Exactly so. There is always a difference between Growth and Development as economic concepts, as is testified by the emergence of the latter as a separate discipline within Economics. In fact the very logic behind fiscal responsibility is the holding back of government funds in more cases than one. This share of accumulated funds in most cases serve to meet corporate demand, given the low (and in countries like India) tax rates that are imposed on corporates
Though China's living standards still isn't comparable to that of the west, you can't deny that it has gotten drastically better for the majority of the Chinese people. The quality of living standards will always get better as the economy develops, just like it did for Britain after the industrial age.
@@YoungCoward China is worse than india. That I know for sure. The only people who would say it isn't is bad faith actors or people who havent been paying attention.
@@quaresiusmaximus7463 Yes, China has gotten remarkably better. An indication that socialism, the"often" precursor to communism due to "positive feedback loops" works and can work again!!! But didnt china have a terrible time during the early stages of their experiment with communism? Yes but all drastic changes require sacrifices. Just be greatful that no longer are there signs that say things such as, "remember, it's wrong to eat children." But to begin with, what was it that got china into it's terrible situation? Oh yeah, they dabbled with communism and didn't produce the expected results "right away." Moving on, even with the hundreds of millions that died from internal repression and starvation, at least they succeeded right? Wait wait wait. How did they make it out? Oh right they began trade thanks to Bill clinton in 2000s (that was a huge one) and privatized their industries with limits in the very late 20th century. Ever since, China's economy has risen exponentially. I guess we dont need to centralize or collectivize all ownership. Hold on, what does that mean? The re-establishment of market and price based economy. That sounds familliar somewhat. Oh right, practices based in the theory of capitalism. Anyway, let's wrap this up. Thank god communism and also socialism works after all the suffering we've put up with into trying it. Wait a minute....
I'm not a socialist - however, I am sympathetic towards certain socialist concepts, particularly when it comes to the government's role in providing services like healthcare and education. The free market cannot be relied on to provide everything for members of society, and free market enterprises should NEVER be allowed to “regulate” themselves, simply because the temptation to abuse such powers will be too strong to resist.
Tom Samad Hence you're probably not right wing either, you're most likely a centrist. Liberal Socialism (ie: no state or lack or state control, or that control in the hands of the general population) is generally the way to go. It doesn't force people to help one another or what not but instead encourages it, if you don't help then that's fine, just don't expect too much help when you need it. And indeed, a corporatist society is a very very bad one. Would basically turn multinationals into warring factions and they would essentially become something similar to the Mafia's around the world. Liberal Socialism is a centre-left liberal policy/ideologue. It's possible, it just takes effort. Problem is that most people take the path of least resistance and don't bother to help or do something to make a change. They see it as New Labour = Liberal Socialism, which isn't the case. New Labour was actually centre-right, which is rather stupid for labour.
Scara and Spud The only way New Labour was centre right was within the confines of its own mad-cap party. New Labour spent more money on the various social services than we could afford racking up huge debts. New Labour was like a kid with a credit card. New Labour was a wolf in sheeps clothing.
D81 The debt they accrued was large yes, but it was not helped by the 2007/8 world financial crisis which was out of their control. The Tories have also reduced deficit but increased the national debt, pushing down our Gini coefficient/palma ratio and also the national GDP. They are essentially robbing the poor and giving to the rich (ie: tax breaks and cuts for those earning over X amount). That said New Labour was fair right wing with many policies, they were protectionist, interventional and religious conservatives. This was mainly due to Tony buddying up with George Bush and the US had a major impact on UK politics during this 8 years in power.
he destroys his own logic when he talks on percentages - the past recessions had faster appearing growth rates because they too were coming from worse low points.
He countered the Point of Information about the Nordic country having a twelve percent growth by dismissing it as a product of recovery from a devastating economic downturn. He then follows with an analysis that China is doing great. Since the Chinese economy has only recently joined the world marketplace in such force, his argument can be dismissed by his previous counter-argument.
Sorry Visceral, but I have worked as an economist for 50 years. The "logic" I use tells me that socialism as practiced in the USSR and some other countries not only does not work, it cannot work. True, there is some mix of socialist policies in capitalist systems that do work, so long as the socialist contribution remains below a certain level. What that level is for a given society is a practical matter the society must discover for itself, possibly by trial and error. Vietnam is an example of a country that is experimenting to discover what level of capitalist policies a socialist system needs to deliver a level of health and welfare that will produce a stable political system. Young economists will live long enough to find out how the Vietnamese either solve this question or do not. I won't.
The notion of something "working" or "not working" was explained by Richard Feynman in a famous lecture. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." When we say that socialism does not work, we mean that important experiments in socialism have demonstrated that socialism does not work. The theory is wrong. Socialism does work in certain communities, such as religious orders. But those who discuss whether or not socialism works usually assume that the parties are talking about socialism within a larger society, such as a nation.
and what do you mean by 'better?' Capitalism is the best so far, for putting wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and consolidating power. Is that good though?
@@antediluvianatheist5262 hasn't capitalism brought us much farther much faster as a species? Do we not have electricity, phones, tvs and many other advances because of the influence of capitalism. Under socialism the lowest class is better off I give you that but as a species do we grow as fast I say no. Even the lowest classes amongst us are far better off now then they would of been even 50 years ago.
