Top 3 in no particular order Akala, Lowkey and immortal technique. Not in the same bracket or knowledge but honourable mention to kkoke and blade brown
Probably because that was tried already in the cold war and people were flocking from communist countries to live in capitalist countries because it was better.. He only said that he doesn't believe that capitalism is the ultimate form of human organisation, not that he's anti-capitalist as such. I think the idea is to improve forward from capitalism as it can get corrupt when the government is no longer reliable (not that it ever was). I don't think it's a good idea to go backwards.
@@KnuckleHeadMusicUK bruv, I don't even know where to start with you on this. Capitalism is a dead mode of production driving the planet into oblivion. It has no future. Socialism can not possibly be backwards as you suggest as it is far more advanced ecologically, for human democratic control, fair rights, anti imperialist and anti racist. The reason capitalism returned in the ex socialist counties is down to multiple factors but it's certainly not down to capitalism some how being destiny or somehow 'better' but more that socialism was attacked from the inside and out by the ruling class and imperialism. I don't know how much more I can say in a RUclips comment except socialism and struggle is the legacy and future of workers, and their own organisation.
Capitalism allows far more production of goods, hence 1st world countries have much more advanced science and are now stepping into a new era of technology. We've recently invented computers, the internet, camcorders, 3D printers, virtual reality, coffee machines, microwaves, washing machines, bacterial hand wash, x-rays, MRI scanners, contraception etc.. And yet you really don't think it has a future? How is socialism in any way more advanced ecologically if everyone has less? I could be wrong here but I think democratic control lies in the hands of the police and army, in physical force terms anyway. TV doesn't help, I'll give you that. I also don't like imperialism but you don't have to have imperialism for capitalism to work. Socialism takes away the ability to make profit so it will head toward equity and production would only be on demand when needed, so you would have minimum of anything, like countries that look like slums compared to 1st world countries. Hence socialists kept in by a wall were still finding ways to enter countries for capitalism. (That and Stalin's brutality but that's not completely relevant). Capitalism simply has more to offer. Social Hierarchies are inevitable, as is competition. Changing a political system will not stop ambition. Not without brutal force. Oh, and it won't stop racism. I completely agree that people's own organisation is a must though, just on an individual level, not as a forced systematic structure. Otherwise you wouldn't have entrepreneurs. You would also surely not have police because they would not take orders. If they would, who would be in a position to give the orders?
@@KnuckleHeadMusicUK I'm really sorry but I just can't answer all of this here. I don't have the time. But I urge you to question again and look deeper. The USSR was the first to have a man in space Cuba has developed a number of vaccines and medical methods and they are used widely and shared as generic medicines not held on to for profit like Glaxo Smith and Klein Capitalism limits human development as it requires profit for production, where as socialism does not. That is why it's the last thing the ruling class want and will defend their capitalism to the death. Lastly democracy in socialism is not military dictatorship. Again look at and research (properly) Cuba's system
Capitalism is just the most efficient way of price-setting ressources and handling what we should produce, when and how much. This is not to say its an objective good, but it is an expression of what the aggregate of people want. The biggest problem with capitalism is that it does not solve problems of collective action problem - climate change, poverty aid etc. and that it promotes people to act in their own self interest, rather than what is good for the community at large.
Akala has great point. What US for example have done is colonialism with selfish capitalism. Taking advantage of people which is wrong, but also having very high inequality of workers. Also lack of free health care, expensive colleges, safety hazard with guns. So US is doing many things morally wrong, also there military spending seems to be a way to exploit other countries by war or being as an ally. Social capitalism would be close to a great system. Similar to Norway, Sweden and France.
Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets. In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market. Economists, political economists, sociologists, and historians have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice. These include laissez-faire or free market capitalism, welfare capitalism and state capitalism. Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership, obstacles to free competition and state-sanctioned social policies. The degree of competition in markets, the role of intervention and regulation and the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism. The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, are matters of politics and policy. Most existing capitalist economies are mixed economies, which combine elements of free markets with state intervention and in some cases economic planning. Market economies have existed under many forms of government, in many different times, places and cultures. However, the birth of modern capitalist societies (marked by a universalization of money-based social relations, a consistently large and system-wide class of workers who must work for wages, and an ultra rich elite capitalist class which dominates the control of wealth and political power) occurred in Western Europe, in a process that led to the Industrial Revolution. Such capitalist systems, with varying degrees of direct government intervention, have since become dominant in the Western world, and continue to spread. Capitalism has been criticized for establishing power in the hands of a minority capitalist class that exists through the exploitation of a working class majority; for prioritizing profit over social good, natural resources and the environment; and for being an engine of inequality and economic instabilities. Supporters argue that it provides better products through competition, creates strong economic growth, yields productivity and prosperity that greatly benefits society, as well as being the most efficient system known for allocation of resources.
