A former communist calls in to critique Destiny's approach to debating socialists as he prepares for his debate with Richard Wolff and explains some of the thoughts and arguments he had when he was a socialist before he became an adult.
OMG stooooopppp I am portuguese and this is cringe. Why do people keep saying my county is socialist? The communist party is almost irrelevcant and the party called "Socialist Party" is only called that as a remnant of the 1974 revolution most portuguese people would call it a party of social-democrats.
@@tlanimass952 Yes he did. And trust me we don't - the Communist Party is the only party that actually advocates socialism and they struggle to get 10% representation and are steady losing supporters. Anyone with any knowledge about my country knows that the Socialist Party is just a liberal centrist party.
@@pissmillahgandullah9523 did you had a Stroke? I've only said not everything is communism. And it is strange to listen as a european to topics like that.
Unfortunately, I am unable to eat a good sandwich today :(. But just because I can’t have one, doesn’t mean you can’t! I hope you all get to eat an amazing sandwich today on my behalf!
AT LAST, a discussion on the actual functional problems with co-ops and socialism that, in reality, is at the heart underneath all the ideological utopian stuff! Thanks Destiny and guest as this is indeed the vital part that they NEVER adequately answer!
This is a pretty bad discussion. I would stay away from stream debates and just read. A lot of these things have been addressed by leftists in literature, including some of the “functional problems with socialism”. There really aren’t many functional areas of co-ops that make them less viable than regular capitalist businesses.
@@cameronpatterson130 "There really aren’t many functional areas of co-ops that make them less viable than regular capitalist businesses" - this clearly isn't the case and I find it terrifying that people believe it is! So in these co-ops does everybody get paid the same (from cleaners to managers)? Who decides what the wages will be? Who decides on the hiring and firing of the staff? Who decides what those wages will be? Who starts the business and how (structure, hiring etc). What is the structure and rules behind the voting system (is EVERY decision voted on, If not how is it structured? How are votes proposed and decided upon)? How are competitive adjustments made (especially if that requires labour cost reductions)? How do you get around the inherent problem of the largest group not, in practice, just repeatedly 'ruling the roost' on all votes and humans predominantly voting in their own selfish interests as opposed to those of the business overall? And then why is any of this better than just a 'bonus' scheme, where a large percentage of a businesses annual profits are divided up among its employees? I used to work for a massive international company who did this (it was even calculated based on number of days worked with penalties for too many absent, non consecutive days etc) and it seemed to work really well. They even put on a fireworks (with a massive display, food and drink etc) night for all the staff and their families every year. I find it curious and concerning that I hear so very many talking about and advocating for co-ops these days but NONE of them go into the important minutiae of precisely how they are structured and work, from startup to ongoing businesses!
@@BlackWolf-uk2yb There are co-ops that have existed for over a hundred years and there are several co-ops that are not only successful, but have done exceedingly high profits. You seem to think that co-ops or socialism in general is about egalitarian principles only. You either come at it from a very ideological perspective (what Vaush, Destiny and this "guest" comes at it) or a practical perspective, which is how co-ops are usually approached and run. The previous commentator is right, these issues were long resolved, and it is only the ideological fanatics that seem to find co-ops a failure either in their form as socialist ideas or as a business. This discussion is less about the viability of co-ops as a business and more of an ideological tool. But co-ops are no longer approached as simply ideological tools except by this "community" of seemingly illiterate bread tubers and their opponents. This issues have long been resolved for at least a hundred years. I am always shocked how many so-called "socialists", "communists", and "leftists" and Destiny himself are so profoundly ignorant on long dead arguments. Your comment betrays your ignorance of successful co-op models that have existed successfully across the world for decades if not over a century, including several models that include banking in the US itself. If you want a short summary, the answer is, every co-op resolves its problems individually, are less concerned about ideological pie in the sky ideas, and manage to create democratic models that are viable and sustainable. So much so that governments in the US and Canada have literally made it easier for them to form and already take part in a large part of the economies of several countries... including the US. You are right that most of these channels don't go into the minutiae of how co-ops are structured and run... but you know, they don't go into the minutiae of how most other types of businesses are structured and run either. If you want to learn this, get books and online learning materials and learn it for yourself. If you want to understand the differences between how different business models are structured and run, learn how each of them are run and compare them yourself. You will find once you do this that a lot of these youtubers barely understand even basic ideas. Co-ops are not a panacea and never were thought of as a panacea whatever Destiny and Vaush and this "guest" (who is one of the most ignorant guests that has repeated the most blatant untruths... and Stalinist propaganda to boot). Marx had a particular distain for co-ops, since it originated on the right (which is why I am not a Marxist, and Marxism is not the only form of socialism by the way), but Proudhoun, Bakunin and Kropotkin, while not condemning them, preferred small businesses and entrepreneurship.
@@alen7480 Appreciate you response Alen. Any specific recommendations on books because I have never found one yet that is ever specific. With all these supposed successful examples you would not think it would be so hard to answer my very simple questions even if they relate it to just one such example! Why do you think that nobody ever does and instead just deflect with such answers as 'go and find out' essentially? Why are its supporters so seemingly incapable of answering a straight question or afraid to do so?
@@BlackWolf-uk2yb Do you know how most co-ops are structured? If not I will gladly tell you now. The vast majority of co-ops are structured by people buying memberships which allow for one voting share. Many co-ops allow to buy more non-voting shares, but only one voting share per person. Depending on the charter of the co-op, these members vote on a board of directors and CEO. There are often annual general meetings where the shareholders meet to discuss or bring up issues. In short, other than how the shares are doled out and who gets to vote, they more or less follow the way most corporations are set up. Except for the democracy part of limiting one vote per person, not really that different from a stock owned company really. Some complaints of some co-ops is that they are sometimes indistinguishable from the regular companies. It really depends on your board of directors and the members... but they do tend to be more progressive on the whole. Perhaps you have heard of Credit Unions which are cooperative financial institutions that do banking? Just to give a quick summary from Wikipedia. "A credit union, a type of financial institution similar to a commercial bank, is a member-owned financial cooperative, controlled by its members and operated on a not-for-profit basis. Credit unions generally provide services to members similar to retail banks, including deposit accounts, provision of credit, and other financial services" "Leading up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008, commercial banks engaged in approximately five times more subprime lending relative to credit unions and were two and a half times more likely to fail during the crisis. American credit unions more than doubled lending to small businesses between 2008 and 2016, from $30 billion to $60 billion, while lending to small businesses overall during the same period declined by around $100 billion. In the US, public trust in credit unions stands at 60%, compared to 30% for big banks. Furthermore, small businesses are 80% less likely to be dissatisfied with a credit union than with a big bank" They were more robust in a recession (historically too) than commercial, state and federal chartered banks and increased their share of lending to small businesses during a downturn. Worldwide they are not insignificant either. "According to the World Council of Credit Unions (WOCCU), at the end of 2018 there were 85,400 credit unions in 118 countries. Collectively they served 274.2 million members and oversaw US$2.19 trillion in assets" In the US, several credit unions have existed and continue to exist for a while. The Texas Credit Union League was founded in 1934 and continues to operate under a rebrand called the Cornerstone Credit Union League. To learn more, I guess the first place I would look is in Wikipedia, they generally break things down to an understandable level. Look up Credit Unions and Co-ops. Check the history section of co-ops as well. It breaks down the difference between Marxists and other socialists (which do not like the intervention of the state at all) on top of it all. By the way, according to the International Co-operatives Association " There are 280 million employed by almost three million co-ops around the world. There are almost three million co-ops that employ 10% of the global employed population." Food co-ops (grocery or supermarket) tend to be the oldest ones. Finland and the UK have the oldest ones (over 100 years old) and tend to have the highest consumer confidence. There are a few in the US and Canada as well, but they tend to be smaller and more localized, but co-op chains do exist. A good podcast that talks about the good and bad of co-ops is the All Things Co-op's podcast. Sorry I cannot link it. But I find my comments disappear when I link things. They really get into the issues of co-ops face, often as they try to come up with better alternatives than already exist. They talk about the good, the bad and the very weird. I really like it because it talks about the realities that some co-ops smack up against when they try to be too ideological. For example one that tried to sell unprocessed foods and why it only partially worked. Some co-ops are really creative and innovative, and some of the wacky ones really do well despite how crazy their ideas are. They sometimes discuss how co-ops start from the ground up and the pitfalls they might run into. As for books I would recommend Humanizing the Economy: Co-operatives in the Age of Capital Paperback by John Restakis. As you can hopefully see, the idea of co-ops "being in trouble" and "failing" are completely false. Destiny sounds really confident as he spouts pure garbage that even a little bit of research can debunk. And yes, you have to do some of that research yourself. But it really isn't hard when you have the internet. My further recommendation is to avoid the Marxists websites who talk about problems that don't exist and those websites that assert things without evidence. Sorry for being long., I wanted you to get a good idea how robust co-ops are and how innovative and successful they are. They are really fascinating to read about and study. Feel free to ask for more info if you want. I can recommend search words etc, but I cannot link anything outside youtube it seems. I hope you understand. Take care and hope this helps.
Categories of comments: 1) Destiny? That's a HWAHMANSNAME 2) OMG GUYS THIS VIDEO WENT RIGHT INTO MY FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED 3) Do yuh luv bleck peeple?? 4) Sandwich man describing a sandwich Edit: 5) comments commenting about the lack of originality in des-tiny memes (commented by Studio Gimli) 6) you’re doing god’s work mr editor (commented by Jack Allen)
I've never been right wing, I'm basically a social democrat... and communism has always sounded dumb as hell to me. Same with anarchism. Both are just utopian extremism.
It's a bit annoying, but tbh, the askers for literally, every donation has gotten more annoying. It was funny the first 50 times, less so the next 100.
I'm a grad student studying the Catalonian /Spanish Civil War and this guy totally got wrong the betrayal of the Republicans by CNT-FAI. It was the soviets, not the anarchists that split the coalition and allowed franco to cut off Barcelona from Madrid. Makes me wonder if he got anything else wrong...
1:30 - What kind of language is this, "[they've] killed of their peasant population to fund foreign imports"? Would it be acceptable to talk in the same way about how England during the 1st Industrial Revolution "killed their peasant population to accelerate urbanization and the growth of the labour market"? My god, chill.
No, he means literally kill. Russia would starve the peasantry through man-made famines so they could have state-run farms. Around 5 million people died this way.
@@alucardwhitehair I don't think he's talking about Holodomor there (he's talking about the early period of Russia/USSR industrialisation, and he even talks later about Holomodor specifically), I think he's talking about the political-economic strategy to industrialize a country that has primarily an agricultural production. So, just like the 1st Industrial Revolution, you "sacrifice" the peasant population in order to transform the type of economy you're running. But, if he's talking about Holomodor (or something like Holomodor), how letting people die of hunger make your country import machinery "from France and Germany to develop an industrial society"? What is the causal link? How sacrificing people, reducing crops makes your economy bigger and more industrialised? Holomodor was a catastrophe, a genocide, it was not a political-economic strategy to industrialise the USSR, like the way he talks appears to suggest.
@@ErDiEr He's talking about Holodomor and the associated famines. The Soviet Union attempted to collectivize the agricultural industry so that it could buy the heavy industry it needed (agricultural products were sold at high prices and were a primary source of investment income for the industrialization process). Historians point to this as one of the major causes for the 1932 famines they experienced. I don't see this as comparable to capitalist industrialization.