@@chadfriesen6743 That's right. Capitalism HAS NOT. You are confusing the market, trade and progress, with the people who won the means of production. No, advances in technology, and societal progress pulled people out of poverty. As to growth, the two greatest rates of growth of wealth, GDP and standard of living in human history, are when socialism took over two countries. the USSR, and China. Moreover, relative poverty does harm. Not just absolute poverty.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 lol all the advances I mentioned happened under and because of capitalism. The Soviet Union failed badly and do you really want to throw China in there. They have over a million people in reeducation camps being tortured. And they are about to send there army into Hong Kong to crack skulls. They monitor everything there people do is that what you want?
warriorprince101010 "Do not buy from a corporation and they have no tyranny over you." Nonsense. I don't buy anything from Koch Industries in the US. They are one of the largest privately held companies in the US. Yet the owners, David and Charles Koch, are worth a reported $150 Billion dollars. They fund over a dozen groups whose aim is to dismantle the already flimsy social safety net. They want to get rid of a. the EPA b. the Clean Air Act c. the Clean Water Acts d. Social Security e. Medicare (the US senior insurance program). They are the main reason the US doesn't not have a renewable energy program. Guess what Koch Industries started in? Oil & Gas. They will personally pump more than $900 million dollars into the 2016 Presidential Election. Republicans are so desperate for their money that there is a "Koch Primary" for potential Republican Presidential Candidates to fly to their ranch in Palm Springs, California to be "interviewed" by the Koch Brothers. Did you get that? ALL the Republican Candidates make a house call to (2) 75 year old, billionaire oligarchs to compete for their money. They are a corrupting influence US democracy. These Oligarchs certainly do present a private tyranny.....especially in the US where money now represents free speech.
***** "control your life in every aspect. Including the workplace. No more private tyrannies!" Form your own company, with your own money. What you are describing is not controlling your own life, it's controlling others.
+warriorprince101010 you said "in free markets the poor can start their own business" Sure they can, then along comes walmart with their monopoly on chinese manufacturing, and bingo your scrapin for some business.
He advocates for a combination of socialism/capitalism, like that of Australia post WW2, which is now declining rapidly as it heads towards a more privatised ultra-capitalist country.
@@NangDoofer Australia was doing fine until the Covid karens came alone, but everything happens for a reason. The Great Reset, Great Crash or 2nd Great Depression, whatever u want to call it, will not go how your shepherds have planned is what I am betting on.
@@NangDoofer The UN's announced Great Reset will be much bigger, Klaus Schwab has also announced most will own nothing when the dust settles. Inflation will hit u like u hit the environment with 150 billion face nappies a month, the crash and suffering is well deserved and needed.
I want so much for socialism to work for socialists. My advice would be for them to stop the ambition of seizing the means of production but to build brick by brick their own means of production. You see the means of production is the same as education. One has to start with almost nothing and then little by little learning and finally graduating. The shock factor of graduating without years of patiently learning is will be enormous. How would one like to fly a plane without having learned how to fly a plane? Or do brain operation without having learned to do brain operation? Now, politicians seizing the means of production, without them having built it up from scratch will be more or less the same. It will be catastrophic for the economy. That's the reason why all socialist take overs were followed by economic disasters. Seizing tge means of production does not guarantee production. It guarantees disaster. Socialists should insist on acquiring their means of production instead of seizing them. Any ideology with good intentions which insists on seizing is not worthy to be born. Anyone with firepower can just seize. But functioning workable ideology can develop its wealth by developing and producing its own without seizing from others.
Have you ever heard of Antony Eden, he did exactly what you discribed. He created the NHS from the ground up and produced a health system that is still functioning over 70years later. Its not practical to dismantle industry to rebuild and perfectly achievable via fabianism to produce a workable socialist system with the pre existing structures of society.
In the UK those industries brought into public hands quickly went from being under the management of a socialist government chaired by Anthony Eden to the management of a Social Democratic, Conservative government of Winston Churchil. So in reality socialists had no control over the freshly nationalised industries and therefore your arguement while well made is actually flawed.
Your confusing Marxist communism with Socialism. In the UK Marxism never took root and it was the Fabian model of socialism that was adopted. Fabianism believes in a none violent, gradual process of removing private ownership from the state and introducing society to the concept of mutual ownership and collective responsibility of the state. Socialism is the concept of collective control and management of resources for the good of the entire population and not the elite.
There would be no comparison if the state tried to compete with the markets. Work for a period in any state run organisation and you’ll see total mis-management and inefficiency!
This is so ridiculously stupid. I have heard this claim before. It is so stupid it pains me to even adress. You're not actually engaging with the claim why the 'means of production' need to be seized according to socialist ideology. They need to be seized not by ONE person, but the people who already work them. Instead of those who know own them, use them for their own benifit on the backs of others, they need to be taken by those who already produce with them. It's a very simple claim. And as for the rest of your comment it is just vague nonsense as much as the call to 'human nature' in response to socialism is.
Brandon James Guetersloh No, China is a socialist country led by the communist party. "Communism" has never been archieved, comunism the the final state of Socialism where there is no money, nations or social class. Comunism is socialism (Socialism is the workers controlling the means of production), but socialism can take many forms. Most "communist" countries you hear about are authoritarian Socialists, or Leninists. That means the workers *allegedly* control the means of productions indirectly by being the goverment doing in for them (idealy they would democratically elect a manager to manage, not control, but in this countries democracy doesn't seem to exist). So China is indeed Socialist.
Uber Kommandont You mean Denmark and various Scandinavian countries? They aren’t socialist. They have minimal to zero corporate taxes. They are very capitalist oriented, they just have a large welfare state.
Lord Meowric Or they actually listen and realize that all the arguments made generally tend to be arguments from emotion rather than arguments from evidence. *As is always stressed: show me one example of any major multicultural socialist nation that doesn't carry with it a massive amount of debt.* The logical counter to this would then be to point out that "capitalist" nations also do, however I would then ask you to show me how many social programs that capitalist nation has, and I'm betting you'll find that the debt level is almost always a direct correlation of the size of government and social programs. The reason why? I've already done the research in college, so I'm positive of your research results, and as a result, its a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally safe bet to make.