I have to disagree with akalas mid point, it's almost suggesting that the main trade 700 years ago wasn't slaves and was fairer or more productive. I'm against elements of modern capitalism. But let's not pretend that ecconmies were fair or more productive 700 years ago. Surprised he made that point tbh.
The question is what is the alternative? I believe that we can have a more ethical capitalism yes but that comes down to what people choose to do as individuals. I believe what we have in the UK is a very good system, compared with the USA but when it boils down it to the issues we have are more to do with spirituality then politics. If we as individuals are self centred and greedy then it doesn't matter what system we have.
Agree completely. Every one is so easy to criticise and says we need to change the system. But what with. This "system" has improved living standards and empowered a mass of people all over the world.
The problem is ... when you’re teally intelligent, the world no longer becomes black and white. It’s not as clear cut as capitalist v socialist. You see the nuances in everything - the good and he bad of both sides and so It becomes increasingly difficult to align yourself with a particular world view with true integrity.
A lot of the time saying "I don't know" is the intellectually honest thing to do. Its not as satisfying to hear but it's accurate. Someone who tells you that they have a simple common sense answer to problems and are going to make everything better and stronger. That sounds good to us, it sounds more satisfying than the boring, complex reality or the honest admission of ignorance. I don't know where this idea has come from. You just have to pick a side and randomly choose an answer to something even if you dont know anything about it. Just because you have an answer to something it doesn't make you right and the person who says they don't know, wrong.
He's very intelligent but i think he can't say certain things cause his core base might reject the nuance. His definition of capitalism as trading but with murder attached is wrong here, and he knows it, he just agrees with the camera man and says "to an extent" as to not argue the point. 2 secs before he says trading is cool, and that's what free market capitalism is...the prob is corruption, like in any system, but he allows it to be simplified as capitalism or a lot of his followers wouldn't get it unfortunately....
@@xlmusic6419 you've kinda missed the entire role of colonialism in his argument. He doesn't define capitalism as trade + murder, he just says that is the shape it has taken today due to colonialism. This is how I understand what he was saying at least.
I guess he read a substandard book in 1994. Wow, he's a genius now. Get born in Newcastle rather the London bubble. And you might just figure what it really feels like to be marginalised In 2020s Britain.
It's ironic how Akala says that it's ironic that inspiring other human beings has given him financial success, as this is the essence of of capitalism. You have to enrich the lives of other people by offering a service or product, in his case his music and writing, to make money. In this way capitalism is forced altruism and is the most morally superior economic system. What is ironic, is how Akala confuses capitalism with exploitation and materialism with capitalism, as this is not capitalism! These things are the result of the human nature and are a byproduct of any economic system.
Interesting view but not completely true. Yes there have been other forms of trade pre free market but if you look at when the world has seen the most growth in terms of wealth, living stands, healthcare, rising out of poverty it has been since the introduction of free markets since the 1800s. There are graphs to demonstrate this on any economic forum. What Akala is describing as capitalism is a very small part of it, and he’s focusing on the negatives. Capitalism is lifted more people out of poverty in Africa than charities, donations or support work. The only way out of poverty is employment. There is elements of exploitation in capitalism, just as there are in socialism. I have never seen an economic system where there isn’t some form of exploitation. The difference with free markets is that it gives people freedom, they can set up their own company, make their own products, make a business based their passions. You cannot do this in a socialist economic system (and for those who are screaming that the Nordic’s are socialist they’re not and publicly say they aren’t. To be socialist output is controlled by the state but in the Nordic’s there is substantial privatisation, in many cases more privatised that the U.K. and the US). If you ever need an example of the benefits that free markets bring compare S.Korea to N.Korea. In the 60s S.Korea implemented free market principles and privatisation and now they are as rich as the West. N.Korea which has no privatisation and its socialist/communist is very poor and there is no freedom for its people.
Its a reality of living in our society. Unless you grow and make everything you use yourself or research every product you buy including all the companies involved in making it and every link in the supply and manufacture chain. But no that seems reasonable.