@@ErDiEr They also confiscated millions of households worth of capital to pay for their industrialization while sending the residents to gulags but that neither here nor there.
@@alucardwhitehair He's talking about Russia/USSR strategy of industrialization, and in this context "sacrificing" the peasantry to create more urbanized and industrialized cities is exactly what the 1st Industrial Revolution did. And they didn't "sacrificed" only the national peasantry, but worldwide peasantry... or we're going to ignore colonization and colonization companies as part of the "capitalistic industrial revolution". You talk about Gulags, we can talk about the history of police, prisons and mental institutions in Europe; you talk about land and households confiscation, we can talk about the Inclosure Acts; you talk about famine, we can talk about colonization and also famines that occurred inside and throughout capitalism (Irish famine, famine in India due to, in part, British policies etc.). Look, all that I'm saying is chill. Don't talk about strategies of industrialization as if they were evil in USSR and (implicitly) good or neutral in England.
Bollock most socialists in America got behind Bernie, which obviously is similar to a Danish social democracy not the USSR. Why this guy is claiming socialist don't want that, It's just dumb to have someone on telling you what another group wants.
Because he was probably a tankie himself who lived on being edgy and making the most extreme takes like "Bernie is just a reformer, we need to change the fundamentals of capitalism to change anything". People that are well off and don´t see the value of basic human rights because they themselves haven´t experienced any hardship.
We should be pushing hard for asteroid mining and nuclear fusion. It kind of frustrates me that so much energy is going into theoretical political structures when we are missing the point that more energy and materials are going to be important no matter what the future looks like
We are. Case in point, Elon masks space x. We gotta solve large logistical problems before we actually think about mining asteroids. Gotta discover the wheen before you can design a car. The other question is, when is it worth while to invest in said discovery. Take modern computing. Would we have sped up our technological advancement by investing in discovering it 20 years prior? What qbout 50 or 100? I don't think the answer is necessarily yes for any specific human discovery or advancement.
@@perhapsyes5745 my personal opinion is by speeding up or augmenting human intelligence. I'm going back to school to study the biocompatibility/stability of implantable neural devices
PORTUGAL RESIDENT HERE... portugal has a really small communist party (which are bit tankie), a bigger "left block party" which has a berney sanders type ideology, then the "socialist party" which are NOT socialist and are basically a little more progressive than American Democrats (but really just a little) , then you have the "Social democrats" which are more economically liberal and socially conservative party ( not to the extent of american republicans).
If Richard Wolf (or any other tankie for that matter), want to try and prove that the USSR improved the lives of their people, and those living under the iron curtain were happy, I highly suggest you tell them to watch the Russian made film Tak zhit nelzya (1990) which translate to "You Can't Live Like That". It compares and contrasts the lives of those living under the Iron curtain and the life of people living in the ghettos of NYC. Guess which group of people had it worst...
He's not a tankie, never has been, and made the case for economic growth in the Soviet Union, not the case for human rights. Germany's domestic economy improved significantly under Hitler, too, wit a mixture of socialist reform (the German Labor Front) and state capitalism. The average worker was still paid in Pfennigs, not Reichsmarks, and lived in a totalitarian police state.
Films are not a good source man. I'm pretty sure the director of that film said he regretted making that video. Also, the fact that black people were lynched in the 50s does not stop people from longing for those good old days, and Pew Research Center reports a similar phenomenon of Soviet nostalgia in 80% of post Soviet states.
Why is it that so few online lefties understand and promote bernie's employee ownership program? It's pretty radical but still makes sense in our given market and can be easily justified to outsiders unlike just "abolishing capital"
@@TheGIGACapitalist I consider myself a market socialist and I’ve never heard of this plan. I’m not an authoritarian by the way like the guy said market socialists are.
Russian Empire might have had the 3 largest economy in the 1890's but the majority of the Russian people were starving and poor. Keep in mind the Russian Empire couldn't even be bothered to give their own soilders helmets WW1. The Communists did improve standard of living for the majority of people in Russia post 1917.
@@miguelpereira9859 Well they set my wage based on wage standards in my proffesion. So they compare it to other companies and set it the base of my wage around the middle of proffesion standards(they even said they dont want to have the highest wages, but not the lowest either.). Of course i also have the option to ask for a raise if i do well.
I think the "how fast you can produce money" critique is a little dated in the era of digital zeroes getting slapped on accounts in mere seconds, but very interesting conversation.
At 10:30 The guest (who is he?) says he gave Vaush the idea for market socialism and Destiny gave Vaush the website? What website are they referring to? When did this happen? What’s the reference?
I reported this video (hypothetically, in a video game) because there were no time stamps. At minimum, if you have a spoiler part you need to have a "skip intro" timestamp.
Even the USSR had niche shops and corner stores. And black markets. Seems there's way more to look into on this topic. Anyway, does this guy have a channel, I wanna join his commune.
Didn't have corner stores as such, did have niche stuff, mostly through initiative of local government bureaucrats. There was a huge black market and therefore corruption, think of drug war, but with all of the goods categories, not just drugs.
So not unlike any other country that has ever existed? The “ex-commie” (doubt he was ever actually a communist) guy doesn’t understand how history or economic history works. Every industrialized country has to get rid of its peasant class.
@@cameronpatterson130 ....you’re willing to trade a fixable problem in legalization of drugs to create a black market for everyday goods to spite the “never communist” ? LOL you gottem bud , socialism wins all now with that brilliant take
Why wouldn't a socialist society still have traditional financial lenders like banks who determine what co-ops should and shouldn't be funded? The only difference is the bank would also be cooperatively owned. Or you could do it through the government. I don't think that's really a "gotcha."
@@fungdark8270 So what? Why would it be bad to have a Democratically elected government body decide what businesses should exist rather than banks motivated by profit for example?
Same can be said about his point on paychecks. A company would most likely hire more people due to an increase in revenue, which in turn can be spend on investments such as people. How would the hiring more workers to increase productivity and revenue within that company automatically dillute or decrease the paychecks of others? And even if it did, how would their paychecks be less than of those who in a system where paychecks are unevenly spread by a far more greater extend (aka traditional ownership)?
@@fungdark8270 How are democratically elected committees "authoritarian?" Similar groups CURRENTLY decide who gets money and who doesn't via tax policy. The government doing things does not automatically mean authoritarianism but nice try I guess.
Asking about private investment under socialism shows a severe lack of understanding of not only socialism, but also for example Marxist theory. Marxist hold that money, wages and investment are only value forms that alienated abstract labor takes form as. What do you think a private investor invests? What does the money represents? The creation of value must still be done by someone. If I want to create a business with multiple workers, I need to convince workers to cooperate with me, under capitalism or socialism or slavery or feudalism. Under slavery I do it with the whip under capitalism I do it with the threat of starvation and a wage, under socialism ideally people would associate freely. The very idea of private investment would seem absurd under socialism. It is not something that would be illegal, but rather unthinkable and foreign.
He's way off on Portuguese politics. The current government is socdem, the opposition is liberal conservative (the two big tent center parties). The democratic socialist party (usually 3rd largest) and the Marxist party are both important for majority coalitions or similar alliances, but not that powerful overall. China's involvement and "partnership" is not ideological, it's financial. After 2008 the country went to shit, the government started to privatize and China invested heavily, so for example electricity is provided by a single company that is 23% owned by China. They also implemented "golden visas", so if you invest 500k or so in property you get free Schengen circulation, full access to public healthcare and university and, after 5 years of residency, citizenship. Over 50% of visas are issued to Chinese investors. So essentially China is flooding Portuguese markets with vital financial support after a devastating crisis, and in exchange Portugal must offer help advancing their EU goals, or they cut the cord. It's pretty much their signature geopolitical move.
My main problems with this guy so far is he makes the perfect the enemy of the good and also downplaying the unbelievably bloody history of the last few centuries, at least when he doesn't wish to use it as a cudgel against his ideological opponents. The bolshevik revolution was good because it was needed to transition away from aristocracy and serfdom, a process which was always bloody, yes even in nations that didn't go onto become communist! The west just gets a pass on this because they outsourced the abject misery to other peoples through imperialism's resource extraction in order to buy off their population. What, you thought the rapid decline in living conditions happening during the enclosure acts where the commons were sold off from under peoples feet was sustainable without imperialism? Sorry but communism and capitalism both have their foundations laid on a bedrock of atrocity. This isn't new. This shouldn't even be controversial. There were plenty of capitalists' themselves arguing this same thing back before this historical revisionism set in pretending liberalism and capitalism were always happy bedfellows as part of cold war propaganda. I'll finish with just that; Here is Cecil Rhodes, a British mining magnate operating in South Africa - "In order to save the forty million inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, our colonial statesmen must acquire new lands for settling the surplus population of this country, to provide new markets. ... The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you hate civil war you must be an imperialist" Edit: It bears mentioning I'm not a communist or socialist. I don't think people care who owns the means of production. It's just the inequality that pisses people off. I myself don't see the point of remaking the economy when a more progressive income/capital gains tax and maybe a wealth tax if needed will already alleviate people concerns. Social democracy just seems like the way to go for me. Going further seems like a unnecessary burden on wealth generation to take care of problems only a tiny minority of very online people care about.
Not to mention the bolshevic revolution was good, because it most likely prevented fascism. It's not like the options in 1917 in Russia where liberal Parlamentarism or bolshevics socialism. The options where rather fascist military dictatorship or the bolshevics. The revolution was not meant to be socialist, but only defensive against both kerensky and the fascist monarchists.
> I don't think people care who owns the means of production. It's just the inequality that pisses people off Uhh. sorry, but that is a socialist premise. You can't speak for all people. People who want certain freedoms like starting their own business and doing their own thing DO care about who owns the means of production. You certainly must understand what "ownership of the means of production" entails right? It's exactly what this guest is talking about, having the ability to start your own business and owning that business. It's basically freedom. And some of us care way more about that than inequality. What do I care how much money Bezos or Musk have relative to me? So long as I have enough to afford my own comfort and supporting my family, that's fine. Sure a lot of poor people might be pissed off now, but it's not necessarily about "inequality", but about being unable to afford basic necessities and comforts. I say this as someone who is also not a socialist, but i'm a huge socialist apologist, so I agree with almost everything else you wrote.
Saving you time, included in the video is a criticism of central planning that leads to overfishing. That’s ironic considering massive amounts of species have been driven extinct or are endangered because of capitalism
5:30 "If co-ops are so good, people will do them". This is such a reductive take that is built on too many assumptions to even list and comes up in these circles quite often. It's almost as ridiculous as thinking the best ideas will always win in the "marketplace of ideas" when in truth simplistic ideas can often be far more convincing while more nuanced and in-depth takes require more time and effort on the part of the person explaining and the person listening. Co-ops generally have higher wages than traditional firms in the same field within a comparative stage of development, making it so that those traditional firms have more wealth that they extracted from their labourers which gives them the ability to reduce prices and invest in things that will increase productivity while co-ops are hindered by being better to its workers and therefore need more timr to accumulate wealth. Once a co-op overcomes these odds (while also taking into account that many banks won't lend to them), then we see that co-ops in general are better than traditional firms by almost any metric and even fair better during the constantly volatile boom and bust cycle inherent to capitalism. The current climate is simply very hostile to co-ops, so just them being better in the long run doesn't mean that we'll necessarily see them win over traditional firms. Not to mention that most people have never even heard of a co-op... so yeah
Did you even watch the video? This is such a vacuous take and you're responding to arguments that were never made in the video. Tell me instead how you'd invest in a co-op.