Jon Cantwell He wrote in bold letters : "show me one example of any major multicultural socialist nation that doesn't carry with it a massive amount of debt" If you achieve to do that, you get to win the debate.
iotaje1 Yeah I read his comment before I commented. Its nonsensical which is why I requested to see his research. Have you seen other research that corroborate this if so link it to me.
He tries and narrows the debate to "Can Socialism work" on its merits. Well I hate to inform him it's not about merit but real life behavior. There is not one socialized country where the people benefitted more then its government run leaders. You simply existed to better the state not the person. This is why socialism fails, the state as value the person doesn't. The opposite is true of people, they will always put them self first over the other in most cases. Its simple human behavior. Its one reason government run socialism will always be by force.
Replacing the word "socialized" by "capitalized", "government/state" by "bank/capital", "force" by "scheme", your sentences still make sense though. Try it.
I wasn't trying to write a book on the subject, given the space allowed. You still got the same outcome where the few "State" has value and the person gets its value from what the state determines is productive. If it worked you would not need prisons, gulags, or forced labor camps. It only works when fear is used as a weapon. Its a system of mediocrity. No one person had more then the next. So all incentive is removed " No reward for hard work" it only works for the few at the top that run it!
Just because something hasn't worked in the past doesn't mean it will never work, that seems to be a rather fallacious line of reasoning akin to "it hasn't rained before, therefore it will never rain"
Apart from, USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, Angola, Vietnam, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela Socialism works, it was paradise for the people in those countries and do not let anyone else tell you any different.
Socialism even with the best minds in the USSR trying to make it work..failed. China, with 1.5 billion minds fails to make it work.... Every time socialism raises its head, it falls short. From Venezuela, to Cuba, from Cambodia to North Korea.... Those that advocate socialism and state control, don’t realise how destructive a force it usually is. I’ve debated socialists who thought the dictionary definition was far right propaganda..yes, the oxford English dictionary definition.. when asked name a socialist country..say Scandinavian nations..Holland and Germany.( not socialist no5 anywhere near)..not Venezuela or the like.. Socialist delusion is only a poor substitute for wanting control over others to supplement the lives of the pigs at the top of that pen.
They confuse socialism with social market economy, which is different. You have basically a free market but with some regulations and safety-nets for the people - which is quite reasonable as long as you find ways to financially support it, which gets exceedingly difficult now that the baby-boomers start entering their pension age.
Not just 'fall short', it causes massive misery, starvation and inequality. Meanwhile in our awesome western capitalist societies, we have too much food too much stuff. So much food and stuff we have issues that we have problems in that we throw away too much.
Reuben Thomasson it hasn’t at all. It kills folk it doesn’t like, jails dissenters and you can’t opt out of that system. It’s just another form of slavery and misery. You’ve got folk ratting on family because they don’t support the regime, you’ve got everyone living in poverty too. While those at the top live in luxury. You’ve rampant corruption and no way out of it. That’s not success at all.
well fuck, anarchy "works," if your definition of "works" is broad enough. if the first thing you do is loophole your way around the proposition by stretching the meaning of the word "work," that pretty much tells us how much confidence you have in socialism. this is a hurried 10 minute excuse/apology.
What people debate about socialism and capitalism which one is better than another one in macroeconomics but it is not the main purpose for socialism. Socialism is good because it is equally good for all the people in a society.
Why? LMAO. People who dislike this video and this man's fantastically delivered argument are either stupid, willfully ignorant, or selfish and rich. This man is extremely intelligent and made brilliant points, but y'all don't wanna hear the truth.
@@Wackaz it’s probably because he’s a kid with zero life experience. All he’s spouting is ideology, whereas those against socialism actually gave facts and real life examples
@@andrewf4623 all the real life examples they gave were totalitarian communist regimes, and not for example the prosperous social democracies in Scandinavia.
@@NangDoofer democracies in Scandinavia are not socialist, They simply have higher taxes than most other western countries. Apart from that, they have less restrictions on the free market than even the USA. Sorry to burst your bubble, comrade. PS: this is to say nothing of the fact that the USA has been Scandinavia's protector for the past 70 years. Let's see them do free healthcare with their own military big enough to repel Russia. How ironic that they get their "free" healthcare because the evil capitalist America is giving them free military protection.
"It's not hard to grow from an incredibly low place" and yet his opening salvo was on how the "capitalist" recession of 2008 as opposed to the "socialist" recessions of the 70's and earlier were overcome so much quicker? Doesn't that imply that the recent recession in fact had little effect on the overall value of our economy and simply took a small bite out of production? This guy needs to prepare his arguments better, he set himself up on that one.
This is a Terrible arguing point. “Does it work” Yes it works, it works terribly for the majority of society. A true and more productive question is, “Is socialism a desirable system for most people in a given society to live in?” Merely asking if it works is baby food, which the opposing side properly threw up or spit out as a adult that eats baby food usually does. The opposition addressed and answered the productive question. Which I stated above. If I were to ask you does the least productive person at your job work? Yes would be the easy answer. But the true answer and most productive thing about his “work” is that it is undesirable to have him pulling little weight and his non production hurts the rest of the work team, so does he work, yes he does, but is it productive no it’s not.
Mr. Sullivan is correct that socialism is fundamentally an economic system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. But unfortunately he does not quite grasp what "public ownership of the means of production" means or meant in the context of socialism. The idea of "public" or "common" ownership in socialism is to re-organize the economy into a single interlinked network/organization for production and distribution (historically this was called "production for use" or "planning"). Simply having the state own shares in companies but having these companies organized as business enterprises (capitalist entities) is not socialism. It is just a different institutional form of capitalism - this applies to the UK in the Attlee period and China today.
