredibly simplistic way to view debates and discussions, and is responsible for a lot of what is wrong in america with the us vs them mentality.
@@WhatsTheTakeaway Thats just called not having a point. Not knowing an aspect or counterargument to a hypothetical/counter is not the same as having no argument to begin with. Don't be silly
Remember guys, Leo may seem reasonable as far as socialists go, but MLs like Second Thought and Eddie Liger would not claim him.
nobody cares
@@coreyander286Leo doesn't claim Vaush as a thought leader or a representative of the left.
@@coreyander286I think it's an even split. But I can see more people getting radicalized into tankies
Nor would they allow him to be alive because he is a counter revolutionary.
What is ml? Militant leftist?
im german and extremely glad that im old enough to have experienced one of the "best" planned socialist economy that ever existed: east Germany.
not only did i whitnessed people being forced to work for NOTHING in return. not voluntarily: FORCED TO WORK FOR NOTHING IN RETURN. i have seen people saving up money for a decade to buy something that takes 16years to deliver (Trabbi, Wartburg).
in one of the most prosperous socialist systems that ever existed.
have you ever stood in line for 2 hours to look at an empty shelf?
and on your way back you see the "Kaufhaus des Westens" that has full shelfs of stuff you never heard of and that you can't even afford becuase they only take westmark and no bank in your sh*thole of a country will exchange your worthless money for it because it gets more worthless every single minute?
and you see the champagne socialists in the shop buying western toys for their children, the same ones that tell you to not trust capitalists pigs and hold you inside an open air prison where they can torture you in a blacksite when you express reality?
well, i have. and i don't miss it one bit.
another funny anecdote: when you wonder why everybody was standing in line to see an empty shelf but nobody said anything, everybody knew that half of the people present were informants for the government. the moment you complain you land on a list. it doesn't matter if the complain was valid. if you were on this list your whole family couldn't travel, you could not exchange money and you were 1 complaint away from being tortured. nobody told you but you knew.
@@SabracadabrO yeah, its like: you don't even know where to start to explain really how sh*tty it was to live under socialism.
instead of black and white TV i would say it was like living in darkness with no ray of light. its unimaginable for me now, how do you explain that to milennials that think free speech is fascism?
you need so much context to really explain how bleak it was.
@@SabracadabrO im not so sure about that. the olympics were just another way to use propaganda and nationalism to show the "superiority" of socialism. by any means necessary: State prescribed Doping, concealing men so they can compete against women, only letting people into the stands that were faithful to the party line... even the Olympics were a big eye opener for me.
yes, the end of socialism and the warsaw pact was inevitable.
but there is a reason it worked as long as it has.
some people profited greatly from it while most suffered.
but most people were afraid of repercussions because every opinion, every action caused a reaction.
when "they" told me something i would believe it because not believeing it had repercussions and they came in stages.
shameful? absolutely. but i had no option, i couldn't trust my own family to rat me out.
its a very powerful system in itself.
But but but, that was not "real" socialism. Greetings from Slovakia, where we had to experience much of the same. Thank you but never again.
@@MrHellweasel im always glad when i hear that. that means they don't even know the horrors of socialism and i wouldn't wish my worst enemy to live under its rules.
the blissful ignorance of an idealistic worldview that is not mainstream and the right to express your opinion. something that was unthinkable.
never again, absolutely.
This is a really interesting evolution of "that wasnt real socialism". We've made it all the way to "socialism has never existed, and also nobody knows wtf it is or how it would work, it's impossible to guess what it would look like, but whatever it is it's absolutely way better than capitalism."
This is by far my favorite comment and I felt the same way through the entire video it’s like OK so this guy has absolutely no idea how any of the mechanisms or modes of motivation are that would ever solve any of the problems that Socialism says that it might solve in a capitalist society. He has absolutely no clue what it would look like or how it would work or how these types of motivations word manifest themselves. He has absolutely no idea what any of it would look like in any facet of any sort of economy ever and has no idea how to get any of them actually going in the direction that he wants to, but Socialism is totally better because
He also says it would be good to "force" socialism, a system that he claims will organically evolve it if the current system. I can't give credit to anyone actually debating something they know nothing about and can't explain without contradicting themselves. Debates are for ideas that can be articulated, I wouldn't have a problem with this guy expressing his hopes and dreams for humanity, but he's arguing that he and other ideologues would be morally right to use "force" on their neighbors in order to change the way things work.
I love how wholesome this comment section is for giving the dude credit for admitting when he doesnt know something
My dad worked at one of the largest co-ops in America when I was growing up, and the truth of the matter is that worker co-ops are not that different than corporations in practice. They still have their corporate executive boards. Those people make all of the rules. They still make millions while the employees just 1 rank below them are only making hundreds of thousands. One of the biggest memes that leftists have is that worker co-ops will somehow bring us closer to socialism, when really all that it does is codify capitalism.
They always point to Mondragon, but it still has an overarching corporate structure. And one of the primary reasons that Norway's Statoil was successful during the economic/oil downturn in 07/08, unlike Venezuela, is that they have a corporate structure and diversified holdings.
He probably worked at an ESOP or something similar. Not all "coops" are created equal.
@@aimless_aimer7936sounds like an excuse. We have to take reality as evidence in the debate. If worker coops can still be shit, then we can’t hold them up as a good standard when the corporation is so flexible and adept at getting results.
@@aimless_aimer7936 Successful co-ops are those that operate under a capitalist framework.
@@Xplora213most start ups fail therefore if capitalist companies can still be sh*t we can't hold them up as a good standard
Smart young bloke and hopefully he keeps that idealism as the world will inevitably try and crush it.