@@DrevorReal I am literally quoting the guy whom he's speaking to and time-stamped his argument. And yes, I did watch the video and I'm familiar with his and Destiny's takes since I'm a subscriber and watch his content daily. If anything your comment is utterly vacuous since you haven't responded to a single thing I said. Can't expect much else in a community that values blood sports over good faith arguments, I guess.
@@XxSeedOfEvilxX but you're quoting one single like completely out of context. The thrust of their argument wasn't that coops can't be profitable. They admit several times that they could be.
@@DrevorReal That was also not my argument, good strawmen. Their argument (and Destiny does this a lot too) is say that if coops are so great they will outcompete traditional firms in a kind of evolutionary natural selection but for firms. That is not out of context but is a common argument against socialism and worker coops that was deployed here and is what I specifically addressed. I think you need to go back and read my comment to understand why I brought up the wealth traditional firms can accumulate and why it is inherent to capitalism that those firms have the decks stacked in their favor to potentially outcompete worker coops. It's an uphill battle from the get-go. And it's not some conspiracy against worker coops before you strawman that way too, it's just inherent to capitalism.
@@XxSeedOfEvilxX Here's your first problem. You don't know what capitalism is. Let me break it down for you. If you're saying that coops are in fact viable or even more profitable than traditional firms - the free market to the extent it is free will select for those types of organizations. If you're saying that coops are profitable but that wealthy capitalists are too stuck in their old ways to invest, well then you're problem isn't capitalism now is it? In fact, your problem is the opposite of capitalism. You're saying that investors who should know better are putting tradition and superstition above good old fashioned selfish capitalist market incentives. You can't have it both ways, mate.
Who makes the pride flags in a communist society? Imagine a communist society with the American political makeup from 10 years ago. If you need people to vote to allocate resources to these pride flags, it just isn’t going to happen. Same for any similar items that show support for an idea. It would enforce the status quo, and in this example, gay people never become mainstream and have a much longer fight to be treated equally.
I normally do philosophy and I took an intro class to sociology this recent semester... Feel like sociology definitely is the class that pushes people towards socialism since that's where Vaush came from and I can see why with how the sociological perspective of social conflict theory is taught with just structural functionalism kinda being dumb as the other macro level sociological perspective... And social conflict theory kinda feels like it leads into socialism with the rhetoric... I mean it's also basically for socdems, but I feel like it pushes you more to Marx...
Because sociology constantly uses materialist analysis of society. And Marx's critique of political science and capitalism is materialist. Socialism existed before Marx, however marx is the first one to introduce a "scientific socialist" theory. It makes sense for sociologists to be marxists.
@@astralgod6448 It doesn't make necessarily make sense of a sociologist to be Marxist if they're utilizing a symbolic interactionist approach to sociology, and certainly not if they're more focused on the structural functionalist approach which is very favorable towards hierarchical systems...
@@RealmRabbit Definitely, but what i meant is these people are definitely open minded to critiques of society etc.And they're more likely to read Marx and understand him than the average person
As someone who argued with leftys online in my personal life, 1 thing I had to fight constantly is the "majority or plenty of people in the former solviet countries want the union back" it wasnt a study it was a poll and the information cited groups that were 18-25 25-30 30-35 36+ Which makes no sense because the age groups that are split none of which actually lived under the union and the group that didnt was super against it
@Aaron Hackett also depends what country your in, if your in Russia especially the industrialized portion you got all the benefits but if you were in Eukraine or the other parts that were borderline sacrificed for the purpose of that industrialization you probably didnt like it as much. Anecdotally I have relatives that lived on the border and lived under the socialism and he had to buy nice shoes in Canada so that his children could get them and was always shocked by the freedom here
@Aaron Hackett it would be east Germany on the border of the Baltic sea. And yes shit didn't work out great ubder those countries but don't tell me their conditions now are worse than somviet famines? If capitalism is going to go what is it going to be replaced by? What exactly is your system? I see capitalism as the safest foundation, and from there you build on the foundation with liberal or "social" policies. For example health care, minimum wage, vacation time and mental health services. I think that is far safer and more beneficial for all than a socialist system that may sacrifice its people for industrialization, systemic abuse of its people, lack of amenities or at worst a country that can be "blown up by capitalist countries"
To the first question ”who decides which business gets to open and wich doesn’t : isn’t that already the case in capitalism? Instead of entity xy it’s a bank that decides right? If I decide to open a flower store I have to go to bank and make said good argument if I can’t i am similarly fucked right? Genuinely want to know I feel like they just ignored that in their talk
If I want to open a business under capitalism I need to convince a person with a lot of money to invest, whose sole interest is profit. Under socialism I need to convince some council, with ilthe interest of bettering society. I feel like this is a weird place to get hung up
@@sirherbert6953 I mean i don't think there is much difference between a bank deciding to lend you money with the expectation to get more back and council that checks how beneficial it is for society but ok whatever
As a spaniard that doesnt know that much about politics, spanish polticis 101 is, remember that the spanish socialist workers party isnt socialist nor is it made of workers, sounds better in spanish but its practically an expression here.
With respect to the computers and algorithms distributing resources, Destiny and his guest are pretty wrong. WalMart and Amazon absolutely do use algorithms to distribute goods and services. In school for my planning degree I was taught partially how to determine are market area for a Walmart or wherever. And of course WalMart uses algorithms to determine how to acquire and distribute its goods from the source to the store.
Walmart is a particularly bad example of free market capitalist efficiency to use too, because ironically, Walmart is effectively a planned economic enterprise itself. There are no internal markets within Walmart and the goods Walmart sells are not bought at market price. They are sold to the end user at market price of course, but Walmart has effectively no markets throughout it’s supply chain that it interacts with. All of the math about supply and demand and what to produce is still being done, it is simply being planned internally by algorithms rather than some Gosplan style government economic planning agency. Walmart also sells many of it’s products at a loss to meet demand. That’s not to say that Walmart isn’t a for-profit enterprise, it obviously is, but it’s ironic that for all the talk about how efficient the free market is, the first thing global multinational corporations realize is that if you want your global supply chains to be more efficient, you immediately remove as many market variables as possible. Some of the biggest multinational corporations are essentially mini planned economies. There is a great book about this called “The People’s Republic of Walmart” that is very interesting if anyone is curious about this.
@@f.i.n.5065 Wtf is this take. Central planning only exists when no other options exist within given land constraints. Walmart is clearly competing with other companies such as Target and Amazon.
@@ExPwner No shit Sherlock, everything operates entirely within the market because all enterprises exist today under global capitalism under a global market. You could say that about literally anything, from North Korea to CHAZ to the most crunchy granola anarcho-communist hippy commune. You proceed to give zero arguments or sources for why the book is wrong, a book, btw, that you have clearly never even read. I know you are a lolbert so you must have a gigantic brain and a very very firm grasp on economics but a single article by the fucking Cato institute about the book is not the rock solid DEBOONK you think it is.
@@akivaweil5066 and the USSR, one of the most infamous examples of a planned economy, was still, by it’s own admission, competing with America and the West. A planned economy simply means it’s inputs and outputs and where resources flow is planned by a planning apparatus rather than being solely determined by the market. In a market economy, resources go towards the highest bidder, as that is how we determine economic need and ability to make a profit, in a planned economy, resources flow towards enterprises with the most “need” as determined by the planning apparatus. This was actually a big problem in the USSR, where they continually pumped resources into sectors of their economy (namely agricultural) that were simply not profitable and could barely make quota, they should have excised these sectors from their economy but the workers would never vote to give away their own jobs. Socialism and/or central planning has it’s problems, but the point of the book is that the Economic Calculation Problem isn’t as relevant in 2022 as it was when Hayek et all wrote about decades ago. We can transmit information about inputs and outputs, supply and demand, and determine the flow of resources instantly over vast distances, it’s not a utopian vision, many companies under modern capitalism such as the aforementioned Walmart are doing just that to remove market forces from their supply chains and effectively operate more like a multinational planned economic enterprise rather than a classical free market one. I found the book very interesting particularly in how he contrasted Walmart’s business practices with that of Sears and other similarly massive corporations. Again, Walmart famously operates a lot of it’s rural stores at a loss, largely to drive out local competition to one day be able to raise prices, but the point remains that this goes against many free market economic principles, if a store is unprofitable, you close it, yet Walmart operates them at a loss for the potential of future profits and the overall health of the organization. It will keep unprofitable items on the shelf for the sake of the economic safety of it’s supply chains. Whole departments, such as the vegetable counter and deli operate at a loss. They have done massive calculations and have planned and determined that they need these unprofitable departments to get people in the door to buy the items they make the most profit on, canned and frozen foods and clothing and electronics from China. If you get all your groceries from Walmart, you’ll probably buy your socks there too. They operate certain departments at a loss and pump resources into unprofitable stores for the sake of the consumer and to keep those stores stocked, even if they know it won’t sell. Walmart sacrifices the surplus profit from their massively profitable stores just to keep unprofitable ones open. This is a very peculiar thing, especially when you look at the sheer scale of Walmart as a multinational entity, Walmart is one of the largest employers in the world, if it were a country, it would rival the GDP’s of most small countries, all while utilizing internal policies that fly in the face of “determined” free market economics and at times are even reminiscent of the most infamous planned economies such as the USSR. The book is incredibly interesting. And before anyone jumps down my throat, Walmart does close stores, and they do seek to maximize profit, they just have many internal policies that fly in the face of established free market economics. Redistributing profits, focusing on the whole health of the organization rather than trying to maximize profitability on a store by store basis, and even pumping resources into unprofitable rural stores just to meet local demand. Does this remind you anything? Walmart’s business practices are ruthless but they are incredibly interesting when looked at through this lens. That’s not even mentioning what I mentioned before, that Walmart intentionally seeks to remove market forces from as much of it’s supply chains as possible for the sake of safety and security of the organization. Many of Walmart’s producers are paid far lower than market price on the trade off of steady, stable business on a large scale. All of these policies have been spectacularly successful, Walmart is a miracle of economics when you look at it’s prices and the sheer number of commodities it moves and sells on a daily basis, all while having seemingly counterintuitive policies that would make most business and economics majors spin in their heels.
Yes and that’s despite how soft he is on them. He needs to go as hard as he did on the far right on them, especially genocide deniers like Richard Wolff
Destiny must demonstrate why Efficiency SHOULD be valued over sustainability... his entire argument hinges on Efficiency... why is this, better for Climate change?
To answer why a co-op wouldn't fire someone after the 2 year mark and becoming a union its because most of them are also part of a union (tho I supose a non-union co-op could do that)
I would say this conversation was another in the value of reading books and learning history, but unfortunately it would not have helped in his conversation with wolff. But its good to know if he ever gets a properly moderated conversation with wolff or another top dog socialist again, but i doubt wolff will do it again anyways. This is just good info for us to research and know about. So as to not let people dupe us into stupid shit.