+Dorian Leakey yes they did. he said if this debate was if socialism was better than capitalism, he may be on the other side of the aisle. open Ur ears
well the theory is that with more health care and better and accessible education we would have more alive, healthy and educated people which would make a more productive society. i am acknowledged to know ur argument, i am not here just for the purpose of winning
I can't help but notice the differences in preparation or lack thereof. He isn't even "thinking" here. He's just spewing a salad of letters on a piece of paper that were chosen prior to his presentation.
I lived and travelled throughout Socialist Czechoslovakia during the 80's and what I witnessed was horrifying! Poverty. Empty shops with people queuing outside to buy the remnants. Eggs and milk that were possibly ok or possibly not, with no chance whatsoever of returning the "off" products to the shop or store - a case of "you spend your monies and you takes your chances". Lines of men and women lining the streets, paintbrush in hand... painstakingly... snail-like slow... painting miles of walls. Wages so low that poverty was the norm. Socialism and then of course Communism - the so-called 'step up', do not work. Simply because the people don't work! And why don't the people work? Back to the wage problem which is absolutely SHOCKING in Socialist/Communist countries... but they won't tell you that!! That's why the farms failed big time and the people starved! No pay - no play... and it all makes perfect sense!!!
Ben Sullivan chooses to omit the issue of ethics from the debate of whether or not the economic system of socialism works or not. I would reply to him that one cannot quite separate practicality from morality, insofar as economies have a significant effect on people's well-being and livelihoods - it is quite appalling he uses China as an example of a successful socialist economy (when in fact it is a state capitalist economy). I also dislike how he gets very flaky and says how he might even be on the other side if this was a debate about whether socialism or capitalism is the better system, considering the fact he is on the side of people who are devout advocates of socialism.
Lol yeah the capitalists weren't that good, albeit some good rhetoric and typical Hayek-like arguments - I found thankfully that Sullivan was the worst out of the four socialists, and found Corbyn and Clark to be good (although they could have given some more solid examples/cases/arguments on the actual practicalities of socialism).
I agree with you - as soon as I heard that I stopped the video. Everyone knows an economic system is more than just that - it is a social order. Certain systems benefit certain individuals, and certain organisations. Thus your benefits in wealth and accumulation of such certainly determine a moral aspect, as that wealth holds influence, power, and honour.
"In order to win the debate tonight we on side opposition we don't need to prove socialism is better [...] but rather it is a workable system". And there is where they lost the debate. This is purely rethorics. Dictatorship is also workable. The better proof is that history is full of such systems and humans have survive under these systems. And so what? To win the debate there are two questions they need to answer: First question, the one they avoid by rhetorics is "compare to what?". And the second, they did not answer at all is: "at what cost?". One has to take into account what is lost. Corrollary of the cost is the following question "how much time bearing the cost?". The "workeable" notion suppose answers on the costs of the system to be maintained in a perspective taking also into account long term. Look: USSR is workeable, at the price of millions of deads by hunger and direct killing by the state. And it last several decades. And so what? Would you say it is workeable? I can draw complete stupid examples: In the way to increase my blood pressure I can throw myself into the lion's cage of a zoo. It is fully workeable. Tell me about my very same blood pressure one minute later once lions will have torn me apart? This video is complete bullshit reasoning.
My father in law was the Director General of a massive steel plant in the USSR. His brother was a Professor in Physics in the University in Moscow. His another brother was the Soviet Representative in the UN Peace Keeping Force. My wife and brother in law were students in the same factory school alongside the sons and daughters of ordinary workers. They both have to do work as ordinary workers for two years before they were allowed to go the University, where sons and daughters of the ordinary workers could go straight. My wife had worked as a cleaner in a hospital before she was allowed to be a student in the Medical School of the Moscow State University. My brother in law had to work as a metal worker before he was allowed to a student of the Baumann University Engineering school in Moscow. This was Socialism in the USSR. It had worked very well before it was destroyed by Yeltsin and his cronies.
The kid is clever and pretty quick on the ball. He's wrong as far as his arguments are concerned. But he clearly did a lot of work on information gathering, even if it was gathering information from a biased source.
We just watched this young man describe what took China 6,000 years to build vs what took America 500 years to build. Dating Christopher Columbus's voyage at 1492... so truly it is what really took America far less than 500 years to build.
The development of Capitalism in the USA was supported by mass murder of the native americans, slavery of the Africans, Colonialism of the entire Latin America.
Relevance? The Chinese economy of even a 1000 years ago has basically to bearing on its current economic model. They had to rebuild actually after Japanese occupation in world war 2.
This guy is soooo wrong on China. There are more bronze busts of John Cowperthwaite (Former Governor of Hong Kong + famed Neo Liberal) than Karl Marx there, and their state sector is half the size of ours (with no NHS, and next to nothing in state benefits). There's also the small problem of all those Gulags and the dreadful (thankfully mostly renounced) legacy of Maoism.
8 лет назад
+Tim Patmore Hong Kong is just one city out of hundreds of similar size, and also happens to have a slightly different economic system because of their status of former british colony, so it's it kind of hard to generalize just because of one city.
+Francisco Galárraga Indeed on the generalisation point, but there is also Singapore and the Tiger Economies of South East asia that imitated Hong Kong and its model for success. "Slightly different economic system because of their status of former british colony" is a total red herring. Does being a former British colony automatically mean prosperity? Was Grenada a success when they adopted communism? Or Uganda? Adopting the right system matters, not their colonial status. Hong Kong was a fishing village before Cowperthwaite's efforts.
lol "there is no reason why socialism cannot work..." obviously this guy has never read Mises. Yeah no reason at all... except the the problems of incentives, concentration of power, and, oh yeah... the calculation problem which is the clincher. This guy was a fail, at least become familiar with the history of your ideology.