The world tends to crush silly ideas, which poindexter is full of.
@shoobidyboop8634 Most kids are. That's the time of their life they should be experimenting, rather than being afraid of being wrong.
@@evelynashe8701 Which is why they're not entrusted with any responsibility at that age. They haven't lived enough even to realize socialism is a crock.
The thing about getting older, is you tend to stop viewing the world the way you want it to be, and start viewing it as it actually is. That's why people tend to get more conservative as they get older.
@@markzuckergecko621 People get more conservative with age, but people also get more wealthy with age on average, something that much more directly correlates with conservative party alignment. You're more likely to vote for lower taxes and benefits if the costs are coming out of your income rather than someone else's.
“You can’t have socialism in a broadly capitalist world.” That’s actually the only way you can have socialism.
Yup. You can always opt in to socialism in a capitalist society but can never opt in to capitalism in a socialist society.
@@Dementia.Pugilistica This type of mirrored thinking is wrong. Capitalism has long benefited from socialist countries, and so have socialist countries with capitalist countries. There is not one can opt-in, and other doesn’t opt-in. Profit-incentive options have remained in-part with socialist countries, and you also have capitalists in socialist countries like China.
@mesh01550 of course you can opt in but not opt out of socialism. Socialism is controlled by the largest or most overarching jurisdiction that entities are required to follow. Socialist societies require the rules of socialism to be observed in all familial, commercial and communal structures, but under capitalism not all family, business and communal structures are required to be capitalistic.
There is nothing preventing people in capitalist societies from pooling resources and running a community that has socialized prescriptions or internal rules, or a privatized company structure that runs like a defacto government within the constrains of the prevailing federal and lesser jurisdictional laws, or a family structure with social requirements to be part of the household.
There are communes that do this all over the USA and Canada. There are CO-OPs. There are family structures that may follow a socialized form of internal government whereby parents decide to partition resources equivalently, decide tasks of the children according to top down decision-making, fund them the same, dissalow them from owning property, etc etc. The opposite is not be true because any of these smaller entities would be required under socialist guidelines to construct themselves under guidelines that are not encompassing of capitalist guidelines.
I didn't make an argument that capitalist countries and socialist countries haven't benefited from or harmed each other and don't see how that's relevant to what I said. Profit-focused models of socialist countries may exist, but they exist to make profit for the state not the private individual or as pooled resources at best which has all the same issues pointed at capitalist greed perhaps more so because we are dealing with a collective greed, which are crucial non-equivalencies. China is a mixed economy and is not a good example of a socialist country as socialists argue for (idealized socialism). It is also markedly more corrupt than any western country...
@@Dementia.Pugilisticain theory, yes you could opt out of socialism. In a socialist country you could theoretically have a commune that doesn’t pay into the system and doesn’t get paid out of it. Not saying it’s realistic, but none of socialism is realistic.
@@Dementia.Pugilistica Bravo!
I tell you what. I may not agree with Leo, but he gets my respect for debating with decorum and didn’t try to sneakily slight and he didn’t use socially charged words. I appreciate that young man. Wish him nothing but the best
Firmly with Tiny on this one, but huge props to Leo - he’s an impressive advocate and did a great job articulating his points. Really enjoyed watching this.
I’ve watched about an hour and ten minutes into this and I’m left slightly dissatisfied. For those who believe and know capitalism to be the best economic system to date, here is how you argue it.
Under socialism, money either loses some or all of its value. This has immense consequences and completely alters or eliminates incentive structures required in order to keep our society functional.
The truth is, many jobs are neither fun nor fulfilling, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t necessary. Under a socialist system where the incentive of earning a higher wage is lost, certain essential jobs will never be filled.
Who will work on an Oil Rig or in Coal Mines etc? These are jobs that nobody wants to do but are entirely necessary in order for our modern societies to maintain a high quality of life. The monetary incentive is what drives an influx of workers into these professions. When you disrupt that incentive, the workforce diminishes.
This is one of the many reasons why “socialist” states devolve into authoritarianism. Essential jobs do not get done, the government recognizes this and forces people to do them. Not to mention that some people are better suited for certain jobs than others. Is it efficient for the government to assign work to an unqualified worker? The more you try to understand the ramifications of such a system, the more market inefficiencies begin to reveal themselves.
I will confess that the potential for an artificial workforce makes things more complicated and a universal basic income could potentially be necessary. That said, I believe the ultimate goal of capitalism is to provide incentives in order to continue to raise our collective quality of life. AI, along with countless other technologies invented under capitalistic systems, have undoubtedly done exactly that.
Why does money lose its value under socialism? You seem to be describing a system with no inequality of income, but the labor theory of value doesn't remove that inequality, it changes how those incentives are determined and how resources are distributed.
@@humanmerelybeing1966if the 10’s of thousands of people working in the energy sector are engaging in profit sharing then there will be a vast amount of people with LOTS of money and if that is seen in other industries then the value of money will decrease and there would be high levels of inflation. That would need to be supplemented by heavy government regulation and well done you just made the precursor to every other socialist authoritarian government. If the energy sector has profit sharing why tf would you work for a small business, etc. it won’t work that way
@@user-bg6qr9mh3i Socialism and profit sharing aren't the same thing.
That intro just clicked for me, because it summarizes EXACTLY the issues I have when debating against many socialists and communists online (I also debate other groups fyi). It's always the current existing and flawed capitalist nations and systems I need to defend or justify against theoretical and nonexistent communist utopias. They literally use the classic lines of "TRUE communism does so-and-so", while responding to me saying "But this capitalist system in America does so-and-so".