First time I have heard good, good faith critism of workers co-ops, the point about hiring new people diluting your pay and say is a really good point to think about.
@@STRONTIumMuffin It's basically the same consideration a business owner would be making when hiring another worker or expanding the company so I'm actually confused as to how they would miss that.
Whether or not he supported socialism is irrelevant to me and should be irrelevant for everyone. All we need is a convincing argument for why socialism would be a more terrible option for how the workplace is managed in the economy. Destiny thinks that the Government would make it illegal for a person to start a business. Destiny not understanding what Socialism is isn't anything new but there shouldn't be any reason why the government would need to be involved in the economy. Maybe perhaps the government has to be used to change the current major corporations to become worker owned so that the industry is open to more fairness but after that it should go hands off. No government should ever be in control of the economy because at that point it's not socialism but just a command economy. Wish Destiny was a bit more knowledgeable when talking about this stuff. 🤷♂️
I would be interested in a debate with Destiny against someone from the zero books group. Like Douglas Lain or Derrick Varn. Both of them would be terrible in a debate, since none of them are debate bros, but still at least Destiny would talk to actual Marxist instead of people who skimmed the manifesto and then boast with the hammer and scycle
20:26 who said that the economy can be planned on a Dell laptop, and what do you mean by "the economy can be planned" exactly? Is that just "tracking a company's expenses", or "marketing"? I mean... Expensify exists to Automate the functions of most accountants rendering them useless. GPT-3 is sophisticated enough to replace a huge chunk of chat related customer support in the near future. Granted this isn't a Dell Laptop and I don't understand the function of bringing that up specifically by either you or whoever said it originally, but it's not hard to see how things are only going to get worse moving forward if automation isn't addressed at the very least. Fully automated luxury communism doesnt sound that far off at this point honestly if people don't try to cull the "Undesirables" from what could litterally be a utopia. Bit derailed maybe but I'm just severely confused as to what "plan the economy on a dell computer" is supposed to mean. Wat.
The moment the guest said that anarchist want to go back to feudalism I became highly skeptical of what he was saying. It takes less than 30 minutes of research to understand that anarchism and feudalism are opposites.
ok, not even a market socialist and that take that you wouldn't be allowed to start a business (like a restaurant) is really bad. Why wouldn't you? and even if you can't find the people with the same money to invest as you, just have the people who want to work but don't have money to invest build equity by taking a percentage of their pay until they are on par with everyone else. And yest, that would allow abuses, but you'd have labour laws in place for that.
I take issue with Destiny's portrayal of Michael Albert's position--it is at times like this that I wish Destiny would read more advanced scholarship on economics and political theory. Does participatory economics stand on loose foundations? Sure, but Albert's criterion of "onerousness" as a determinant of wage is not replaceable by market dynamics precisely insofar as it is decidedly different from scarcity and demand. What is more is that the latter, neoclassical formula for wages itself is not as empirically well-founded as we would like to believe: the Coase theorem (in its original heterodox variation), for one, demonstrates the folly of such "blackboard" economics.
i would not trust that guy talking about buddhism at the end. i mean a zen buddhist telling you to watch out for nichirens due to their history is a bit sus considering zen were the ones who were instrumental in promoting the japanese empire in ww2.
My only problem with capitalism is that I just don't know how can It work with a mostly automated workforce. Like at some point most jobs are gonna be outdated and we will not be able to create enough to replace the ones lost, then what? What do we do at that point?
Here's what happens: Supply of people needing jobs goes up. The market creates an incentive for people to retrain to the types of jobs that are left, and not jobs that can be automated. Those people retrain. The companies which are way more efficient and profitable, have more resources available to them. They either expand their company or they invest that money into other businesses to make more money. Those businesses hire more people. All of that in this oversimplified version of a market, works without any government. The problems get identified quickly, and by people closest to the problem. Elon Musk talks about the problem with automation, is that it's not that jobs get automated. It's that people's bandwidth to retrain is slower than the markets. If trucks were automated today, instantly the whole industry and market of employees and contractors would disappear over night, and people are not going to universally retrain overnight. So the problem with capitalism and automation isn't that it can't employ people... it's that the problem for the workers is that the markets are going to disrupt too fast, and while they eventually correct, in the meantime people's lives are going to be ruined. Supply chains are massive and when disrupted, cause big problems. Human jobs are sorta like a supply chain. People invest in trainers, education facilities, and their skills to feed the demand of companies.
@@marketpie6637 Okay I think I get It, I am guessing automating jobs like transportation is not coming anytime soon. But I was thinking big picture, like I don't think we could just replace jobs at infinitum, at some point we are gonna start losing jobs even if we do It slowly and carefully without disrupting the supply chains...right? Like maybe I am acting like a horse owner in the XIX century but this replacement has to slow down at some point. We can't automate forever while creating more and more jobs, the current market solution will stop working and at some point we might need government intervention. Still far away tho, I mean self driving is still terrible, so idk.
No one has solved the calculation problem to a satisfactory extent. I want more than some shit computer model as a proof-of-concept before you slap your algo in the seat of power.
Destiny literally made an anti-immigration argument when he said new workers in a coop diminish vote power and then also advocated against adapting to economic demand by arguing that he should only be able to sell certain flowers regardless of others coming in and suggesting they could do better sales by expanding beyond just two flowers. Both of those positions aren't just anti socialisms, they're anti-liberalism.
It's also a weird point, because why then would a private capitalist hire more people. Would that not by the same logic cut into his money? It made no sense
Good observation. Immigration policy is done for exactly that reason. You want people to come and uphold the ideals values of the country. A gross oversimplification of the problem of open borders/complete democracy would be, China sends half a billion people over and then changes all government controls to China via votes. I think I have heard destiny talk of the nuance that border policy should both be free of racism, but also smart that you don't destabilize your country. A productive society, company, or organization is at its most productive when they have alignment of the whole people. So too much immigration, or too many outside workers/owners will by just the nature of people being outsiders, will bring a level of instability to the group
A former communist calls in to critique Destiny's approach to debating socialists as he prepares for his debate with Richard Wolff and explains some of the thoughts and arguments he had when he was a socialist before he became an adult.
Destiny is a woman's name and Destiny's hyper utopian debates are hella cringe. Post the Derek Chauvin video.
Love u August, still not gonna subscribe tho
Nice
Hi destiny
Whens this debate gunna happen
This is my first time ever watching this Destiny guy. I'm subbing just because he has such man's name.
135 comments
I love UA-cam commenters so much
I bet you'll be shocked to know then that Destiny is in fact a girl's name 😉😉
@@SuperLotus amazin' tell me more
Is that you Jesse?
This is my first time watching this Destiny guy. Im subbing because he is so tall.
He? I thought destiny was a girl's name
@@placate9051 thats a red herring
@@placate9051 THEYRE non binary lol
@Yeah Way oh my bad
@@placate9051 PIVOT! 5 demerits
OMG stooooopppp I am portuguese and this is cringe. Why do people keep saying my county is socialist? The communist party is almost irrelevcant and the party called "Socialist Party" is only called that as a remnant of the 1974 revolution most portuguese people would call it a party of social-democrats.
Every country is communism when you can see a doc if you are poor.
He didn't say Portugal is socialist. He said Portugal is one of the countries that has a true socialist party.
@@tlanimass952 Yes he did. And trust me we don't - the Communist Party is the only party that actually advocates socialism and they struggle to get 10% representation and are steady losing supporters. Anyone with any knowledge about my country knows that the Socialist Party is just a liberal centrist party.
@@TheAbcbc if communism is so good and create equality then why should anyone be poor????
@@pissmillahgandullah9523 did you had a Stroke? I've only said not everything is communism. And it is strange to listen as a european to topics like that.
This is my first time watching this Destiny guy. Im subbing because people in the comments definitely don't run memes into the ground.
@@gamezoid1234 he’s been doing them for years
@@gamezoid1234 dont care didnt ask plus youre a caucasiod
it’s still going on .
Unfortunately, I am unable to eat a good sandwich today :(. But just because I can’t have one, doesn’t mean you can’t! I hope you all get to eat an amazing sandwich today on my behalf!
Heavy from Team Fortress 2 wants to know your location
sellout went for a hotdog today
Fuck yeah
sanwich
i had a really nice sandwich with spicy mayo, chicken brest, and cheeze
AT LAST, a discussion on the actual functional problems with co-ops and socialism that, in reality, is at the heart underneath all the ideological utopian stuff! Thanks Destiny and guest as this is indeed the vital part that they NEVER adequately answer!
This is a pretty bad discussion. I would stay away from stream debates and just read. A lot of these things have been addressed by leftists in literature, including some of the “functional problems with socialism”. There really aren’t many functional areas of co-ops that make them less viable than regular capitalist businesses.
@@cameronpatterson130 "There really aren’t many functional areas of co-ops that make them less viable than regular capitalist businesses" - this clearly isn't the case and I find it terrifying that people believe it is!
So in these co-ops does everybody get paid the same (from cleaners to managers)? Who decides what the wages will be? Who decides on the hiring and firing of the staff? Who decides what those wages will be?
Who starts the business and how (structure, hiring etc). What is the structure and rules behind the voting system (is EVERY decision voted on, If not how is it structured? How are votes proposed and decided upon)? How are competitive adjustments made (especially if that requires labour cost reductions)?
How do you get around the inherent problem of the largest group not, in practice, just repeatedly 'ruling the roost' on all votes and humans predominantly voting in their own selfish interests as opposed to those of the business overall?
And then why is any of this better than just a 'bonus' scheme, where a large percentage of a businesses annual profits are divided up among its employees? I used to work for a massive international company who did this (it was even calculated based on number of days worked with penalties for too many absent, non consecutive days etc) and it seemed to work really well. They even put on a fireworks (with a massive display, food and drink etc) night for all the staff and their families every year.
I find it curious and concerning that I hear so very many talking about and advocating for co-ops these days but NONE of them go into the important minutiae of precisely how they are structured and work, from startup to ongoing businesses!
@@BlackWolf-uk2yb There are co-ops that have existed for over a hundred years and there are several co-ops that are not only successful, but have done exceedingly high profits. You seem to think that co-ops or socialism in general is about egalitarian principles only. You either come at it from a very ideological perspective (what Vaush, Destiny and this "guest" comes at it) or a practical perspective, which is how co-ops are usually approached and run.
The previous commentator is right, these issues were long resolved, and it is only the ideological fanatics that seem to find co-ops a failure either in their form as socialist ideas or as a business. This discussion is less about the viability of co-ops as a business and more of an ideological tool. But co-ops are no longer approached as simply ideological tools except by this "community" of seemingly illiterate bread tubers and their opponents. This issues have long been resolved for at least a hundred years. I am always shocked how many so-called "socialists", "communists", and "leftists" and Destiny himself are so profoundly ignorant on long dead arguments. Your comment betrays your ignorance of successful co-op models that have existed successfully across the world for decades if not over a century, including several models that include banking in the US itself.
If you want a short summary, the answer is, every co-op resolves its problems individually, are less concerned about ideological pie in the sky ideas, and manage to create democratic models that are viable and sustainable. So much so that governments in the US and Canada have literally made it easier for them to form and already take part in a large part of the economies of several countries... including the US.