***** Hello friendly socialist! do you not think people respond to incentives? even if they don't, that still leaves concentration of power and the calculation problem as obstacles ;)
Tits Magee i am not extremely well versed on socialism, but to say the only reason people want to be a doctor, teacher, or architect is to get fancy items is nonsense and a material capitalist ideology. Socialism is not the belief im absolute reasource equality as well, that is communism.
You also would need to participate in society under socialism to get a lot of the benifits. And even if people are pursuing careers now just so they can by a new BMW, that is just due to the dominant capitalism ideology which would change.
Sorry, but this kid does not understand anything, but he might be right in saying that the Socialism and Islam is on the march to world domination. So have we failed in the past, but never on this scale.
Ridiculous argument about China being socialistic. China has been socialistic for more than half a century. All those decades, they have been dirt poor. China only became richer recently only to the extent they converted significant portion of their already socialistic economy to market economy. The relative gain in their prosperity is proportional to the amount of adoption of capitalism. In other words, china is successful DESPITE it's still persisting ridiculous control of large portion of it's economy.
I'll just put this here "Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. There is a great gulf fixed. It is not a gulf of method, it is a gulf of principle … Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference … Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly." Winston Churchill - 1908
This guy actually made the best speech of the whole debate. All other speakers misinterpreted the motion and argued that socialism is worse than capitalism rather than it can’t work. Well done on him he dealt with the POIs well and had sound arguments.
People who dislike this video and this man's fantastically delivered argument are either stupid, willfully ignorant, or selfish and rich. This man is extremely intelligent and made brilliant points, but y'all don't wanna hear the truth.
It is not the Ideology that gives people good or bad government socialism, capitalism, fascism all can work with honest government that works for the people. Not government that works for the benefit of the few.
Sullivan countered the Point of Information about the Nordic country having a twelve percent growth by dismissing it as a product of recovery from a devastating economic downturn. He then follows with an analysis that China is doing great. Since the Chinese economy has only recently joined the world marketplace in such force, his argument can be dismissed by his previous counter-argument.
He did very well to frame the proposition accurately. It is not whether socialism is desirable but whether it "can work". And rather like a jalopy "works", socialism works.
That's the ONLY way you can make it sound like a real possiblity - that there is no reason to think that it will not work in Britain... nice one!!! But pull the other one - it's got bells on!!!
People who dislike this video and this man's fantastically delivered argument are either stupid, willfully ignorant, or selfish and rich. This man is extremely intelligent and made brilliant points, but y'all don't wanna hear the truth.
So... Giving away free shit and having standards drop is a good strategy? And then borrowing against the future while output drop is a good economic policy? What the heck did you put in your tea?
@Andrea Mendenhall No, they are not capitalist in the same way as the west, and they are not transitioning. They do what works, whatever it's called. And you appear to have causation and correlation confused.
Imagine thinking that an economy of over 1 Billion people being larger than most nations with less than 100 million people is an example of success...the irony of him claiming pointing out Iceland's fast recovery from 2008 is a "clever use of statistics" while making a fallacy based on the Money Illusion. Fun fact about 2008 from within the industry FYI: The global market recession was caused by the NYSE and NASDAQ which were caused by the US housing bubble....itself caused by the nationalization of the mortgage market. Not exactly a great case for nationalization and against free markets. Iceland wouldn't have had to recover anything had socialist ideology not taken over the US federal reserve and housing approach in Congress...not to mention their faster recovery was the result of free market choices.
China is not socialist anymore. Yes, the state has still a too large influence but the trend of increasing wealth and living standards was thanks to the state's role decreasing and Deng allowing private ownership.
I consider myself to be left-leaning but he really didn't argue his points well enough. China is, absolutely, not the best model to use to advocate for social change and he tries to use the economic argument of recessions; not exactly the best way to convert the capitalist mind-set when, by his own admission, "happen all the time." In truth, you need to distribute power as fairly as possible and this hasn't really proved successful in either capitalist or communist regimes. There isn't a perfect answer because completely reinventing the wheel inevitably causes wanton destruction, but maintaining the status quo is also flawed in how it spreads disillusionment and increases vulnerability. I'm no expert but eliminating corporatism and crony capitalism would be a good start so then smaller businesses and the "disaffected" might have a fairer chance of prosperity and that might even out the financial imbalances. Also, fairer taxation for companies would help (admittedly this would need to be agreed globally) but the truth is nobody will forfeit their power.
An old man in the USSR lines up for hours to buy meat, only to find out there’s none left. He flies into a rage, screaming about how horrible and stupid communism is. A KGB agent walks up to him and tells him to calm down, adding “don’t forget what happened to people like you back in the old days” and making a “gun” shape with his hand. The old man goes back to his apartment, empty-handed. His wife says, “they’re out of meat?” He replies, “it’s worse than you think: they’re out of bullets.”
If other countries use policy A that works better then policy B, then why would I implement policy B in my country? It would be less competitive and so it wouldn't work.
The only place where socialism survives is in social democracies and even there the people pay for the misadministration of a government who overstretch its responsibilities and runs on debt. A rich country can hold that for more time if it has low corruption but ultimately what awaits is failure.
because both of these things are not possible under a socialist totalitarian regime like the ussr, cuba or north korea. try telling dear leader kim jong un that you would like to change the system even just a little, and he will have you shot or fed to starving dogs.
dinero rey state capitalism is an oxymoron. north korea can call itself whatever they like. if you proclaim that your ideology is "self-reliance" for which the word juche is roughly translated to, then you cant at the same time open your hands and take millions in food aid and other kinds of foreign aid. if your system is so broken, that a large amount of the general population cannot afford to eat healthy on a daily basis, then your system is not working.