This really opened my eyes. I'm gonna need to keep this in mind next time someone brings it up
As a socialists I see the opposite. Trying to conceive a system that will perfectly solve all the issues and will have to be as complex as reality. Its also called utopistic a lot because trying to do so pushes people to arguing for perfect system. While the capitalist can just point at the system and say "it works" we cannot as there was never a global socialist economy. What kinds of effect it might have is literary impossible to conceive, but somehow that is what people ask of us. Show us your world before we can make it.
This also often happens in broad general discussions and not in actual conversations as you can simple ask what people accept. Is the capitalist arguing for the exact copy of the system in the USA? is the Socialist arguing for the copy of USSR? Most often they do not, making them both less dependent on the realities and more on theoretical explanations.
@@lexter8379 I think you just kinda proved his point, "there was never a global socialist economy" = that wasn't true socialism. The fact of the matter is we have seen the attempt to implement socialism and each time it has ended up in disaster.
@@Banisowicz What? That is a fact. Even if you say that everything ever called socialism was socialism, it was never global as is capitalism now. Also, my point was about how I feel from the opposite side and not much else.
Also "trying to implement socialism" is pretty vague. To be more precise it would be something like this. "One of the socialistic ideologies that tried to implement socialism was Marxist-Leninism and failed to do so and instead created a none socialistic different system that a lot of other state replicated,"
There is a common misconception that all the ML states wanted socialism, no they wanted ML system (which was not socialism by definition). They didn't care about some ideals or "we will make it work" they simply wanted a system that rapidly industrialize and defends them from capitalist exploitation.
You can use this argument against people who want ML type system. But its not an argument against worker control.
dear reader please don't get tempted to answer this dude's drivel
@@lexter8379I think it's reasonable to provide a strong argument for toppling the existing world order, yes.
"Well we don't know what's going to happen because we haven't tried it" works fine for a controlled science experiment but when you are asking for a throwing out of an old order and establishing a new, yes people are going to want some reassurance. "It should work better" does not make me want to donate my private property to the neighborhood collective.
Which is probably why most revolutions (all kinds, not just socialist) are so bloody.
Remember when the tides shift back to liberal democracy, we were the ones defending it
Copium
Liberalism?
Dude, the way left is going the next pendulum swing of the political compass will NOT stop at liberalism.
Actually liberalism is not bad .Left wing liberalism sucks.But your classical liberal of free speech and freedoms that make America great are not bad Dave Rubin is one such individuals.
@@63Limarnah, some form of liberalism is probably king.
Its a reasonable, pragmatic system that actually works.
Inshallah brother.
I like how whenever Destiny brings up the fact that under socialism workers could vote in favor of things that would earn them more money, even if it were to hurt the environment or just over produce goods, his response is that he doesn't think they will. As if all greed will just disappear under socialism, like its not a feature of human nature.
Right, because the underlying belief of socialists is that the only reason why people like money is because capitalism forces them to. When in reality, as the gentlemen from the audience asked around 1:18:00 or so, the desire for resources, even in abundance, is human nature.
A socialistic system won’t magically make people only want what they need as opposed to taking anything they can get their grubby little hands on. Capitalism naturally evolved because it’s best suited to match the pursuit of resources. If socialism were to take hold, the pursuit of resources would remain the exact same, but the ability to do so would be hindered.
Appealing to human nature isn’t super effective imo but humans also have altruistic tendencies it’s not exclusively greed. It’s not an unreasonable opinion to hold to think that workers would vote for things that benefit society long term, especially in a more cooperative society by and large.
@@samuelbailey2000i mean, we could just look at the places that have moved in a more socialist direction and see what the outcomes were, and inevitably (see: every single time), greed and corruption actually seemed to exacerbate, not disappear. I know the western socialists response is typically to think "BUT IF I was the one leading the socialist revolution, we'd do it properly!!" but that's pretty short sighted. Especially since most western socialists emotional dislike for capitalism springs from a hate and jealousy of the rich, not a love for the poor. (Not saying youre like this, but many definitely are). The experiment has been run, unfortunately
@@martymcfly88mph35 Right, but the system he was advocating for didn’t include a revolution or a vanguard. I don’t think the argument holds up when the people we’re talking about aren’t holding more power than the people next to them. I do think that greed is more inevitable when small groups of people take control of the government for some sort of greater good. But that is not the argument. The point is that assuming workers would be willing to vote for things for the betterment of society on average. Which could be wrong, but I don’t think is an unreasonable or damaging assumption to make.
@@samuelbailey2000 You still see greed happen when ballot measures are put out and people vote to expand spending even when the state or city does not have the funds for it. The size of the group does not change the jealousy or greed. If all the coops were paid the same, why would one coop not vote to work less hours? If the coops are not paid the same, then why would the people that wanted more try to go to a different coop or start a different one?
I would argue history showcases humans tend to be greedy and jealous, and I think the reason why capitalism works as a system of economic organization is because it harnesses those aspects of human nature to further efficient production. If humans were not greedy or jealous, then capitalism would not be as effective at running markets as other systems of economic organization.
If human nature was as this large assumption stated, I think capitalism would not exist and I would use the success of capitalism to reject that assumption.
I was worried the comments on him were all gonna be shitting on him for getting 'stumped' like the chat was during the stream. It's nice to see people are supporting him for saying 'I don't know'. I think political conversations would be a lot easier if more people were comfortable saying those three words
I'm suspicious that the real reason is just because they privately back socialism.
Stream chats are really the peak of reactionary ignorance, even for people like Destiny. Sad to see.