Yeah well it doesn't help when there are a lot of working class people who are just uneducated morons. I once saw an old friend of mine (big Corbyn fan) sitting in his old *Volkswagen* while browsing the web via *EE* or another network on his *Apple* iPhone. He then bought a pair of *Nike* shoes through *Ebay* which he had searched for through *Google* and then paid for through *Paypal* . Which was then presumably dispatched by some multinational courier. That's eight fucking multinationals when many years ago, a man would have simply walked into the shop of a shoe maker. I didn't even go into the manufacturing of the shoe on either front. Perhaps before preaching radical social change, they should tidy their own rooms so to speak. I used to get called a toff for shopping at Waitrose by my old work mates. Little did they know I buy everything from their cheapest essential range which is similar priced to Tesco, but their CEO is paid £400k a year instead of £8.5 million, and they actually pay a credible amount of tax. Years ago people would buy from their local butcher, their local grocer, their local baker etc.. and now I bet you Akala supporters wouldn't even think to go in and check the price before you hand all your money over to some rich multinational conglomerate without second thought. This "hypocrisy" that we talk of with Akala is massively understated and is actually representative of missing a key part of a functioning capitalist society - the consumers responsibility.
Consumer responsibility is bs as you've just demonstrated. Everything that goes into producing, assembling, packaging, distributing a product is way too complex. You would have to spend your life studying everything you buy and then somehow earn enough money (without exploiting anyone yourself) to afford the completely ethically products you've found - again that seems pretty reasonable right? You really think buying waitroses cheapest range is all you need to do? It's cheap for a reason - someone along the line (probably many people) are being exploited. Additionally voting with your money is unfair from the start when people have an uneven amount of voting power. Sorry but that's just a cheap copout from having a real discussion.
Consumer responsibility is not BS. You're argument is basically "It's too hard because the production line from tertiary to consumption is too long" and this is a nonsensical argument. Of course it is long and hard to trace, that's always been the case but even what we can do now, many don't. A prime example is the Waitrose comment - no I am not naive enough to believe that this makes me a just and moral person. I laid my reasons out above. Firstly the CEOs far more modest pay in comparison, and secondly for tax purposes. That's what I can clearly and concisely see and I make the best decisions I can based on that information. Your argument seems to be edging on the side of "Well we can't know everything so let's not even try" - my argument is that if you can't even attempt to tidy your own damn room then stop trying to change the world! On top of that, it's actually easier than ever before, it's just that the systems aren't in place. And the systems aren't in place because people don't demand them. A website could easily (probably easily, not my field of expertise) be made where you could type a companies name in and they have to show their sources. It wouldn't be a requirement, but it should definitely increase demand in the company if they are indeed ethical. Take recycling for example, we are hitting that hard. Look at the pressure that has been put on Coca Cola the past few years about it and it's actually made them take action. There are online petitions that can gain hundreds of thousands of signatures in days from absolutely nothing with next to no effort whatsoever. That's unprecedented territory in human history, and most people can't be arsed to use it. It's just become too hard because (mainly) younger generations have become so damn materialistic for reasons somewhat out of their control, that they just don't care anymore - and that's what I was expressing in my waitrose comment and the example of my friend in the car. They don't even try, they give up before they start, They'll fork over £1000 to apple for a product made in terrible conditions by a company who has their fingers in every governmental pie going, then these same people complain Apple don't pay tax and ask the government to take it back for them. - It's pathetic and exemplifies the lack of self-responsibility people are adopting. When it comes to entering their card details on a website they will be far more careful, yet when it comes to a wider effect on society they just don't care and run to the government asking them to make policy to fix everything. Many leftists today want a more group-orientated society, while being principally bankrupt by not adopting the group systems of responsibility already in place.
My man chats breeze, had to put on a jacket. Capitilism is the best system in place at the moment. The people in congo are getting wrecked because of their corrupt government not because of industry. He even admitted he's a hypocrite for having devices that have matirals from congo in but at the end he said what are we willing to do? by "we" he meant "you", he isn't going to change so everything he said was rubbish. be the change you wish to see and get your room in order before you start telling other people what's what.