Zishy state capitalism is not an oxymoron, it is the state acting as a capitalist and we have examples of it here in the Britain the NHS, railways, post offices, municipally owned utilities etc. Socialism is workers direct control so forming collective councils or electing managers which was not seen in any of these states.
He makes some terrible arguments in favor of socialism. He actually contradicts himself. In knocking down the growth rate of capitalist Iceland since the recession of 2008, he cites that it's easy to grow when you start from such a low point. Then he cites China's high growth rate as a victory for state planning (socialist economy) when the truth is China's growth A) still starts from a very low point of wealth and B) China's growth is coming at the expense of capitalist countries because labor is cheap. This guy is a nitwit.
People who dislike this video and this man's fantastically delivered argument are either stupid, willfully ignorant, or selfish and rich. This man is extremely intelligent and made brilliant points, but y'all don't wanna hear the truth.
Isn't it rather pathetic that a country of nearly 1.4 billion people, China, (more than 4 times the population of the USA) isn't the largest economy? (Yes, I know, at PPP it now has a narrow lead, but at nominal GDP, it's still a distant second.)
How can you be a Persona fan and be against socialism lol. People who dislike this video and this man's fantastically delivered argument are either stupid, willfully ignorant, or selfish and rich. This man is extremely intelligent and made brilliant points, but y'all don't wanna hear the truth.
I lived in China. Great place and people, but far fewer freedoms, corruption of public services with and an elite class and massive poverty of the people.
I fully expect this person to be a Tory politician in 10 years time because he fundamentally does not understand socialism. One day he will explain that he spoke from the idealism of youth and had now matured and realised the errors of his youthful exuberance. The truth is that socialism DOES work but for none of the reasons that he gave in his argument.
So the against socialism side was made up of very experienced individuals, yet FOR socialism they could only find this kid with no life experience?! Sounds about typical…
what is the difference between chinese 50% ownership of companies, and 10% income tax versus 35% corporate gains tax plus 25% average income tax? i will tell you: china has less paper work. otherwise the effect is the same.
I think he does not fully understand China's economic situation. Yes, it is true that over 30% of the companies are owned by the government and it also seems that the government manages them well. However, it is doubtful if China has sound law and order system to run such a so-called socialism society. Without the basis of democracy, the brutal intervention of China government is always the case which cannot offer a stable environment for foreign business to invest. I support socialism yet it is hard to agree with Chinese style socialism especially when the leader's opinion is always more important than ordinary people's needs and there is no room for negotiation.
+Jesse Chou He also neglects to recognize that all the good moves for the economy have stemmed from REDUCING state control, and allowing private enterprise to compete. He says the percentage of state owned companies now, yeah well it was 100% at one point and China was in the shit back then.
I am a socialist because sharing is just the right thing to do. We should share everything. Women should make themselves available for sharing and caring. We must be a community.
Yes but you must have a warped definition of what sharing is. sharing , in my honest opinion, is voluntary. socialism is force. simple as that. is it generosity when you are "sharing" under the threat of force, whether it be jail or death?
Jacabo Blanco Sharing is just the right thing to do. Men work and share that work with the community. Many women don't work and can share intimate time with the men that don't have women to make them happy. The community will be better.
+Jacabo Blanco socialism does it by force becuase you have to. Do you expect people so used to the capitalist system, so used to hearing "greed is good, keep everything, share none!" To just smile and give up some stuff? Also with voluntary giving, you will never have the constant equal amount of goods given to those who need it. Force is used so it can be predictable, so you know what to expect in amount, so you can know how much to give and how much go keep for surplus, instead of having a guessing game. Its like your paycheck being voluntary. Would you rather have a steady paycheck with the same pay, or have your boss choose how much money he gives you? What we do need to make force work is a goverment of the people, but not wholly the people. The people are only as smart as the people. The people are not experts in government and the economy(well some are) so why should they choose which one of them gets to run it? Democracy only works partially.
cody aldi Exactly. Women often forget or neglect to share physical comfort with hard working men that share their labor. We need government to fix this so we can have a better community.
... Yes, China is growing larger than it previously was. This just happens to coincide with the adoption of some capitalist policies but alright, lets go with it. What point are you trying to make? _That a country with 4.3x the population of the US may overtake said country in 100 years? _Let's also mention the free market economy point by discussing how free market economies can be hindered. _For example, if governments bail out large failing businesses it does not allow for the competition needed to lower prices. By definiton, bailing out a company, especially a large corporation, is against competition as it means that other, or smaller, companies cannot take its place nor be rid of it as it is a step away from being state funded at that point. _If you add on mass regulations it will increase the cost of items making it more difficult to price in a efficient way. _Capitalism is more than just a free market where you are able to own privatly and price based on the market, if put in a pure form it means minimal if any regulation and free trade. Neither of which we have, nor have we had in the time since China began its shift. As far as regulation goes in China, you must understand that there is a difference between what is put on paper and what is put into practice too. If you look at their laws China is one of the most restrictive countries. Yet if you ask the people, many of the laws are not commonly upheld unless there are other reasons pushing them. _Interesting though that when it came to this part you changed from "Capitalist system" to "free market economy" to limit the scope of the point being made as if other factors did not have large effects on it. (Of course Socialist market economy was still used) 50% of output by state owned companies. 43% of profit... _Acknowledging the fact that many of those companies could be in less profitable markets, this still doesnt stand out as an amazing thing. The employement was good, but the same type of companies in private hands "may" have done better. 13% of fortune 500 companies are chinese state owned. _Ok, and they also have a captive consumer base larger than that of the US and Russia combined. Not to mention the fact that they are better able to mass produce and flood other countries, known to be the largest consumer, with cheap products due to lower labor costs, let alone flooding their own. China invests 35% gdp, which is more than the UK and US "while they were industrializing" _ 1. Who invests? The government, private companies, or both? _ 2. What about today? What is the investment rate today in the US and UK? _ 3. Of course there are large investments, but in what? "Central planning?" Pretty sure the ghost towns they're building will not topple the current systems. _ If they are investing in other government owned companies then there is no guarantee that a larger investment would matter. _If they are investing in themselves, the existing gov owned companies, then you better hope that those companies have stable markets as that is another benefit they may not reap as public owned entities, flexibility. I could go on but feel like addressing points as they are made is easier than attempting to figure it all out at once. Not trying to offend, just stating my views on the points presented.