"Socialism needs to arise organically, therefore let's implement policies to artificially encourage its adoption" LMAO
I think he means that if you put out things like universal healthcare and other socialist solutions - given democratic support - then the public will be less dogmatized against it and be open to more. That’s an organic rise.
There are alot of Americans who are open to a Medicare for all for example, especially when it is broken down to them. Just like how the NHS cannot be removed, only improved bc the UK public wants it despite being staunchly anti socialist for decades.
@@TriggeringOpinionsandFacts I see no reason why universal healthcare would be considered socialism at all. In a capitalist society having clear and established rules that make markets predictable and making working in a capitalist society worthwhile is a very capitalist thing to do.
@@CrestOfArtoriaswell it isnt but any actual socialist system would have nationalized healthcare.
It's like saying that lettuce is not a burger but it's still a necessary part of building a burger if that makes sense
Socialism won't happen "organically", just like how democracy has never happened "organically"....it will require some sort of upheaval to overthrow the status quo.
I dont think you understand how human are dumb. You could see the gov as a organic system. More than the stupidity of masses.
Something I always notice in these more formal debates is destiny's opening statement is always super concise. I think it makes him come across much better.
The reason i'm not a socialist is because we don't need to make capitalism illegal for socialism to exist. Nothing is stopping socialists from getting together and forming coops, there's nothing stopping socialists from existing in the current system. But more often then not they choose not to, and in many cases popular advocates of socialism are some of the most ruthless capitalists.
As a "tech worker", who makes a healthy six figure salary, I can say I do think about these things, and I'm 100% happy with our capitalist mode of operation.
I don’t think socialists realize how much of an insult it is to say working class people don’t have time to think about what’s best for them so I’ll do it
Literally every ideology is guilty of this.
As if we dont think during work either. Like the 98% of working class people from doctors to warehouse workers wakeup, turn on work consciousness, and then black out for 9-10 hours. Then when we get home, we switch on our other consciousness, get overwhelmed with life, and me no think no more, me go to sleep, and maybe me think on weekend. LOL
He just cant assume people just reject your system, and are in no way shape or form interested in your pipe dream. Hasan and Vaush have both made similar statements of you just dont know any better, sometimes hoisted with the language of also just theyre too busy to think. Its condescending and idiotic. I dont work in a coal mine. Im listening to audible and podcast for 8 - 10 hours a day at work. Im fortunate, but its not some super upper working class job I have (Doctors for instance have for less time to just enjoy listening to frank sinatra at work than I do. lol).
All I do is think think think think think. It drives me nuts. I wish i could activate a consciousness that just goes on autopilot, does everything right in life, and every 4 months i can pop back in and fuck around. LMAO
I mean there is truth to it. its not only the working class.
Honestly many of them don't,seems like you aren't working class.
@@jayargee492 anarchism and libertarianism are the exact opposite of this.
I disagree with both of you on the idea that people should be forced to provide for others that are either unwilling or unable to provide for themselves.
Biggest crossroad in the socialism vs capitalism debate. Socialists think they are entitled to survival, even if that means someone else has to fund it. Complete insanity that so many people think that way.
My favorite critique of socialism is Thaddeus Russell's. The main problem of socialism is that no one would want to show up to the meetings. There are always going to be try hards but as someone who is in a union, most people don't care, just want to do their job and go home and not vote on company policy.
Exactly and then eventually it would end up like an HOA, where there is a couple of hard-core prominent and influential people, dictating the rules and regulations over the entire system over all of the employees who supposedly have an equal and fair say, but like you said in a union a lot of people don’t care and don’t show up to the meetings so the people that do it will dictate policy just like in a capitalist system a CEO, CFO, and other executive titles would do. They would be a select few people at the top making decisions for everyone else and I feel like 50 or 100 years down the socialist economic ladder. You would see the exact same problems that capitalism has because humans inevitably will make decisions that are better for them and worse for others.
I’ve not seen this side of destiny. I genuinely never thought I’d say this but I agree with him on everything here.
Right!
"I have too much money", said by no one ever...
I learned some things during this debate..it’s nice to see to reasonable guys defend and concede there positions…vs a Hasan Piker and Matt Walsh spewing generalizations,hyperbole and insults at each other
Opening statement:
"Owning private property is only a 300 year old idea"
"Labor theory of value"
"Nationalize everything"
"Capitalism isnt evil"
"Capitalism guarentees the starvation of 7 million people annually"
Well congrats Destiny on winning the debate before it starts
We are not seeing capitalism cracking, we are seeing statism cracking.
If capitalists are not overproducing food, then when disasters happen that cause shortages, people starve. A lot of people starve around the world because of dictators in their country.
Environmentalism is also not a market failure, in fact it's quite profitable to preserve resources.
Most respectable and likeable socialist I've seen by far
I wish more socialist and communist would give their ideas for certain topics and discussions. Instead of them reffering to pre made definitons like marxist ideas. Saying you don't know is a better option then saying something stupid, but the best option would be to have atleast some general idea of how you think things should work.
Exactly. He’s been getting a lot of praise for saying I don’t know (rightfully so), but it’s quite a problem if the advocates for socialism are unable to answer CORE economic questions such as “how would janitor unions advocate for themselves against the interest of other unions” to paraphrase.
I’m glad he was honest, but to not have a solid answer to that question is quite worrying.
Under capitalism it’s as simple as “pay what you’re willing to, and if both parties agree that’s that.” Socialism seems to want to add a layer of ‘fairness’ to this, but it’s utterly ineffective to attach an economic system to something so subjective.