"Capitalism is the best system in place at the moment" yes, at the moment. Are you even listening to what he's saying? He's speaking specifically about rampant capitalism which seeks to maximise profits above all else. the money siphoned by corrupt African governments is a drop in the ocean when placed against the wealth being extracted by large corporations. The man gave his personal opinion and it's valid, the only breeze is coming from your direction.
haha So we agree capitalism is the best system at the moment, So either think of something better or shut up, simples. Akala is just preaching buzzwords with no substance, he isn't practicing what he preaches either, so there's no back bone. Corporations wouldn't be able to extract minerals and such if it wern't for the corrupt African governments selling out their country and letting them do so. got cha Akala is one of these people who hangs on to the past to argue for things that are happening today, It just comes off as pretentious and boring. I get it, history was brutal and it was kill or be killed in some cases, You see it a lot from organisations like BLM who will justify doing something bad because something bad happened to their ancestors, it's ridiculous, If everyone had that mind set nothing would get done and were all be constantly fighting (which the left want). Can we put that behind us already and get a man on Mars already? You are pigeyotto using gust attack because it is you who is the breeziest.
Ah. A right-winger who plays dungeon keeper all day. I'm sure if anybody can give a meritable critique over how the history of economics and race effect politics today it's gonna be you. So what if he uses devices that require materials from the Congo. Despite his admittance of it I don't see how that makes him a hypocrite considering there aren't many other ethical alternatives. Sure, African governments allow western capitalists to extract these materials but that doesn't justify the capitalists exploiting them. But of course you haven't considered that because you don't have any understanding over how economics are currently run in Sub-Saharan countries today. The reason people in the Congo are getting "wrecked" is not only because of corrupt governance but a combination of both that and western imperialism. Tbh if it isn't already clear I'm a socialist so I strongly disagree that capitalism is the best system we have and I don't agree with the privatisation of services that fulfil basic human needs such as healthcare, education or food but I don't have a choice in the matter. I have to work and pay for these things. Using your analogy of " be the change you wish to see and get your room in order before you start telling other people what's what" I shouldn't pay for food and my bills and simply starve or freeze to death. If you think we shouldn't hang on to the things of the past that's fine and to a certain extent you have a point. But that's not what Akala was saying. I don't know if you've ever actually experienced any trauma in your life but when you experience such things it tends to have an effect upon the person you develop into in the future. When the slaves for example were freed they were paid no reparations or any other form of compensation for there suffering and neither were their descendants. The slave masters were given compensation for their loss of slaves but the slaves themselves were left with NOTHING. And therefore of course that will have an effect on the financial status of the descendants of those who suffered especially considering the fact that slavery was not ancient history. There are people who are still alive who lived through the Jim Crow era. And therefore of course that will have an effect on the financial status of the descendants of those who suffered. Look at most African American communities. They look like third world countries. But they live in a capitalist society which according to you is the best system we have. And BLM don't protest over what happened to their ancestors. They protest about police brutality and the racial profiling that the American justice system is plagued with. Also the left don't want everyone fighting. We want justice and equality.
Mohamed Ali definitely not ... You can't state my level of comfort over anything as clearly you don't know me...I'd rather the topics come from someone different than akala tbh...an opinion: he is full of himself
@@keepitrealkeepitreal625 I like how you put innit at the end to mask your veiled bigotry and clear patronising worldview. Come debate with an educated man and beg you get done off
![[DRAGON BALL LEGENDS REVEALS ＆ STUFF] LEGENDS FESTIVAL 2024 Special Edition Part 1](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mV5bGIswTtQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I really love this mans mind... so attractive.
If only Beyoncé and Jay Z watched this...
@Don Alpha lol
What a great guy
Living legend... Still my number 1 UK artist.. closely followed by low-key...! Legends!
Top 3 in no particular order Akala, Lowkey and immortal technique. Not in the same bracket or knowledge but honourable mention to kkoke and blade brown
Fantastic upload
“Harriet Tubman wasn’t a rich man” haha I know what you meant though.
Well, he's not wrong! 👀
He is amazing. Xxx
I never understand how Amaru Don doesn't have way more views on his content, or way more subscribers.... It's a madness 😑
J. B. Lol 😂 in time
I can relate ruclips.net/video/KvhdMYu9Dwg/видео.html
This guy need to get into politics he would get far
What a lad
Im a socialist.
Why doesn't he just say socialism? Anti capitalism, is socialism, theres no two ways about it. I find that odd
@Larry 1993 yes I'm a communist. A socialist fights for communism and should be a communist. But what do you want to know about it?
Probably because that was tried already in the cold war and people were flocking from communist countries to live in capitalist countries because it was better.. He only said that he doesn't believe that capitalism is the ultimate form of human organisation, not that he's anti-capitalist as such. I think the idea is to improve forward from capitalism as it can get corrupt when the government is no longer reliable (not that it ever was). I don't think it's a good idea to go backwards.