You are right that most of these channels don't go into the minutiae of how co-ops are structured and run... but you know, they don't go into the minutiae of how most other types of businesses are structured and run either. If you want to learn this, get books and online learning materials and learn it for yourself. If you want to understand the differences between how different business models are structured and run, learn how each of them are run and compare them yourself. You will find once you do this that a lot of these youtubers barely understand even basic ideas. Co-ops are not a panacea and never were thought of as a panacea whatever Destiny and Vaush and this "guest" (who is one of the most ignorant guests that has repeated the most blatant untruths... and Stalinist propaganda to boot). Marx had a particular distain for co-ops, since it originated on the right (which is why I am not a Marxist, and Marxism is not the only form of socialism by the way), but Proudhoun, Bakunin and Kropotkin, while not condemning them, preferred small businesses and entrepreneurship.
@@alen7480 Appreciate you response Alen. Any specific recommendations on books because I have never found one yet that is ever specific. With all these supposed successful examples you would not think it would be so hard to answer my very simple questions even if they relate it to just one such example! Why do you think that nobody ever does and instead just deflect with such answers as 'go and find out' essentially? Why are its supporters so seemingly incapable of answering a straight question or afraid to do so?
@@BlackWolf-uk2yb Do you know how most co-ops are structured? If not I will gladly tell you now. The vast majority of co-ops are structured by people buying memberships which allow for one voting share. Many co-ops allow to buy more non-voting shares, but only one voting share per person. Depending on the charter of the co-op, these members vote on a board of directors and CEO. There are often annual general meetings where the shareholders meet to discuss or bring up issues. In short, other than how the shares are doled out and who gets to vote, they more or less follow the way most corporations are set up. Except for the democracy part of limiting one vote per person, not really that different from a stock owned company really. Some complaints of some co-ops is that they are sometimes indistinguishable from the regular companies. It really depends on your board of directors and the members... but they do tend to be more progressive on the whole.
Perhaps you have heard of Credit Unions which are cooperative financial institutions that do banking? Just to give a quick summary from Wikipedia.
"A credit union, a type of financial institution similar to a commercial bank, is a member-owned financial cooperative, controlled by its members and operated on a not-for-profit basis. Credit unions generally provide services to members similar to retail banks, including deposit accounts, provision of credit, and other financial services"
"Leading up to the financial crisis of 2007-2008, commercial banks engaged in approximately five times more subprime lending relative to credit unions and were two and a half times more likely to fail during the crisis. American credit unions more than doubled lending to small businesses between 2008 and 2016, from $30 billion to $60 billion, while lending to small businesses overall during the same period declined by around $100 billion. In the US, public trust in credit unions stands at 60%, compared to 30% for big banks. Furthermore, small businesses are 80% less likely to be dissatisfied with a credit union than with a big bank"
They were more robust in a recession (historically too) than commercial, state and federal chartered banks and increased their share of lending to small businesses during a downturn. Worldwide they are not insignificant either.
"According to the World Council of Credit Unions (WOCCU), at the end of 2018 there were 85,400 credit unions in 118 countries. Collectively they served 274.2 million members and oversaw US$2.19 trillion in assets"
In the US, several credit unions have existed and continue to exist for a while. The Texas Credit Union League was founded in 1934 and continues to operate under a rebrand called the Cornerstone Credit Union League.
To learn more, I guess the first place I would look is in Wikipedia, they generally break things down to an understandable level. Look up Credit Unions and Co-ops. Check the history section of co-ops as well. It breaks down the difference between Marxists and other socialists (which do not like the intervention of the state at all) on top of it all.
By the way, according to the International Co-operatives Association "
There are 280 million employed by almost three million co-ops around the world. There are almost three million co-ops that employ 10% of the global employed population."
Food co-ops (grocery or supermarket) tend to be the oldest ones. Finland and the UK have the oldest ones (over 100 years old) and tend to have the highest consumer confidence. There are a few in the US and Canada as well, but they tend to be smaller and more localized, but co-op chains do exist.
A good podcast that talks about the good and bad of co-ops is the All Things Co-op's podcast. Sorry I cannot link it. But I find my comments disappear when I link things. They really get into the issues of co-ops face, often as they try to come up with better alternatives than already exist. They talk about the good, the bad and the very weird. I really like it because it talks about the realities that some co-ops smack up against when they try to be too ideological. For example one that tried to sell unprocessed foods and why it only partially worked. Some co-ops are really creative and innovative, and some of the wacky ones really do well despite how crazy their ideas are. They sometimes discuss how co-ops start from the ground up and the pitfalls they might run into.
As for books I would recommend Humanizing the Economy: Co-operatives in the Age of Capital Paperback by John Restakis.
As you can hopefully see, the idea of co-ops "being in trouble" and "failing" are completely false. Destiny sounds really confident as he spouts pure garbage that even a little bit of research can debunk. And yes, you have to do some of that research yourself. But it really isn't hard when you have the internet. My further recommendation is to avoid the Marxists websites who talk about problems that don't exist and those websites that assert things without evidence.
Sorry for being long., I wanted you to get a good idea how robust co-ops are and how innovative and successful they are. They are really fascinating to read about and study. Feel free to ask for more info if you want. I can recommend search words etc, but I cannot link anything outside youtube it seems. I hope you understand. Take care and hope this helps.
Categories of comments:
1) Destiny? That's a HWAHMANSNAME
2) OMG GUYS THIS VIDEO WENT RIGHT INTO MY FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED
3) Do yuh luv bleck peeple??
4) Sandwich man describing a sandwich
Edit:
5) comments commenting about the lack of originality in des-tiny memes (commented by Studio Gimli)
6) you’re doing god’s work mr editor (commented by Jack Allen)
5) comments commenting about the lack of originality in des-tiny memes
1) Cringe
No need for a list but gg 👍
Do yuh luv bleck peeple? Are the only acceptable ones
This video did end up right in my feed though.
Twitch humour is repetitive in nature so it’s not surprising at all
Ayyyyyy finally got an ex-commie on, good to see that I wasn’t the only one to get out of that crowd of terminally online people
Same
Yeah, me too.
I've never been right wing, I'm basically a social democrat... and communism has always sounded dumb as hell to me. Same with anarchism. Both are just utopian extremism.
What made you leave?
Why did you stop being a commie?
RICHARD WOLFF DEBATE TODAY BTW
PEPE WINS BTW
BIG WIN
TRUE
The donos have extreme brain damage. "I think I'll donate in the middle of them talking."
He could delay notification if he wanted.
It's a bit annoying, but tbh, the askers for literally, every donation has gotten more annoying. It was funny the first 50 times, less so the next 100.
They're simping for attention.
Can we just fast forward to Destiny being a Georgist already?
@Matias Martinez Georgism was huge back in its hayday.
The reason why it isn't anymore is cuz it's dumb and wrong.
@@bardianne1421 Why is it dumb and wrong? I’m not a Georgist, I know nothing about besides land tax
@@bardianne1421 how is it wrong? Can you explain?
all the newfound "georgists" who just googled it are coming out of the woodwork lmao
A rare will to antagonize beliefs you used to hold. I'd like to hear more from them.
It’s called gritting especially when no evidence outside of thought exprerimemts
@@JonTheComedian can you translate into English please?
destiny, thats a name
Destiny,
Destiny
destiny? thats a meme that never gets old
amazin'!
I disagree
I'm a grad student studying the Catalonian /Spanish Civil War and this guy totally got wrong the betrayal of the Republicans by CNT-FAI. It was the soviets, not the anarchists that split the coalition and allowed franco to cut off Barcelona from Madrid. Makes me wonder if he got anything else wrong...
1:30 - What kind of language is this, "[they've] killed of their peasant population to fund foreign imports"? Would it be acceptable to talk in the same way about how England during the 1st Industrial Revolution "killed their peasant population to accelerate urbanization and the growth of the labour market"? My god, chill.
No, he means literally kill. Russia would starve the peasantry through man-made famines so they could have state-run farms. Around 5 million people died this way.
@@alucardwhitehair I don't think he's talking about Holodomor there (he's talking about the early period of Russia/USSR industrialisation, and he even talks later about Holomodor specifically), I think he's talking about the political-economic strategy to industrialize a country that has primarily an agricultural production. So, just like the 1st Industrial Revolution, you "sacrifice" the peasant population in order to transform the type of economy you're running.
But, if he's talking about Holomodor (or something like Holomodor), how letting people die of hunger make your country import machinery "from France and Germany to develop an industrial society"? What is the causal link? How sacrificing people, reducing crops makes your economy bigger and more industrialised? Holomodor was a catastrophe, a genocide, it was not a political-economic strategy to industrialise the USSR, like the way he talks appears to suggest.
@@ErDiEr He's talking about Holodomor and the associated famines. The Soviet Union attempted to collectivize the agricultural industry so that it could buy the heavy industry it needed (agricultural products were sold at high prices and were a primary source of investment income for the industrialization process). Historians point to this as one of the major causes for the 1932 famines they experienced. I don't see this as comparable to capitalist industrialization.
@@ErDiEr They also confiscated millions of households worth of capital to pay for their industrialization while sending the residents to gulags but that neither here nor there.
@@alucardwhitehair He's talking about Russia/USSR strategy of industrialization, and in this context "sacrificing" the peasantry to create more urbanized and industrialized cities is exactly what the 1st Industrial Revolution did. And they didn't "sacrificed" only the national peasantry, but worldwide peasantry... or we're going to ignore colonization and colonization companies as part of the "capitalistic industrial revolution".
You talk about Gulags, we can talk about the history of police, prisons and mental institutions in Europe; you talk about land and households confiscation, we can talk about the Inclosure Acts; you talk about famine, we can talk about colonization and also famines that occurred inside and throughout capitalism (Irish famine, famine in India due to, in part, British policies etc.).
Look, all that I'm saying is chill. Don't talk about strategies of industrialization as if they were evil in USSR and (implicitly) good or neutral in England.
Listening to a discussion with Star Wars dog-fights in the background
Votes based on seniority in a co-op would be a hierarchy, right?
Yes, but Anarchists don't like to admit their definitions are vacuous, so they'd just say it would be a "justified" hierarchy.
@@kennikia2234 no anarchist use the term justified hierarchy because they know some degree of hierarchy is required
I like hierarchy that is meritocratic and I hate anarchy. That's all think about on the subject.
@@ricardoramos4514 I have heard many anarchists use the term justified hierarchy.
@@ricardoramos4514 Would the anarchists say it's the unjustified hierarchy that's required?
YO THIS GUY IS AWESOME PLEASE HAVE HIM ON MORE
What's his name??
Can't wait to see Vaush's reaction
Socialism is like Capitalism, but with more steps.
socialism is like capitalism only better.
Who is the guy Destiny is talking to? He's interesting to listen to, seems to know a lot about history.
Bump
@@lkmuks Bump what?
@@pampitam the comment so it has more engagement
I'd also like to know! Did you ever figure it out?
Bollock most socialists in America got behind Bernie, which obviously is similar to a Danish social democracy not the USSR. Why this guy is claiming socialist don't want that, It's just dumb to have someone on telling you what another group wants.
Because he was probably a tankie himself who lived on being edgy and making the most extreme takes like "Bernie is just a reformer, we need to change the fundamentals of capitalism to change anything". People that are well off and don´t see the value of basic human rights because they themselves haven´t experienced any hardship.