What's the argument here? Capitalism, Socialism. One is freedom, one is a fantasy. I love freedom, I love fantasy. Room for all.
Again, how can he simultaneously argue that change by force is necessary and that his preferred economic system (again, implemented by force) is more democratic? 🤯
Socialism is when Destiny is a girl's name. 😔
How dare you make me laugh at that.
My guys, you gotta start by defining capitalism and socialism. Especially in the case of the latter, as socialism-apologists always rely on definition-creep, and usually get away with it.
Respectful debate and I’m here for it.
There's a co-op near where I live. They sell a number of organic naturally sourced foods and are very conscientious of their impact on the environment. I thought they were a fantastic store. A little while ago however it came out that one of the multiple owners had SA'd a female employee of theirs, and because he had an equal stake in the company as everyone else, they decided to cover it up instead of addressing it and firing him (like what would have happened if it were a capitalist company.)
See, and that is another problem with Socio markets, and that is FA majority of that cooperative market are doing some thing that is detrimental to not only the market in existence, but the society as well absolutely nothing will change because majority rules, and if the majority are looking out for their own best interest which all of human history says that humans do then nothing will change, but in a capitalist top down authoritative company that society can choose to basically forced against the majority change
With his first sentence, I could tell that the socialist was unprepared. He began by defining capitalism as the economic system in which the means of production is owned privately. The problem is that labor is part of the means of production. So, if socialism is a system where the means of production is not owned privately, then, in socialism, our labor is owned by someone else. From the jump, he is saying that socialism is slavery. A capitalist would certainly agree with that assessment, but the socialist is supposed to (somehow) create a pro-socialism argument.
What strikes me as odd about the whole socialism debate is the fact that no one is stopping anyone from doing any of this.
Look at the Amish as a very real example of how extreme you can go if you really want to.
The part I hate is where others try to force others into their system. If it works and it’s so great, it will of course succeed to the point where it overtakes worse forms of economic systems.
Because none of them wants to be the one who actually bothers enacting change. Now, there's arguments to be made about the fact that the model we have now will become untenable in the pong run, and will require some collectivization of resources. But the truth is, all these supposed socialists on the internet are the literal spawn if late stage capitalism in action. And by that I mean they are comfortable, middle class people who don't kniw what hunger looks like, who had all the privileges of high education, who know take their existential boredom of the modern age due to not having actually concrete problems to fix for themselves and take comfort and self satisfaction in criticizing systems built and sustained by others, without any intention of staking their own comforts and lifestyle on where their mouths are. They elevated it to an art. Just say "there's no ethical consumption under capitalism" and then proceed to live exactly as you are now because apparently that doesn't make you a hypocrite. They don't want to enact socialism, they want ti have something to wail against, si they can feel like good people for fighting the good fight, but it has to be something big enough for them not to be held responsible to do anything themselves, like the economic system of the entire bloody world. They want someone else to come up with rhe way to do it, they want someone else to get their hands dirty in doing it, they want someone else to suffer the consequences and bear the burden of their idiot ideas, they want someone else to fix all the problems that they were too busy ideologuing to actually figure out would inevitably come up. The only socialist revolution any of them would actually enact is one where one day they're sitting comfortably at their desk living like capitalist pigs scrolling their phones made from slave labor, and the next day they walk out the door into a magically premade, already working utopia where every single problem of the human condition has been already fixed and where they can now take their place in the elite intellectual class that has brought on the revolution, where they can go on living the same privileges they already had before. That's what they want. Those that aren't just straight up grifting at least
That's because socialism can only exist by extracting resources that capitalism created.
1:15:10
Destiny: if the coop would make more money to overproduce food, why wouldn't they?
Leo: I don't think they would.
damn Leo da be deep! xD
Right, socialists argue that the only reason why people desire profit is because capitalism forces them to. But people have ALWAYS (and likely will always) wanted as many resources as possible. Socialism isn’t going to magically make everyone think “oh I’ll just take what I need, and more more thanks”.
I really enjoyed this debate, this guy was trying to be super realistic and I really enjoyed that.
"rather than fix the fixables of capitalism I propose we try something that is shown to be rotten from the outset and devolves very quickly into something that has people running back to capitalism!"
You’re all praising him for saying “I don’t know” but that was the most critical part of his proposed solution. It’s commendable to admit not knowing but him not knowing had no impact on him. His confidence in the position was unchanged. That’s not truth seeking. That’s arbitrary ideological attachment to an idea.
Not necessarily. I disagreed with him as well but you can have support for an idea where there are still things to be figured out. Not exactly the same but kind of like how I might support green energy even though it still has a lot of unknowns and needs more eyeballs/research/development before it’ll be ready for prime time.
@@Finallegend_right, but if the thing you don’t know is integral to the system itself, that’s a big problem.
It would be like if I proposed a new classroom style where all of the students get to decide whatever they want to learn to ensure everyone is engaged with their learning, and someone asked me “what happens if they decide to not learn?” And your solution to that was “I don’t know”. That’s how I personally see how this conversation went.
Not knowing every fine detail is expected, not being able to answer how the economy would function when two unions with competing ideas of fairness would interact is a big problem.
One of the best discussions I’ve seen in a long time. Very little or no ego and just honest attempts to solve the problem.
It's really hard to be swayed by a person whose majority arguments are "I don't know how that would work or what that would look like."
I've always found capitalism vs socialism to be a weird discussion topic. One is an economic system, while the other is somewhat of an economic system, but mostly a political system.
The discussion should be liberalism vs socialism.