@@KnuckleHeadMusicUK bruv, I don't even know where to start with you on this. Capitalism is a dead mode of production driving the planet into oblivion. It has no future. Socialism can not possibly be backwards as you suggest as it is far more advanced ecologically, for human democratic control, fair rights, anti imperialist and anti racist. The reason capitalism returned in the ex socialist counties is down to multiple factors but it's certainly not down to capitalism some how being destiny or somehow 'better' but more that socialism was attacked from the inside and out by the ruling class and imperialism.
I don't know how much more I can say in a RUclips comment except socialism and struggle is the legacy and future of workers, and their own organisation.
Capitalism allows far more production of goods, hence 1st world countries have much more advanced science and are now stepping into a new era of technology. We've recently invented computers, the internet, camcorders, 3D printers, virtual reality, coffee machines, microwaves, washing machines, bacterial hand wash, x-rays, MRI scanners, contraception etc.. And yet you really don't think it has a future? How is socialism in any way more advanced ecologically if everyone has less? I could be wrong here but I think democratic control lies in the hands of the police and army, in physical force terms anyway. TV doesn't help, I'll give you that. I also don't like imperialism but you don't have to have imperialism for capitalism to work. Socialism takes away the ability to make profit so it will head toward equity and production would only be on demand when needed, so you would have minimum of anything, like countries that look like slums compared to 1st world countries. Hence socialists kept in by a wall were still finding ways to enter countries for capitalism. (That and Stalin's brutality but that's not completely relevant). Capitalism simply has more to offer. Social Hierarchies are inevitable, as is competition. Changing a political system will not stop ambition. Not without brutal force. Oh, and it won't stop racism. I completely agree that people's own organisation is a must though, just on an individual level, not as a forced systematic structure. Otherwise you wouldn't have entrepreneurs. You would also surely not have police because they would not take orders. If they would, who would be in a position to give the orders?
@@KnuckleHeadMusicUK I'm really sorry but I just can't answer all of this here. I don't have the time. But I urge you to question again and look deeper.
The USSR was the first to have a man in space
Cuba has developed a number of vaccines and medical methods and they are used widely and shared as generic medicines not held on to for profit like Glaxo Smith and Klein
Capitalism limits human development as it requires profit for production, where as socialism does not. That is why it's the last thing the ruling class want and will defend their capitalism to the death.
Lastly democracy in socialism is not military dictatorship. Again look at and research (properly) Cuba's system
A wise man
AGREE WITH THIS ALL THE WAY. I argue this all the time ... rather than wait for your turn ... TURN THE SYSTEM.
A good man leaves an inheritance for his children's children. (Bible)
Capitalism is just the most efficient way of price-setting ressources and handling what we should produce, when and how much. This is not to say its an objective good, but it is an expression of what the aggregate of people want.
The biggest problem with capitalism is that it does not solve problems of collective action problem - climate change, poverty aid etc. and that it promotes people to act in their own self interest, rather than what is good for the community at large.
Akala has great point. What US for example have done is colonialism with selfish capitalism. Taking advantage of people which is wrong, but also having very high inequality of workers. Also lack of free health care, expensive colleges, safety hazard with guns. So US is doing many things morally wrong, also there military spending seems to be a way to exploit other countries by war or being as an ally. Social capitalism would be close to a great system. Similar to Norway, Sweden and France.
When he talks about all these 'alternative trade systems'... that IS capitalism. It is just not Corporatism, which is very different.
Capitalism is an economic system and an ideology based on private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit.
Characteristics central to capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labor, voluntary exchange, a price system and competitive markets.
In a capitalist market economy, decision-making and investment are determined by the owners of the factors of production in financial and capital markets, whereas prices and the distribution of goods are mainly determined by competition in the market.
Economists, political economists, sociologists, and historians have adopted different perspectives in their analyses of capitalism and have recognized various forms of it in practice.
These include laissez-faire or free market capitalism, welfare capitalism and state capitalism.
Different forms of capitalism feature varying degrees of free markets, public ownership, obstacles to free competition and state-sanctioned social policies.
The degree of competition in markets, the role of intervention and regulation and the scope of state ownership vary across different models of capitalism.
The extent to which different markets are free, as well as the rules defining private property, are matters of politics and policy.
Most existing capitalist economies are mixed economies, which combine elements of free markets with state intervention and in some cases economic planning.
Market economies have existed under many forms of government, in many different times, places and cultures.
However, the birth of modern capitalist societies (marked by a universalization of money-based social relations, a consistently large and system-wide class of workers who must work for wages, and an ultra rich elite capitalist class which dominates the control of wealth and political power) occurred in Western Europe, in a process that led to the Industrial Revolution.