OK,Ok.Now for all those who dont understand whats going on, let me put it simply.You only have three options in life 1-you can choose to be poor and suffer 2- you can be a 9 to 5 slave and live from week to week or 3- build your own wealth and prosper.Thats it,thats all you need to know.Everything else is bullshit.
Thank you for the gentleman in you that appreciates there is a limit on spitefulness. Thank you for being adult enough to see not all dialog is acceptable. Lets leave on at least respectful terms in that we both have different views that we rightly or wrongly will probably will never change our views. However i am sure we both truly believe that we want what we our self consider is best for the UK long term regardless of each others views. I just think we should respect other views as God forbid if we ever had to go through what we did in the past we would all need to help each other and fight as one. I can remember one cold snowing day on a London underground train a young West Indian girl collapsed on the packed train and everyone just stood there ignoring her plight. I took it upon myself to walk through the carriage to help to revive her. I pulled the Emergency Handle and after several minutes working on her with my untrained medical ability i asked is there any Doctors or Medical people on this train. To my total amazement a Women in her mid 40's came forward and said yes i am a nurse ! WHAT ? Your standing there when i am working on this girl to save her life alone? She said yes you seemed to be doing just fine so i let you get on with it! WOW ! With that the Train driver appeared with Paramedics who put her on a stretcher and away they went thanking me over their shoulder for my help. I just got up walked off back to where i was standing beforehand as if nothing had happened. Never did hear the outcome but i would hope that young lady survived and was just fine. It just goes to show all too many people are prepared to just stand by the wayside and almost let someone die in front of them without even offering to help. I thought that could have been my child or my family member and many people would just stand by and watch you die in front of them without conscience. We should help each other respect each other without hesitation, regardless of colour or creed it's irrelevant as far as i am concerned. I would do it again in a heartbeat. You just never know when you need the very person who is standing next to you to save your life. I hope you agree. Be nice ague your case but be nice not too angry or spiteful. p.s i know i can be as much to blame in triggering your reaction but thats what i was trying to do get under your skin and by rising to my bait it seemed to be working. I could see i was getting your goat and that was a perceived win as that was my intention. But jokes and provocation can get out of hand which is what i didnt intend i would never really want to hurt you i just wanted to win the argument which we both know can never happen as we both have our committed points of view. So i am sorry for that my friend.
At 08:05, "It's not hard to grow from an incredibly low base." Which he then contradicts by trying to say China is "working socialism", since it was Socialism that put China down to practically total economic collapse, with the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. It is only the Chinese abandoning principled Socialism and allowing some measure of Capitalism that has brought on growth, and even while hampered by the continuation of Socialist intervention, "it's not hard to grow from an incredibly low base." The "Special Economic Zones" of China are a direct admission that Socialist intervention destroys wealth, and they know it, so when they want human flourishing they repeal those interventions.
Oh it's interesting watching this now considering the recent global events. With the poor workers rights, human rights and the appaling nature in which they handled Covid-19.
The size of an economy has no bearing on quality of life, so why is Ben Sullivan using China as an example of positive Socialism in practice?
Exactly so. There is always a difference between Growth and Development as economic concepts, as is testified by the emergence of the latter as a separate discipline within Economics. In fact the very logic behind fiscal responsibility is the holding back of government funds in more cases than one. This share of accumulated funds in most cases serve to meet corporate demand, given the low (and in countries like India) tax rates that are imposed on corporates
Though China's living standards still isn't comparable to that of the west, you can't deny that it has gotten drastically better for the majority of the Chinese people. The quality of living standards will always get better as the economy develops, just like it did for Britain after the industrial age.
China is no worse than Bolivia or India.
@@YoungCoward China is worse than india. That I know for sure. The only people who would say it isn't is bad faith actors or people who havent been paying attention.
@@quaresiusmaximus7463 Yes, China has gotten remarkably better. An indication that socialism, the"often" precursor to communism due to "positive feedback loops" works and can work again!!! But didnt china have a terrible time during the early stages of their experiment with communism? Yes but all drastic changes require sacrifices. Just be greatful that no longer are there signs that say things such as, "remember, it's wrong to eat children." But to begin with, what was it that got china into it's terrible situation? Oh yeah, they dabbled with communism and didn't produce the expected results "right away." Moving on, even with the hundreds of millions that died from internal repression and starvation, at least they succeeded right? Wait wait wait. How did they make it out? Oh right they began trade thanks to Bill clinton in 2000s (that was a huge one) and privatized their industries with limits in the very late 20th century. Ever since, China's economy has risen exponentially. I guess we dont need to centralize or collectivize all ownership. Hold on, what does that mean? The re-establishment of market and price based economy. That sounds familliar somewhat. Oh right, practices based in the theory of capitalism. Anyway, let's wrap this up. Thank god communism and also socialism works after all the suffering we've put up with into trying it. Wait a minute....