I would argue that socialism, as debated in contexts like this, is largely an economic system but would require political movement. In other words, I think capitalism vs socialism is a more direct debate topic to what people actually care about as opposed to liberalism vs socialism.
This guy is smart, articulate and good faith in his arguments. What a refreshing piece of content.
That doesn’t make him correct
@@stuckinthemud4352who claimed he was correct? Ignorant ass comment.
It’s easier to argue for socialism when you ignore human nature.
I don't know much about economic systems and I haven't read shit on Marxism or anything.
Finally I hear a socialist talking where I don't immediately know that my limited knowledge is more than they can comprehend. I've heard so many Hasan type arguments etc, I legitimately think this is the first time in my life that I've heard a socialist go "capitalism isn't evil and has its advantages". He also quoted some ideas from Marx, but he didn't quite them as some appeal, he used it to explain his own position that was influenced by Marx not pretending like the other person just has too agree with him.
Idk who this guy is, but he's more intelligent and more honest than 90% of people I hear online even outside of economic systems, props to him
As soon as 2 laborers are making the same wage no matter how hard they work, there is no incentive to work harder than the other and they both start in working each other until all progress stops.
I love how people think greed isn’t a traditional human trait and that people won’t find ways to game ANY fucking system they are placed within, including those implementing and enforcing the rules. You can’t negate human falacy, all systems will have breaks and loopholes regardless of what we feel like the ideal system is. It will be gamed to benefit some more than others.
Yea, I've been shutting socialists down with this for years.
Climate change, for instance. What would stop a group of like 100 people from deciding that they could make money much quicker by ignoring the damage they're doing to the environment, and vote to do it?
Honestly, the convo is starting to bore me, just because it often ends with "well, I'm not even really a socialist". Fucking lol.
@accelerationquanta5816
We already have that.
You missed the point of the question.
So far I haven't seen a single debate where an educated capitalist and an educated socialist debate each other, without the socialist inevitably lacking an adequate answer for "how" their ideas can be implemented and maintained. There's always an important detail they cannot account for.
It’s because none of them will ever just say “we will force you at gunpoint to be socialist” because they all try to act like hippie power of the people assholes
because it isnt possible
Because it's a fantasy because in relies on human to work together in complete agreement and no discerning voice IE a communist
The premise of the debate itself doesn't make any sense. If the debate was about specific concrete policies such as preferential treatment towards worker cooperatives, labor rights, nationalization of industries, etc. the debate would have more substance, but instead, the debate devolves into the socialist side making broader philosophical and ethical critics about the current state of capitalism and the capitalist side acknowledging those critiques but dismissing them because its not practical to achieve those ethical goals in the real world.
You don’t think the problem of answering “how” existed under feudalism for capitalism? It’s difficult to answer such a question for a relatively new economic system idea.
I dont know much about politics but I vote for whatever the purple haired woman votesd
Steven needs to brush up on critiques of democracy. Democracy is not an inherent good. In most of life we do not want democracy, we want private decision making over private ownership. You don't want your neighbors deciding very much over what you can do. This was the heart of classical liberalism, that people ought to be free from coercion in their own lives.
I love the way all nuance evaporates in these discussions. No society is solely capital or solely socialistic. There’s a blend and the blend lines are where we should debate. A better investment from and in workers is definitely required to make working conditions better. The best jobs tend to have unions. Unions tend to be socialist.
Unions are only possible in a capitalist society
During the debate I asked a question (57:35): "Question for Destiny: why do you support unions if they are inherently anti-capitalist?"
Destiny's answer was not clear from my perspective
@@alelzarterl212 yeah it’s interesting. If I was gonna steelman him I’d say that he sees the unions as not anti capitalism but as push back within the capitalist system. That might be unions but it also might be individual wage demands or entrepreneurs or collective bargaining via boardroom takeover etc etc.
the trouble is the capitalism n it’s purest form doesn’t figure any push back. The push back comes from opposing ideologies so that I think you’re correct in questioning destiny’s seeming and uncharacteristic lack of nuance here. He seems to dismiss the socialist movements influence on unions and the fact, imho, that without socialism injected into the free market model you don’t get fair workers rights. The best example in history I can give is the British workers arc from
1860 to 1960. 1860 workers were seen as expendable and if they lost their lives they were relaxed by another desperate human being. Kids were used for jobs so dangerous that the result of an accident was being mashed and diced inside of a mechanical loom. By 1960 the input of socialism had almost reached a point where, men at least, had a healthy wage and their lives were generally held in a higher regard. This wasn’t solely socialist in its evolution but it was the biggest proportion of influence.
Manchester (U.K.) science ad industry museum is such a great source of history for this. Combined with the slavery aspect you ca fail to come away realising that in human beings are left without regulation then they do the most heinous acts and that religion and capitalism can be the justification catalyst and the fuel to commit them.
@@schenksteven1that’s not true. Planned economies and communist economies can have unions. These types of economies have the same possibility of abusing workers rights. You can’t really have unions in a dictatorship if the dictator is a tyrant.
“The All-China Federation of Trade Unions (ACFTU) is the national trade union center of the People's Republic of China. It is the largest trade union in the world with 302 million members in 1,713,000 primary trade union organizations. The ACFTU is divided into 31 regional federations and 10 national industrial unions.”
@@Theactivepsychos Sorry, I should have been more precise... you are technically correct. What I should have said is that "unions that have any functional power are not possible in a marxist society." Obviously you can have groups called unions in a command economy, they just can't have any actual negotiating power, otherwise it's not a command economy, de facto.
57:48 Destiny letting it rip🎉
Two huge farts. One at 57.13, too. Dont know if it was destiny or not, but i can't believe no one reacted.