Such capitalist systems, with varying degrees of direct government intervention, have since become dominant in the Western world, and continue to spread.
Capitalism has been criticized for establishing power in the hands of a minority capitalist class that exists through the exploitation of a working class majority; for prioritizing profit over social good, natural resources and the environment; and for being an engine of inequality and economic instabilities.
Supporters argue that it provides better products through competition, creates strong economic growth, yields productivity and prosperity that greatly benefits society, as well as being the most efficient system known for allocation of resources.
I have to disagree with akalas mid point, it's almost suggesting that the main trade 700 years ago wasn't slaves and was fairer or more productive. I'm against elements of modern capitalism. But let's not pretend that ecconmies were fair or more productive 700 years ago. Surprised he made that point tbh.
@marcus reynolds, tell you what, produce your own video and then you can have a valid opinion on him.
@@mikeaskme3530 who are you?🤣🤣
@@rashaadbrown175 I am me and no one else, who are you, are you Marcus pretending?
True
The question is what is the alternative? I believe that we can have a more ethical capitalism yes but that comes down to what people choose to do as individuals. I believe what we have in the UK is a very good system, compared with the USA but when it boils down it to the issues we have are more to do with spirituality then politics. If we as individuals are self centred and greedy then it doesn't matter what system we have.
Agree completely. Every one is so easy to criticise and says we need to change the system. But what with. This "system" has improved living standards and empowered a mass of people all over the world.
He makes lots of money of it
I find this person very interesting.
Akala always strikes me as a very intelligent person that hasn't really made his mind up yet.
The problem is ... when you’re teally intelligent, the world no longer becomes black and white. It’s not as clear cut as capitalist v socialist. You see the nuances in everything - the good and he bad of both sides and so
It becomes increasingly difficult to align yourself with a particular world view with true integrity.
@@Johnphilips1234 So true. You clearly understand this because you are also that way.
A lot of the time saying "I don't know" is the intellectually honest thing to do. Its not as satisfying to hear but it's accurate. Someone who tells you that they have a simple common sense answer to problems and are going to make everything better and stronger. That sounds good to us, it sounds more satisfying than the boring, complex reality or the honest admission of ignorance.
I don't know where this idea has come from. You just have to pick a side and randomly choose an answer to something even if you dont know anything about it. Just because you have an answer to something it doesn't make you right and the person who says they don't know, wrong.
He's very intelligent but i think he can't say certain things cause his core base might reject the nuance. His definition of capitalism as trading but with murder attached is wrong here, and he knows it, he just agrees with the camera man and says "to an extent" as to not argue the point. 2 secs before he says trading is cool, and that's what free market capitalism is...the prob is corruption, like in any system, but he allows it to be simplified as capitalism or a lot of his followers wouldn't get it unfortunately....
@@xlmusic6419 you've kinda missed the entire role of colonialism in his argument. He doesn't define capitalism as trade + murder, he just says that is the shape it has taken today due to colonialism.
This is how I understand what he was saying at least.
I can’t believe the Ashkenazis tried to get me to say they are the creators of the world 😂
see when the parentz cost bare P
He doesn't half chat some shit does he? 😆
I guess he read a substandard book in 1994. Wow, he's a genius now. Get born in Newcastle rather the London bubble. And you might just figure what it really feels like to be marginalised In 2020s Britain.
It's ironic how Akala says that it's ironic that inspiring other human beings has given him financial success, as this is the essence of of capitalism. You have to enrich the lives of other people by offering a service or product, in his case his music and writing, to make money. In this way capitalism is forced altruism and is the most morally superior economic system.
What is ironic, is how Akala confuses capitalism with exploitation and materialism with capitalism, as this is not capitalism! These things are the result of the human nature and are a byproduct of any economic system.
U got base knowledge u cover a lot up
@@rashaadbrown175Go on explain then
Interesting view but not completely true.
Yes there have been other forms of trade pre free market but if you look at when the world has seen the most growth in terms of wealth, living stands, healthcare, rising out of poverty it has been since the introduction of free markets since the 1800s. There are graphs to demonstrate this on any economic forum.
What Akala is describing as capitalism is a very small part of it, and he’s focusing on the negatives. Capitalism is lifted more people out of poverty in Africa than charities, donations or support work. The only way out of poverty is employment.