We should be pushing hard for asteroid mining and nuclear fusion. It kind of frustrates me that so much energy is going into theoretical political structures when we are missing the point that more energy and materials are going to be important no matter what the future looks like
@Lydia we can chew gum and walk at the same time
We are. Case in point, Elon masks space x. We gotta solve large logistical problems before we actually think about mining asteroids. Gotta discover the wheen before you can design a car.
The other question is, when is it worth while to invest in said discovery. Take modern computing. Would we have sped up our technological advancement by investing in discovering it 20 years prior? What qbout 50 or 100? I don't think the answer is necessarily yes for any specific human discovery or advancement.
@@perhapsyes5745 my personal opinion is by speeding up or augmenting human intelligence. I'm going back to school to study the biocompatibility/stability of implantable neural devices
No, we have to encourage had meaningless debates and power spaceships with heat generated by burning assholes.
Nuclear fusion: perpetually 30 years
PORTUGAL RESIDENT HERE... portugal has a really small communist party (which are bit tankie), a bigger "left block party" which has a berney sanders type ideology, then the "socialist party" which are NOT socialist and are basically a little more progressive than American Democrats (but really just a little) , then you have the "Social democrats" which are more economically liberal and socially conservative party ( not to the extent of american republicans).
Does the guest also have a channel? I'd love to hear more from this guy.
If Richard Wolf (or any other tankie for that matter), want to try and prove that the USSR improved the lives of their people, and those living under the iron curtain were happy, I highly suggest you tell them to watch the Russian made film Tak zhit nelzya (1990) which translate to "You Can't Live Like That". It compares and contrasts the lives of those living under the Iron curtain and the life of people living in the ghettos of NYC. Guess which group of people had it worst...
He's not a tankie, never has been, and made the case for economic growth in the Soviet Union, not the case for human rights. Germany's domestic economy improved significantly under Hitler, too, wit a mixture of socialist reform (the German Labor Front) and state capitalism. The average worker was still paid in Pfennigs, not Reichsmarks, and lived in a totalitarian police state.
Films are not a good source man. I'm pretty sure the director of that film said he regretted making that video.
Also, the fact that black people were lynched in the 50s does not stop people from longing for those good old days, and Pew Research Center reports a similar phenomenon of Soviet nostalgia in 80% of post Soviet states.
Why is it that so few online lefties understand and promote bernie's employee ownership program?
It's pretty radical but still makes sense in our given market and can be easily justified to outsiders unlike just "abolishing capital"
I think support of employee ownership is pretty common. Maybe you just dont count those people as lefties?
@@ArchZombeh I rarely ever hear it brought up.
If you asked most of them I highly doubt they understand even the basics of the plan.
@@TheGIGACapitalist if u say so
@@TheGIGACapitalist I consider myself a market socialist and I’ve never heard of this plan. I’m not an authoritarian by the way like the guy said market socialists are.
@@tripledigit4835 It hardly got any media attention which boggles my fucking my mind because it's literally seizing the means of production.
>Ex commie
>Goes to destiny stream to critique his debates and socialism
>Talks exclusively about state capitalism and the USSR
Talkies out in force. Be home for dinner boys
Tankies are based
Russian Empire might have had the 3 largest economy in the 1890's but the majority of the Russian people were starving and poor. Keep in mind the Russian Empire couldn't even be bothered to give their own soilders helmets WW1. The Communists did improve standard of living for the majority of people in Russia post 1917.
Listening to this guy is like a glass of cold water in a desert. He brings such clarity.
Who is this guy destiny is speaking with? Does he have a chanel? I love this fucking dude
This was a really good conversation,what the name of this guy?
I'm wondering the same thing! Is he trying to keep his identity a secret?
@@mostHumblePersonAlive possibly!!!
replying because I also would like to hear more from this guy.
Destiny, I know it’s a girls name, but trust me
IrishLaddie I think
"Thats just a market with extra steps"
I work for a Co-op in sweden. But i dont get to vote for anything. I have a set salary not a % share of the company.
Then how does it work
@@miguelpereira9859 Well they set my wage based on wage standards in my proffesion. So they compare it to other companies and set it the base of my wage around the middle of proffesion standards(they even said they dont want to have the highest wages, but not the lowest either.). Of course i also have the option to ask for a raise if i do well.
@@litensnubbe9516 Nice
Have this guy on more please
That socialist to fascism prediction was spot on.
This debate lacked the social labour to give it objective value.
I think the "how fast you can produce money" critique is a little dated in the era of digital zeroes getting slapped on accounts in mere seconds, but very interesting conversation.
At 10:30 The guest (who is he?) says he gave Vaush the idea for market socialism and Destiny gave Vaush the website? What website are they referring to? When did this happen? What’s the reference?
d.gg is destiny's own streaming site, it's open source so anybody can use the framework for their own stream, so vaush made v.gg
He's talking about the .gg
@@aagh8714 oh aii I didn’t know that. Thanks for the answer
Vaush was a regular in destiny’s dgg chat for years called Irishladdie, I remember calling him slurs like 7 years ago on there
@Matias Martinez d.gg is Destiny's steaming site. .gg is a open source wibsite Destiny gave Vaush the idea to use .gg
This caller is fantastic
I reported this video (hypothetically, in a video game) because there were no time stamps. At minimum, if you have a spoiler part you need to have a "skip intro" timestamp.
Even the USSR had niche shops and corner stores. And black markets. Seems there's way more to look into on this topic. Anyway, does this guy have a channel, I wanna join his commune.
Didn't have corner stores as such, did have niche stuff, mostly through initiative of local government bureaucrats. There was a huge black market and therefore corruption, think of drug war, but with all of the goods categories, not just drugs.
So not unlike any other country that has ever existed? The “ex-commie” (doubt he was ever actually a communist) guy doesn’t understand how history or economic history works. Every industrialized country has to get rid of its peasant class.
@@cameronpatterson130 ....you’re willing to trade a fixable problem in legalization of drugs to create a black market for everyday goods to spite the “never communist” ? LOL you gottem bud , socialism wins all now with that brilliant take
@@anthonymelendez333 what are you saying?
Why wouldn't a socialist society still have traditional financial lenders like banks who determine what co-ops should and shouldn't be funded? The only difference is the bank would also be cooperatively owned. Or you could do it through the government. I don't think that's really a "gotcha."
That just means the government is deciding what business is open...
That is exactly his point
@@fungdark8270 So what? Why would it be bad to have a Democratically elected government body decide what businesses should exist rather than banks motivated by profit for example?
Same can be said about his point on paychecks.
A company would most likely hire more people due to an increase in revenue, which in turn can be spend on investments such as people. How would the hiring more workers to increase productivity and revenue within that company automatically dillute or decrease the paychecks of others? And even if it did, how would their paychecks be less than of those who in a system where paychecks are unevenly spread by a far more greater extend (aka traditional ownership)?
@@davidc7450 Ok, so it appears you are gonna have to figure out yourself why authoritarianism isn’t a good idea
@@fungdark8270 How are democratically elected committees "authoritarian?" Similar groups CURRENTLY decide who gets money and who doesn't via tax policy. The government doing things does not automatically mean authoritarianism but nice try I guess.
I only clicked because it was in my feeeed
Maybe I'll watch the video one day
✊
good vid
Dedication
noo destiny is transphobic I think please hate him on my behalf
Asking about private investment under socialism shows a severe lack of understanding of not only socialism, but also for example Marxist theory. Marxist hold that money, wages and investment are only value forms that alienated abstract labor takes form as.
What do you think a private investor invests? What does the money represents? The creation of value must still be done by someone. If I want to create a business with multiple workers, I need to convince workers to cooperate with me, under capitalism or socialism or slavery or feudalism. Under slavery I do it with the whip under capitalism I do it with the threat of starvation and a wage, under socialism ideally people would associate freely. The very idea of private investment would seem absurd under socialism. It is not something that would be illegal, but rather unthinkable and foreign.
He's way off on Portuguese politics. The current government is socdem, the opposition is liberal conservative (the two big tent center parties). The democratic socialist party (usually 3rd largest) and the Marxist party are both important for majority coalitions or similar alliances, but not that powerful overall.
China's involvement and "partnership" is not ideological, it's financial. After 2008 the country went to shit, the government started to privatize and China invested heavily, so for example electricity is provided by a single company that is 23% owned by China.
They also implemented "golden visas", so if you invest 500k or so in property you get free Schengen circulation, full access to public healthcare and university and, after 5 years of residency, citizenship. Over 50% of visas are issued to Chinese investors.
So essentially China is flooding Portuguese markets with vital financial support after a devastating crisis, and in exchange Portugal must offer help advancing their EU goals, or they cut the cord. It's pretty much their signature geopolitical move.
Why do you never identify who you are talking with.
oh it's the mystery anon we've all been trying to find
My main problems with this guy so far is he makes the perfect the enemy of the good and also downplaying the unbelievably bloody history of the last few centuries, at least when he doesn't wish to use it as a cudgel against his ideological opponents.
The bolshevik revolution was good because it was needed to transition away from aristocracy and serfdom, a process which was always bloody, yes even in nations that didn't go onto become communist! The west just gets a pass on this because they outsourced the abject misery to other peoples through imperialism's resource extraction in order to buy off their population. What, you thought the rapid decline in living conditions happening during the enclosure acts where the commons were sold off from under peoples feet was sustainable without imperialism? Sorry but communism and capitalism both have their foundations laid on a bedrock of atrocity.
This isn't new. This shouldn't even be controversial. There were plenty of capitalists' themselves arguing this same thing back before this historical revisionism set in pretending liberalism and capitalism were always happy bedfellows as part of cold war propaganda. I'll finish with just that; Here is Cecil Rhodes, a British mining magnate operating in South Africa - "In order to save the forty million inhabitants of the United Kingdom from a bloody civil war, our colonial statesmen must acquire new lands for settling the surplus population of this country, to provide new markets. ... The Empire, as I have always said, is a bread and butter question. If you hate civil war you must be an imperialist"
Edit: It bears mentioning I'm not a communist or socialist. I don't think people care who owns the means of production. It's just the inequality that pisses people off. I myself don't see the point of remaking the economy when a more progressive income/capital gains tax and maybe a wealth tax if needed will already alleviate people concerns. Social democracy just seems like the way to go for me. Going further seems like a unnecessary burden on wealth generation to take care of problems only a tiny minority of very online people care about.
Not to mention the bolshevic revolution was good, because it most likely prevented fascism. It's not like the options in 1917 in Russia where liberal Parlamentarism or bolshevics socialism. The options where rather fascist military dictatorship or the bolshevics. The revolution was not meant to be socialist, but only defensive against both kerensky and the fascist monarchists.
> I don't think people care who owns the means of production. It's just the inequality that pisses people off
Uhh. sorry, but that is a socialist premise. You can't speak for all people. People who want certain freedoms like starting their own business and doing their own thing DO care about who owns the means of production. You certainly must understand what "ownership of the means of production" entails right? It's exactly what this guest is talking about, having the ability to start your own business and owning that business. It's basically freedom.
And some of us care way more about that than inequality. What do I care how much money Bezos or Musk have relative to me? So long as I have enough to afford my own comfort and supporting my family, that's fine. Sure a lot of poor people might be pissed off now, but it's not necessarily about "inequality", but about being unable to afford basic necessities and comforts.