@@danielhamilton3496 as far as I'm concerned, Destiny is guilty until proven innocent
@kabine1 I have concussive evidence as of watching further. If you skip to just before 59.00 you will see the true perpetrator trying to cover his shame with a cough. Unfortunately, it's not destiny.
I want to ask Leo what the incentive is to invent anything under his system. Democratic ownership of property means that anything you invent cannot be used for your own profit, but will immediately be seized in order that the benefits accrue to mostly everyone but the inventor. Why would any inventor want to live in such a system?
The food market is one of the most regulated and subsidized, perhaps that's why overproduction occurs and perhaps food being a necessary element to survival effects the overproduction of food because we get a psychic benefit from having extra food.
Destiny keeps me sane and on the left.
Why would an outlier keep you on an political side?
@@EricTitansSmith The online left is like a big social group that follows left ideas, and alot of the time they act in ways that are insane. Its easy to want to regect the group and move away from it due to this, and thats kind of what destiny has done, however that has nothing to do with how valid the ideas themselves are.
If the ideas on the left are the best ideas, but the groups that hold them are insane, its really important to have sane individuals defending the ideas while condemning the groups for their irrationality and bad actions.
Alot of conservitism rides on the idea that people on the left are insane, and that we should therefore go to the right where people live in reality. Destiny kind of hacks this by also focusing on the insanity of people on the left, but then subverts this with the alternative narrative that the left is actually the correct side, and that leftist groups are crazy and we should fight to make them better by making good examples of ourselves while condemning/exposing other crazy leftists.
@@damx9385 Online left is an idea that can be put to rest. 300k people didn't show up to the capital screaming from the river to the sea online. BLM weren't torching virtual businesses. Also, the left have some ideas I love. Why should that be where I align politically. Does execution mean nothing? Does the ability to preserve what already exist not a factor? I would deduce that if the only thing you like about their politics are ideas, maybe take those ideas to whever competent non activist human are.
Steven gets up there and opens with a short simple statement. Leo starts by talking about emotion and jumps straight into talking points.
I feel bad for this kid. He seems to have nothing of substance to work with. Destiny's audience is so sweet too. Very generous with the credit (which is deserved at a lower magnitude than I've read here).
It seems to show that people are just starved for people who don't speak in bad faith.
We grade socialists on a curve, he got credit for not licking the ground and not throwing feces at the wall.
@Destiny 1 complaint. The mics of debators were well caliberated. But the mic used by the anouncer/live-audience wasn't, kinda the same problem you pointed out with L-Asan's mic, where it cuts off in the middle of speaking, I don't remember the technical term, but the mic is less sensitive or something like that. You guys prolly didn't have problems listening, cause you guys were in the same room, but very bad experience for the internet viewers.
"5 million die of starvation every year" reminds me of that insanely dishonest meme that socialists like to toss around where literally none of the citations reference capitalism as the source/cause of deaths related to hunger, starvation, of thirst. The real fact of the matter is that areas without strong property rights, ie. capitalistic regions/nations, tend to lead the world in spades in these kinds of deaths.
"I don't think people under a socialist economy would be chasing profits." Based on what evidence do he have for this statement? All of human history suggests otherwise. lol
Everything this guy says is hopes and dreams. For anything he's predicting it would literally require all human nature to change. For people to want less, be nicer, give more. That's not going to happen magically.
Yeah, socialists seem to be under the impression that we only want money because we’re worried we’ll die otherwise, so if we fix that no one will care about money anymore.
Humans have always pursued resources-and always more than what they need. It’s not like if a farmer has 100 acres of land he’ll say “oh I only need 10 acres to feed myself, so I’ll just not plant any more seeds than that.”
All economic systems function to generate resources, and distribute excess resources. Socialists seem to think that they’ll magically produce exactly what they need and no more, and everyone will be happy with that.
"It's a tad ironic to refer to it as a more democratic system when certain ideologies are not only necessarily incompatible with the state, they would be banned from certain forms of economic participation as well."
- Destiny
Right, I forgot that when we made it illegal for people to murder one another we became a less democratic society.... Spot on logic, Destiny.
I mean we don’t ban the pro murder party though. It simply doesn’t have support.
this is the dumbest thing ive read in a while
Damn, i see so much of myself in this guy. It feels like I'm watching myself 2 years ago trying to debate market socialism before finally swallowing the liberal pill on things.
I think if he keeps on track to pursuing intellectual honesty over idealism he'll come around to seeing just how much better liberal economics is over any of the 31 different flavors of socialism or whatever that exist.
Curious, what pushed you to that realization? Was this a single moment or a gradual process? Particular thinkers or particular issues? Fascinated how that process works if you would indulge me.