There is elements of exploitation in capitalism, just as there are in socialism. I have never seen an economic system where there isn’t some form of exploitation. The difference with free markets is that it gives people freedom, they can set up their own company, make their own products, make a business based their passions. You cannot do this in a socialist economic system (and for those who are screaming that the Nordic’s are socialist they’re not and publicly say they aren’t. To be socialist output is controlled by the state but in the Nordic’s there is substantial privatisation, in many cases more privatised that the U.K. and the US).
If you ever need an example of the benefits that free markets bring compare S.Korea to N.Korea. In the 60s S.Korea implemented free market principles and privatisation and now they are as rich as the West. N.Korea which has no privatisation and its socialist/communist is very poor and there is no freedom for its people.
You said you use them, then in the next breath said people died to get them. Disappointed akala.
Jon Doe and you don't?
Its a reality of living in our society. Unless you grow and make everything you use yourself or research every product you buy including all the companies involved in making it and every link in the supply and manufacture chain. But no that seems reasonable.
Yeah well it doesn't help when there are a lot of working class people who are just uneducated morons. I once saw an old friend of mine (big Corbyn fan) sitting in his old *Volkswagen* while browsing the web via *EE* or another network on his *Apple* iPhone. He then bought a pair of *Nike* shoes through *Ebay* which he had searched for through *Google* and then paid for through *Paypal* . Which was then presumably dispatched by some multinational courier. That's eight fucking multinationals when many years ago, a man would have simply walked into the shop of a shoe maker. I didn't even go into the manufacturing of the shoe on either front.
Perhaps before preaching radical social change, they should tidy their own rooms so to speak.
I used to get called a toff for shopping at Waitrose by my old work mates. Little did they know I buy everything from their cheapest essential range which is similar priced to Tesco, but their CEO is paid £400k a year instead of £8.5 million, and they actually pay a credible amount of tax. Years ago people would buy from their local butcher, their local grocer, their local baker etc.. and now I bet you Akala supporters wouldn't even think to go in and check the price before you hand all your money over to some rich multinational conglomerate without second thought.
This "hypocrisy" that we talk of with Akala is massively understated and is actually representative of missing a key part of a functioning capitalist society - the consumers responsibility.
Consumer responsibility is bs as you've just demonstrated. Everything that goes into producing, assembling, packaging, distributing a product is way too complex. You would have to spend your life studying everything you buy and then somehow earn enough money (without exploiting anyone yourself) to afford the completely ethically products you've found - again that seems pretty reasonable right? You really think buying waitroses cheapest range is all you need to do? It's cheap for a reason - someone along the line (probably many people) are being exploited. Additionally voting with your money is unfair from the start when people have an uneven amount of voting power. Sorry but that's just a cheap copout from having a real discussion.
Consumer responsibility is not BS. You're argument is basically "It's too hard because the production line from tertiary to consumption is too long" and this is a nonsensical argument. Of course it is long and hard to trace, that's always been the case but even what we can do now, many don't.
A prime example is the Waitrose comment - no I am not naive enough to believe that this makes me a just and moral person. I laid my reasons out above. Firstly the CEOs far more modest pay in comparison, and secondly for tax purposes. That's what I can clearly and concisely see and I make the best decisions I can based on that information. Your argument seems to be edging on the side of "Well we can't know everything so let's not even try" - my argument is that if you can't even attempt to tidy your own damn room then stop trying to change the world!
On top of that, it's actually easier than ever before, it's just that the systems aren't in place. And the systems aren't in place because people don't demand them. A website could easily (probably easily, not my field of expertise) be made where you could type a companies name in and they have to show their sources. It wouldn't be a requirement, but it should definitely increase demand in the company if they are indeed ethical.
Take recycling for example, we are hitting that hard. Look at the pressure that has been put on Coca Cola the past few years about it and it's actually made them take action. There are online petitions that can gain hundreds of thousands of signatures in days from absolutely nothing with next to no effort whatsoever. That's unprecedented territory in human history, and most people can't be arsed to use it.
It's just become too hard because (mainly) younger generations have become so damn materialistic for reasons somewhat out of their control, that they just don't care anymore - and that's what I was expressing in my waitrose comment and the example of my friend in the car.
They don't even try, they give up before they start, They'll fork over £1000 to apple for a product made in terrible conditions by a company who has their fingers in every governmental pie going, then these same people complain Apple don't pay tax and ask the government to take it back for them. - It's pathetic and exemplifies the lack of self-responsibility people are adopting.
When it comes to entering their card details on a website they will be far more careful, yet when it comes to a wider effect on society they just don't care and run to the government asking them to make policy to fix everything. Many leftists today want a more group-orientated society, while being principally bankrupt by not adopting the group systems of responsibility already in place.