I say this as someone who is also not a socialist, but i'm a huge socialist apologist, so I agree with almost everything else you wrote.
Saving you time, included in the video is a criticism of central planning that leads to overfishing. That’s ironic considering massive amounts of species have been driven extinct or are endangered because of capitalism
Destiny that's a detached logic Bros name
Interesting discussion.
>Ex commie
Yeah right...
Yeah. Spouts off a fuckton of strawmen of socialist positions and repeats genocide and mass murder memery.
The classic "I left the left"
Everything he said about the Soviet Union was a lie.
5:30 "If co-ops are so good, people will do them". This is such a reductive take that is built on too many assumptions to even list and comes up in these circles quite often. It's almost as ridiculous as thinking the best ideas will always win in the "marketplace of ideas" when in truth simplistic ideas can often be far more convincing while more nuanced and in-depth takes require more time and effort on the part of the person explaining and the person listening.
Co-ops generally have higher wages than traditional firms in the same field within a comparative stage of development, making it so that those traditional firms have more wealth that they extracted from their labourers which gives them the ability to reduce prices and invest in things that will increase productivity while co-ops are hindered by being better to its workers and therefore need more timr to accumulate wealth. Once a co-op overcomes these odds (while also taking into account that many banks won't lend to them), then we see that co-ops in general are better than traditional firms by almost any metric and even fair better during the constantly volatile boom and bust cycle inherent to capitalism. The current climate is simply very hostile to co-ops, so just them being better in the long run doesn't mean that we'll necessarily see them win over traditional firms. Not to mention that most people have never even heard of a co-op... so yeah
Did you even watch the video? This is such a vacuous take and you're responding to arguments that were never made in the video. Tell me instead how you'd invest in a co-op.
@@DrevorReal I am literally quoting the guy whom he's speaking to and time-stamped his argument. And yes, I did watch the video and I'm familiar with his and Destiny's takes since I'm a subscriber and watch his content daily. If anything your comment is utterly vacuous since you haven't responded to a single thing I said. Can't expect much else in a community that values blood sports over good faith arguments, I guess.
@@XxSeedOfEvilxX but you're quoting one single like completely out of context. The thrust of their argument wasn't that coops can't be profitable. They admit several times that they could be.
@@DrevorReal That was also not my argument, good strawmen. Their argument (and Destiny does this a lot too) is say that if coops are so great they will outcompete traditional firms in a kind of evolutionary natural selection but for firms. That is not out of context but is a common argument against socialism and worker coops that was deployed here and is what I specifically addressed. I think you need to go back and read my comment to understand why I brought up the wealth traditional firms can accumulate and why it is inherent to capitalism that those firms have the decks stacked in their favor to potentially outcompete worker coops. It's an uphill battle from the get-go. And it's not some conspiracy against worker coops before you strawman that way too, it's just inherent to capitalism.
@@XxSeedOfEvilxX Here's your first problem. You don't know what capitalism is. Let me break it down for you. If you're saying that coops are in fact viable or even more profitable than traditional firms - the free market to the extent it is free will select for those types of organizations. If you're saying that coops are profitable but that wealthy capitalists are too stuck in their old ways to invest, well then you're problem isn't capitalism now is it? In fact, your problem is the opposite of capitalism. You're saying that investors who should know better are putting tradition and superstition above good old fashioned selfish capitalist market incentives. You can't have it both ways, mate.
when has vaush called himself a syndicalist instead of a market socialist in the last few months???
He changes his political philosophy like the weather. He's a creepy idiot.
Who makes the pride flags in a communist society? Imagine a communist society with the American political makeup from 10 years ago. If you need people to vote to allocate resources to these pride flags, it just isn’t going to happen. Same for any similar items that show support for an idea. It would enforce the status quo, and in this example, gay people never become mainstream and have a much longer fight to be treated equally.
I normally do philosophy and I took an intro class to sociology this recent semester... Feel like sociology definitely is the class that pushes people towards socialism since that's where Vaush came from and I can see why with how the sociological perspective of social conflict theory is taught with just structural functionalism kinda being dumb as the other macro level sociological perspective... And social conflict theory kinda feels like it leads into socialism with the rhetoric... I mean it's also basically for socdems, but I feel like it pushes you more to Marx...
Well Marx is called one if the fathers of sociology. So I am not really surprised.
@@sirherbert6953 so is comte
Because sociology constantly uses materialist analysis of society. And Marx's critique of political science and capitalism is materialist.
Socialism existed before Marx, however marx is the first one to introduce a "scientific socialist" theory.
It makes sense for sociologists to be marxists.
@@astralgod6448 It doesn't make necessarily make sense of a sociologist to be Marxist if they're utilizing a symbolic interactionist approach to sociology, and certainly not if they're more focused on the structural functionalist approach which is very favorable towards hierarchical systems...
@@RealmRabbit Definitely, but what i meant is these people are definitely open minded to critiques of society etc.And they're more likely to read Marx and understand him than the average person
Can the arguments used against co-op worker voting be used against our representative democracy today? If not, why do they not apply?
Ancaps don't like voting for this reason in the sense of 1 person 1 vote.
As someone who argued with leftys online in my personal life, 1 thing I had to fight constantly is the "majority or plenty of people in the former solviet countries want the union back" it wasnt a study it was a poll and the information cited groups that were
18-25
25-30
30-35
36+
Which makes no sense because the age groups that are split none of which actually lived under the union and the group that didnt was super against it
The older generation that lived under the ussr are more pro ussr than the younger generation
@@Terzy do you have anything that shows this?
@@Terzy part if that could be because Russia was an absolute mess after the USSR fell and isn’t exactly doing great right now
@Aaron Hackett also depends what country your in, if your in Russia especially the industrialized portion you got all the benefits but if you were in Eukraine or the other parts that were borderline sacrificed for the purpose of that industrialization you probably didnt like it as much. Anecdotally I have relatives that lived on the border and lived under the socialism and he had to buy nice shoes in Canada so that his children could get them and was always shocked by the freedom here
@Aaron Hackett it would be east Germany on the border of the Baltic sea. And yes shit didn't work out great ubder those countries but don't tell me their conditions now are worse than somviet famines? If capitalism is going to go what is it going to be replaced by? What exactly is your system? I see capitalism as the safest foundation, and from there you build on the foundation with liberal or "social" policies. For example health care, minimum wage, vacation time and mental health services. I think that is far safer and more beneficial for all than a socialist system that may sacrifice its people for industrialization, systemic abuse of its people, lack of amenities or at worst a country that can be "blown up by capitalist countries"
To the first question ”who decides which business gets to open and wich doesn’t : isn’t that already the case in capitalism? Instead of entity xy it’s a bank that decides right? If I decide to open a flower store I have to go to bank and make said good argument if I can’t i am similarly fucked right? Genuinely want to know I feel like they just ignored that in their talk
If I want to open a business under capitalism I need to convince a person with a lot of money to invest, whose sole interest is profit. Under socialism I need to convince some council, with ilthe interest of bettering society. I feel like this is a weird place to get hung up
@@sirherbert6953 I mean i don't think there is much difference between a bank deciding to lend you money with the expectation to get more back and council that checks how beneficial it is for society but ok whatever
As a spaniard that doesnt know that much about politics, spanish polticis 101 is, remember that the spanish socialist workers party isnt socialist nor is it made of workers, sounds better in spanish but its practically an expression here.
With respect to the computers and algorithms distributing resources, Destiny and his guest are pretty wrong. WalMart and Amazon absolutely do use algorithms to distribute goods and services. In school for my planning degree I was taught partially how to determine are market area for a Walmart or wherever. And of course WalMart uses algorithms to determine how to acquire and distribute its goods from the source to the store.
Walmart is a particularly bad example of free market capitalist efficiency to use too, because ironically, Walmart is effectively a planned economic enterprise itself. There are no internal markets within Walmart and the goods Walmart sells are not bought at market price. They are sold to the end user at market price of course, but Walmart has effectively no markets throughout it’s supply chain that it interacts with. All of the math about supply and demand and what to produce is still being done, it is simply being planned internally by algorithms rather than some Gosplan style government economic planning agency. Walmart also sells many of it’s products at a loss to meet demand. That’s not to say that Walmart isn’t a for-profit enterprise, it obviously is, but it’s ironic that for all the talk about how efficient the free market is, the first thing global multinational corporations realize is that if you want your global supply chains to be more efficient, you immediately remove as many market variables as possible. Some of the biggest multinational corporations are essentially mini planned economies. There is a great book about this called “The People’s Republic of Walmart” that is very interesting if anyone is curious about this.
@@f.i.n.5065 Wtf is this take. Central planning only exists when no other options exist within given land constraints. Walmart is clearly competing with other companies such as Target and Amazon.
@@f.i.n.5065 entirely wrong. They operate entirely within the market. That book was entirely debunked.
@@ExPwner No shit Sherlock, everything operates entirely within the market because all enterprises exist today under global capitalism under a global market. You could say that about literally anything, from North Korea to CHAZ to the most crunchy granola anarcho-communist hippy commune. You proceed to give zero arguments or sources for why the book is wrong, a book, btw, that you have clearly never even read. I know you are a lolbert so you must have a gigantic brain and a very very firm grasp on economics but a single article by the fucking Cato institute about the book is not the rock solid DEBOONK you think it is.
@@akivaweil5066 and the USSR, one of the most infamous examples of a planned economy, was still, by it’s own admission, competing with America and the West. A planned economy simply means it’s inputs and outputs and where resources flow is planned by a planning apparatus rather than being solely determined by the market. In a market economy, resources go towards the highest bidder, as that is how we determine economic need and ability to make a profit, in a planned economy, resources flow towards enterprises with the most “need” as determined by the planning apparatus. This was actually a big problem in the USSR, where they continually pumped resources into sectors of their economy (namely agricultural) that were simply not profitable and could barely make quota, they should have excised these sectors from their economy but the workers would never vote to give away their own jobs. Socialism and/or central planning has it’s problems, but the point of the book is that the Economic Calculation Problem isn’t as relevant in 2022 as it was when Hayek et all wrote about decades ago. We can transmit information about inputs and outputs, supply and demand, and determine the flow of resources instantly over vast distances, it’s not a utopian vision, many companies under modern capitalism such as the aforementioned Walmart are doing just that to remove market forces from their supply chains and effectively operate more like a multinational planned economic enterprise rather than a classical free market one. I found the book very interesting particularly in how he contrasted Walmart’s business practices with that of Sears and other similarly massive corporations. Again, Walmart famously operates a lot of it’s rural stores at a loss, largely to drive out local competition to one day be able to raise prices, but the point remains that this goes against many free market economic principles, if a store is unprofitable, you close it, yet Walmart operates them at a loss for the potential of future profits and the overall health of the organization. It will keep unprofitable items on the shelf for the sake of the economic safety of it’s supply chains. Whole departments, such as the vegetable counter and deli operate at a loss. They have done massive calculations and have planned and determined that they need these unprofitable departments to get people in the door to buy the items they make the most profit on, canned and frozen foods and clothing and electronics from China. If you get all your groceries from Walmart, you’ll probably buy your socks there too. They operate certain departments at a loss and pump resources into unprofitable stores for the sake of the consumer and to keep those stores stocked, even if they know it won’t sell. Walmart sacrifices the surplus profit from their massively profitable stores just to keep unprofitable ones open. This is a very peculiar thing, especially when you look at the sheer scale of Walmart as a multinational entity, Walmart is one of the largest employers in the world, if it were a country, it would rival the GDP’s of most small countries, all while utilizing internal policies that fly in the face of “determined” free market economics and at times are even reminiscent of the most infamous planned economies such as the USSR. The book is incredibly interesting. And before anyone jumps down my throat, Walmart does close stores, and they do seek to maximize profit, they just have many internal policies that fly in the face of established free market economics. Redistributing profits, focusing on the whole health of the organization rather than trying to maximize profitability on a store by store basis, and even pumping resources into unprofitable rural stores just to meet local demand. Does this remind you anything? Walmart’s business practices are ruthless but they are incredibly interesting when looked at through this lens. That’s not even mentioning what I mentioned before, that Walmart intentionally seeks to remove market forces from as much of it’s supply chains as possible for the sake of safety and security of the organization. Many of Walmart’s producers are paid far lower than market price on the trade off of steady, stable business on a large scale. All of these policies have been spectacularly successful, Walmart is a miracle of economics when you look at it’s prices and the sheer number of commodities it moves and sells on a daily basis, all while having seemingly counterintuitive policies that would make most business and economics majors spin in their heels.