Elementary bs aside, which I consider the majority of the subject, I struggle most with the dissonance near the end regarding the "overproduction of food". Unlike a mechanical line wherein it's conception, operation and product is an output of multi-layered calculation, organic growth is inherently the wood to this marble. With all our sciences and chemical manipulations in effect, there is still by natural laws anomalous variables restricting the precision factor. One grows an orchard, one must collect the produce. We would not hinder the bounty of the harvest only to maintain agreeable figures as this should be expected to compensate for a productive deficit elsewhere. Unsure of where to find academic information on this specifically, I'm sure some university is being paid to conduct the research; overproducing would be a factor in propagation of biomatter contributing to a nutrient economy at surface level, more seeds, more wildlife access to discarded units, biodegrading compost to sustain healthy bacteria and molds, etc. One could make an argument for efficient storage and consumption of higher-chain dietary options, possibly a surtax on un-eaten portions when eating out (I have seen this at some sushi places). Overproduction is undeniably systematically the sensible option vs famine so the if the issue is waste, controls on production are a fallacy as we had seen in post-soviet perestroika, and the improvements are to be made in preservation and distribution. No we will not grow pineapples in Maine, so the transit in produce is unavoidable. At the face level, we also cannot deny people calories they need in prescribed rations without cause; no matter how women rationalize, working men require more food and among them, some more than others. Access to food, and the harmony at which which it is efficiently consumed is therefore a highly complex problem beyond political argument hopefully technological progress will have the breadth of computation to solve. Governmental imposition on the food supply chain should only be in effect of an AI nutritionist/grocery assistant/cooking instructor connected to a smart itemization of the contents of your refrigerator to employ a better culture of food preparation and utilization. Optional, but adequately proficient in reducing spending on food which will not be eaten in due time.
On a side note, after many years of consideration on the subject of landfills, I can't shake the possibility there is an undisclosed reason for the generation of waste. I no longer view paper products as trash as much as litter. The amalgamation of waste would require a proportion of matter conducive to it's degradation, so perhaps the millions of napkins, the millions of tons of lettuce and tomatoes and bananas are a more clever way of tilling designated dump sites than most understand. Da Urf will be a much better natural actor in absorbing discarded matter than we will arguably.
inb4 muh planet!; if you halfwits were interested in ecology as you feign, you would recognize the unfathomable effort in reversing the pollution of the seas with it's exponentially grander molecular density. To filter out contaminants in place of "lolcarbon" which never was shit to spook you with a percentage amplification which still isn't shit, which would boost foliage growth, which would be a greener land you may then find uncomfortable in your ignorance. As we do not control the sun - God in most iterations of religion - the ruse to condemn you to less because you may accept it is all on you. [The last statement assumes you can bring yourself to accept solar radiation is the paramount factor of climate change, that we are ants or smaller in scale of planetary vegetation, and you will allow yourself to feel as insignificant as you really are, respectively].
I love when destiny debates economics.
1:32:14 HE’S METHING OUT
We went from Nebraska Steve to Activist Steve to Empathy Steve. But now we’re on Steve S Thompson
Debating against the idealistic viewpoint of a system is impossible. Every system works in theory. The problems come when the system is actually applied. Every example of socialism applied has failed miserably. Everyone loving each other and sharing money sounds great, but when applied it’s failed every time.
The natural evolution from capitalism is post scarcity, not socialism. Post scarcity is two technologies away from happening, fusion power and AI.
I feel like if I believed what this socialist believes, I would just sit back and wait for socialism. Since you can't force it, you don't know what it will look like, we are bound to evolve into it, and the incentives aren't currently there for it now.
The quote about privilege and equality should absolutely NOT be applied to factory workers vs engineers. Engineers frequently put in years of work to get to where they are. You can typically train a factory worker within a few months. There's a reason the work is more valuable and the workers are more valued and thus compensated more highly. If the factory workers want to make more money, they should develop a skill.
Less profit motive? Lol, currency just changes to influence. Completely driven by lack of real world experience with human behavior
Not sure if this comes up, since I’m at 1:05:10 right now, but the transition from feudalism to mercantilism to liberal capitalism was not always peaceful and organic, and I’m surprised the socialist debater is letting that point go considering how important the concept of revolution is to Marx.
Government policy like the enclosure acts in England was important to the development of industrial capitalism (the system Marx was responding to.)
Additionally, from a socialist perspective, I’m surprised the “bourgeois revolutions” haven’t been brought up at all yet.
I’m not a socialist, but I think the socialist debater is not putting the best foot forward for socialism on these points.
Yeah really like this guy’s willingness to admit his side’s shortcomings. I think the issue is that like any other economic system, capitalism has immense problems, but has the unique advantage of being able to sustain itself for a long time without requiring tons of authoritarian influence to keep it going. It does so because it just generates so much wealth. The biggest problems for me are the political instability created by large inequalities even if the overall standard of living is higher, the fact that it seems very hard to make it environmentally sustainable, and the fact that it depends on people indulging in often unhealthy desires, and not discriminating between desires in any way apart from which desires generate the most profit. This creates a perverse incentive where firms are often being incentivized to cultivate addictions and unhealthy habits in people (social media, cigarettes, etc.) which in many cases degrade and even destroy people’s lives.
Capitalism is clearly superior to any form of socialism that has actually been implemented, but these all seem to threaten to be genuinely catastrophic and seemingly unavoidable problems in capitalist societies. I’m not saying socialism is the answer, but I suspect we will ultimately have to move beyond capitalism into something different over time, and it will probably have a lot of socialist elements.
I love how cordial this conversation was. Please invite him to the stream ❤
Audience looks like they time travelled from 2000
I guess my problem with Leo's position, is that by his own logic we shouldn't be doing anything. When Destiny asked why nobody tries to transition to market socialism and why those who tried fail, Leo said that it was forced in the past and currently nobody thinks about it. But somehow society will evolve naturally to ebrace socialism in the next 150 years without it being forced or working class caring about it? Then if it's inevitable why even debating it? Just let the natural thing happen, no?
Right, it sounded to me like Leo was asserting that socialism was inevitable and we just need to sit back and let it happen. But in actuality his belief is that we should SLOWLY force socialism as opposed to all at once. He wouldn’t call it “force”, he would say something like “incentivize”, but the ultimate goal would be to eliminate capitalism and make it illegal. He seems to be hiding in the gradual nature of his advocacy.
He's a future capitalist just doesn't know it yet