My man chats breeze, had to put on a jacket. Capitilism is the best system in place at the moment. The people in congo are getting wrecked because of their corrupt government not because of industry. He even admitted he's a hypocrite for having devices that have matirals from congo in but at the end he said what are we willing to do? by "we" he meant "you", he isn't going to change so everything he said was rubbish. be the change you wish to see and get your room in order before you start telling other people what's what.
dragonjohn34 keyboard warriors are my favorite. Lol
I also don't think capitalism is the ultimate form of human organisation either but it's the best we have atm m8.
"Capitalism is the best system in place at the moment" yes, at the moment. Are you even listening to what he's saying? He's speaking specifically about rampant capitalism which seeks to maximise profits above all else. the money siphoned by corrupt African governments is a drop in the ocean when placed against the wealth being extracted by large corporations. The man gave his personal opinion and it's valid, the only breeze is coming from your direction.
haha So we agree capitalism is the best system at the moment, So either think of something better or shut up, simples. Akala is just preaching buzzwords with no substance, he isn't practicing what he preaches either, so there's no back bone. Corporations wouldn't be able to extract minerals and such if it wern't for the corrupt African governments selling out their country and letting them do so. got cha
Akala is one of these people who hangs on to the past to argue for things that are happening today, It just comes off as pretentious and boring. I get it, history was brutal and it was kill or be killed in some cases, You see it a lot from organisations like BLM who will justify doing something bad because something bad happened to their ancestors, it's ridiculous, If everyone had that mind set nothing would get done and were all be constantly fighting (which the left want). Can we put that behind us already and get a man on Mars already?
You are pigeyotto using gust attack because it is you who is the breeziest.
Ah. A right-winger who plays dungeon keeper all day. I'm sure if anybody can give a meritable critique over how the history of economics and race effect politics today it's gonna be you. So what if he uses devices that require materials from the Congo. Despite his admittance of it I don't see how that makes him a hypocrite considering there aren't many other ethical alternatives. Sure, African governments allow western capitalists to extract these materials but that doesn't justify the capitalists exploiting them. But of course you haven't considered that because you don't have any understanding over how economics are currently run in Sub-Saharan countries today. The reason people in the Congo are getting "wrecked" is not only because of corrupt governance but a combination of both that and western imperialism.
Tbh if it isn't already clear I'm a socialist so I strongly disagree that capitalism is the best system we have and I don't agree with the privatisation of services that fulfil basic human needs such as healthcare, education or food but I don't have a choice in the matter. I have to work and pay for these things. Using your analogy of " be the change you wish to see and get your room in order before you start telling other people what's what" I shouldn't pay for food and my bills and simply starve or freeze to death.
If you think we shouldn't hang on to the things of the past that's fine and to a certain extent you have a point. But that's not what Akala was saying. I don't know if you've ever actually experienced any trauma in your life but when you experience such things it tends to have an effect upon the person you develop into in the future. When the slaves for example were freed they were paid no reparations or any other form of compensation for there suffering and neither were their descendants. The slave masters were given compensation for their loss of slaves but the slaves themselves were left with NOTHING. And therefore of course that will have an effect on the financial status of the descendants of those who suffered especially considering the fact that slavery was not ancient history. There are people who are still alive who lived through the Jim Crow era. And therefore of course that will have an effect on the financial status of the descendants of those who suffered. Look at most African American communities. They look like third world countries. But they live in a capitalist society which according to you is the best system we have.
And BLM don't protest over what happened to their ancestors. They protest about police brutality and the racial profiling that the American justice system is plagued with. Also the left don't want everyone fighting. We want justice and equality.
Does this guy ever change his tune! 3 favourite words in most raps and speeches 1. Black 2.race 3. Indigenous. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz!
keep it real keep it real the truth is uncomfortable innit?
Mohamed Ali definitely not ... You can't state my level of comfort over anything as clearly you don't know me...I'd rather the topics come from someone different than akala tbh...an opinion: he is full of himself
Mohamed Ali innit!!!
@@keepitrealkeepitreal625 I like how you put innit at the end to mask your veiled bigotry and clear patronising worldview. Come debate with an educated man and beg you get done off
OmG biologists are always banging on about biology. So annoying. I wish they wouldn't talk about the things that they study.
To say this is to show a level of ignorance and misunderstanding on what capitalism actually is.
Nope. It's an observation of what modern trade was built on and that is exploitation and unequal trade