This guy thinks he is the Buddhism Gatekeeper Lord. He decides who is really Buddhist.
lol
Destiny soft on leftists?? in what universe?? most lefties hate him lol
Yes and that’s despite how soft he is on them. He needs to go as hard as he did on the far right on them, especially genocide deniers like Richard Wolff
Lol, only in destiny Stans you find wolff being called a genocie denier.
but if destiny gets called nazi by crazy twitter lefties you get mad as fuck.
@@wolfensteinabsolutely8715 what he is not soft on lefties and Wolff is no genocide denier.
@@wolfensteinabsolutely8715 can’t believe people are liking this misinfo. Wolf isn’t a genocide denier
This guy seems cool
What game is Steven playing? I feel like he should always put that in the description to his videos.
Destiny must demonstrate why Efficiency SHOULD be valued over sustainability... his entire argument hinges on Efficiency... why is this, better for Climate change?
The other side of the coin isn’t sustainability though
To answer why a co-op wouldn't fire someone after the 2 year mark and becoming a union its because most of them are also part of a union (tho I supose a non-union co-op could do that)
I would say this conversation was another in the value of reading books and learning history, but unfortunately it would not have helped in his conversation with wolff. But its good to know if he ever gets a properly moderated conversation with wolff or another top dog socialist again, but i doubt wolff will do it again anyways.
This is just good info for us to research and know about. So as to not let people dupe us into stupid shit.
First time I have heard good, good faith critism of workers co-ops, the point about hiring new people diluting your pay and say is a really good point to think about.
If addition of said worker increases profits beyond his share then you're not actually diluting your pay though. So maybe not really a great argument.
@@ewengilary7669 In retrospect I agree with you
@@STRONTIumMuffin It's basically the same consideration a business owner would be making when hiring another worker or expanding the company so I'm actually confused as to how they would miss that.
Mind numbing my stupid stuff man
I wonder if this guy used to be a socialist/communist. He only mentioned it about 7 times in this conversation, so I'm not sure
He needs to make things more cleanly about him be a former Communist because I watch it 3 times and I still don't know.
Whether or not he supported socialism is irrelevant to me and should be irrelevant for everyone. All we need is a convincing argument for why socialism would be a more terrible option for how the workplace is managed in the economy.
Destiny thinks that the Government would make it illegal for a person to start a business. Destiny not understanding what Socialism is isn't anything new but there shouldn't be any reason why the government would need to be involved in the economy. Maybe perhaps the government has to be used to change the current major corporations to become worker owned so that the industry is open to more fairness but after that it should go hands off. No government should ever be in control of the economy because at that point it's not socialism but just a command economy. Wish Destiny was a bit more knowledgeable when talking about this stuff. 🤷♂️
Because it’s from a live stream my guy
we just ignoring how the guest talked about heavy industry @ 25:17 while destiny was hovering over the in game heavy industry tab?
I would be interested in a debate with Destiny against someone from the zero books group. Like Douglas Lain or Derrick Varn. Both of them would be terrible in a debate, since none of them are debate bros, but still at least Destiny would talk to actual Marxist instead of people who skimmed the manifesto and then boast with the hammer and scycle
He had a conversation with Douglas Lain back in 2019.
@@doubledumb9434 ah cool thanks
I like those Zero Books guys. Always interesting ideas brought up even if I do not agree all the time
this guy is spot on.
edit: Greece still has a communist party, in parliament, they usually take something like 5% of the vote.
Is Starsector worth picking up? seems interesting
You should check out the video by Ssethtzantch. It's a fun game.
@@barnebyoconnell8176 I'll check it out, thanks!
best space drug-smuggling/organ-harvesting/supplying space ISIS with weapons/genociding planets simulator on the market
No videos games are worth picking up tbh
Pretty sure you can try it for free too because the devs are unbelievably based in their anti-piracy strategy.
But buy it if you like it of course 👌
Every "ex-commie" I'm aware of never was one.
Like the "disaffected left" people who became "classical liberals" . They were never left wing to begin with.
What are you taking about? This ex-commie literally helped Irishladdie (Vaush) take off.
@@xenos_n. LMAO HEAR HEAR! So true...
Like 99% of current commies apparently aren't either, because the moment they do something wrong suddenly it's not real communism...
Capitalists are just people with slave mentality. Modern day Serfs
Who is this guy I want more of him
“Simulate the effects of a market” lol every modern advanced economy does this
How come the intro color is sometimes blue and sometimes red
Because Destiny's daddy was a man, and his mother was a woman
@@bobjenkins4925 source??
This ex-commie seems to know nothing about communism
Where is he wrong?
Coping and seething without any elaboration 😢
Respect to this guy for stepping away from socialism though. It’s probably harder to leave socialism compared to fascism/nazism.
20:26 who said that the economy can be planned on a Dell laptop, and what do you mean by "the economy can be planned" exactly? Is that just "tracking a company's expenses", or "marketing"? I mean... Expensify exists to Automate the functions of most accountants rendering them useless. GPT-3 is sophisticated enough to replace a huge chunk of chat related customer support in the near future. Granted this isn't a Dell Laptop and I don't understand the function of bringing that up specifically by either you or whoever said it originally, but it's not hard to see how things are only going to get worse moving forward if automation isn't addressed at the very least. Fully automated luxury communism doesnt sound that far off at this point honestly if people don't try to cull the "Undesirables" from what could litterally be a utopia.
Bit derailed maybe but I'm just severely confused as to what "plan the economy on a dell computer" is supposed to mean. Wat.
The guest said some interesting stuff that I haven't heard but some of what he said makes you raise a brow lol
About co-ops they just say that mentalities would be different in socialism.
The moment the guest said that anarchist want to go back to feudalism I became highly skeptical of what he was saying. It takes less than 30 minutes of research to understand that anarchism and feudalism are opposites.
ok, not even a market socialist and that take that you wouldn't be allowed to start a business (like a restaurant) is really bad. Why wouldn't you?
and even if you can't find the people with the same money to invest as you, just have the people who want to work but don't have money to invest build equity by taking a percentage of their pay until they are on par with everyone else.
And yest, that would allow abuses, but you'd have labour laws in place for that.
I take issue with Destiny's portrayal of Michael Albert's position--it is at times like this that I wish Destiny would read more advanced scholarship on economics and political theory. Does participatory economics stand on loose foundations? Sure, but Albert's criterion of "onerousness" as a determinant of wage is not replaceable by market dynamics precisely insofar as it is decidedly different from scarcity and demand. What is more is that the latter, neoclassical formula for wages itself is not as empirically well-founded as we would like to believe: the Coase theorem (in its original heterodox variation), for one, demonstrates the folly of such "blackboard" economics.
He in fact did not hear new things
There is a hierarchy in every system
Religious
Political
Economical
Animal Kingdom
They just don't know it yet
Even lobsters follow a hierarchical structure
i would not trust that guy talking about buddhism at the end. i mean a zen buddhist telling you to watch out for nichirens due to their history is a bit sus considering zen were the ones who were instrumental in promoting the japanese empire in ww2.
This guy is very smart.
When did destiny realize problems of socialism??? How late am I to the party?
My only problem with capitalism is that I just don't know how can It work with a mostly automated workforce. Like at some point most jobs are gonna be outdated and we will not be able to create enough to replace the ones lost, then what? What do we do at that point?
Here's what happens:
Supply of people needing jobs goes up.
The market creates an incentive for people to retrain to the types of jobs that are left, and not jobs that can be automated.
Those people retrain.
The companies which are way more efficient and profitable, have more resources available to them. They either expand their company or they invest that money into other businesses to make more money.
Those businesses hire more people.
All of that in this oversimplified version of a market, works without any government. The problems get identified quickly, and by people closest to the problem.
Elon Musk talks about the problem with automation, is that it's not that jobs get automated. It's that people's bandwidth to retrain is slower than the markets.
If trucks were automated today, instantly the whole industry and market of employees and contractors would disappear over night, and people are not going to universally retrain overnight.
So the problem with capitalism and automation isn't that it can't employ people... it's that the problem for the workers is that the markets are going to disrupt too fast, and while they eventually correct, in the meantime people's lives are going to be ruined.
Supply chains are massive and when disrupted, cause big problems.
Human jobs are sorta like a supply chain. People invest in trainers, education facilities, and their skills to feed the demand of companies.
@@marketpie6637 Okay I think I get It, I am guessing automating jobs like transportation is not coming anytime soon. But I was thinking big picture, like I don't think we could just replace jobs at infinitum, at some point we are gonna start losing jobs even if we do It slowly and carefully without disrupting the supply chains...right?
Like maybe I am acting like a horse owner in the XIX century but this replacement has to slow down at some point. We can't automate forever while creating more and more jobs, the current market solution will stop working and at some point we might need government intervention.
Still far away tho, I mean self driving is still terrible, so idk.
No one has solved the calculation problem to a satisfactory extent. I want more than some shit computer model as a proof-of-concept before you slap your algo in the seat of power.
Destiny literally made an anti-immigration argument when he said new workers in a coop diminish vote power and then also advocated against adapting to economic demand by arguing that he should only be able to sell certain flowers regardless of others coming in and suggesting they could do better sales by expanding beyond just two flowers. Both of those positions aren't just anti socialisms, they're anti-liberalism.
It's also a weird point, because why then would a private capitalist hire more people. Would that not by the same logic cut into his money? It made no sense
Good observation.
Immigration policy is done for exactly that reason.
You want people to come and uphold the ideals values of the country.
A gross oversimplification of the problem of open borders/complete democracy would be, China sends half a billion people over and then changes all government controls to China via votes.
I think I have heard destiny talk of the nuance that border policy should both be free of racism, but also smart that you don't destabilize your country.
A productive society, company, or organization is at its most productive when they have alignment of the whole people. So too much immigration, or too many outside workers/owners will by just the nature of people being outsiders, will bring a level of instability to the group
Romania you say huh? Sounds nice
Who is destiny talking to
FEEEEEEEEED