I'm not a socialist - however, I am sympathetic towards certain socialist concepts, particularly when it comes to the government's role in providing services like healthcare and education. The free market cannot be relied on to provide everything for members of society, and free market enterprises should NEVER be allowed to “regulate” themselves, simply because the temptation to abuse such powers will be too strong to resist.
Tom Samad Well said.
Tom Samad Hence you're probably not right wing either, you're most likely a centrist.
Liberal Socialism (ie: no state or lack or state control, or that control in the hands of the general population) is generally the way to go. It doesn't force people to help one another or what not but instead encourages it, if you don't help then that's fine, just don't expect too much help when you need it.
And indeed, a corporatist society is a very very bad one. Would basically turn multinationals into warring factions and they would essentially become something similar to the Mafia's around the world.
Liberal Socialism is a centre-left liberal policy/ideologue. It's possible, it just takes effort. Problem is that most people take the path of least resistance and don't bother to help or do something to make a change. They see it as New Labour = Liberal Socialism, which isn't the case. New Labour was actually centre-right, which is rather stupid for labour.
Tom Samad What you're describing is capitalism paying for social goods.
Scara and Spud The only way New Labour was centre right was within the confines of its own mad-cap party. New Labour spent more money on the various social services than we could afford racking up huge debts. New Labour was like a kid with a credit card. New Labour was a wolf in sheeps clothing.
D81 The debt they accrued was large yes, but it was not helped by the 2007/8 world financial crisis which was out of their control.
The Tories have also reduced deficit but increased the national debt, pushing down our Gini coefficient/palma ratio and also the national GDP. They are essentially robbing the poor and giving to the rich (ie: tax breaks and cuts for those earning over X amount).
That said New Labour was fair right wing with many policies, they were protectionist, interventional and religious conservatives. This was mainly due to Tony buddying up with George Bush and the US had a major impact on UK politics during this 8 years in power.
he destroys his own logic when he talks on percentages - the past recessions had faster appearing growth rates because they too were coming from worse low points.
Logic has limits anyway. Experience counts and we have seen enough failed experiment with socialism.
He countered the Point of Information about the Nordic country having a twelve percent growth by dismissing it as a product of recovery from a devastating economic downturn. He then follows with an analysis that China is doing great. Since the Chinese economy has only recently joined the world marketplace in such force, his argument can be dismissed by his previous counter-argument.
@Visceral Interesting. Something I will think about. Care to elaborate a little more?
Sorry Visceral, but I have worked as an economist for 50 years. The "logic" I use tells me that socialism as practiced in the USSR and some other countries not only does not work, it cannot work.
True, there is some mix of socialist policies in capitalist systems that do work, so long as the socialist contribution remains below a certain level. What that level is for a given society is a practical matter the society must discover for itself, possibly by trial and error.
Vietnam is an example of a country that is experimenting to discover what level of capitalist policies a socialist system needs to deliver a level of health and welfare that will produce a stable political system.
Young economists will live long enough to find out how the Vietnamese either solve this question or do not. I won't.
@Visceral Sorry, logic cannot make socialism work any more than it can make a stopped clock work.
Did not define what "works" means...
The notion of something "working" or "not
working" was explained by Richard Feynman in a famous lecture. "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
When we say that socialism does not work, we mean that important experiments in socialism have demonstrated that socialism does not work. The theory is wrong.
Socialism does work in certain communities, such as religious orders. But those who discuss whether or not socialism works usually assume that the parties are talking about socialism within a larger society, such as a nation.
If both socialism and capitalism work use the one that works better and this guy said that capitalism is better so use capitalism
Capitalism cannot work without colonialism.
and what do you mean by 'better?'
Capitalism is the best so far, for putting wealth in fewer and fewer hands, and consolidating power.
Is that good though?
@@antediluvianatheist5262 hasn't capitalism brought us much farther much faster as a species? Do we not have electricity, phones, tvs and many other advances because of the influence of capitalism. Under socialism the lowest class is better off I give you that but as a species do we grow as fast I say no. Even the lowest classes amongst us are far better off now then they would of been even 50 years ago.
@@chadfriesen6743 That's right.
Capitalism HAS NOT.
You are confusing the market, trade and progress, with the people who won the means of production.
No, advances in technology, and societal progress pulled people out of poverty.
As to growth, the two greatest rates of growth of wealth, GDP and standard of living in human history, are when socialism took over two countries. the USSR, and China.
Moreover, relative poverty does harm.
Not just absolute poverty.
@@antediluvianatheist5262 lol all the advances I mentioned happened under and because of capitalism. The Soviet Union failed badly and do you really want to throw China in there. They have over a million people in reeducation camps being tortured. And they are about to send there army into Hong Kong to crack skulls. They monitor everything there people do is that what you want?
The only true freedom is the freedom to be unharmed by others while you yourself leaving others unharmed.
***** State tyrannies are much worse.
warriorprince101010 "Do not buy from a corporation and they have no tyranny over you."
Nonsense. I don't buy anything from Koch Industries in the US. They are one of the largest privately held companies in the US. Yet the owners, David and Charles Koch, are worth a reported $150 Billion dollars. They fund over a dozen groups whose aim is to dismantle the already flimsy social safety net. They want to get rid of a. the EPA
b. the Clean Air Act
c. the Clean Water Acts
d. Social Security
e. Medicare (the US senior insurance program).
They are the main reason the US doesn't not have a renewable energy program. Guess what Koch Industries started in? Oil & Gas. They will personally pump more than $900 million dollars into the 2016 Presidential Election. Republicans are so desperate for their money that there is a "Koch Primary" for potential Republican Presidential Candidates to fly to their ranch in Palm Springs, California to be "interviewed" by the Koch Brothers. Did you get that? ALL the Republican Candidates make a house call to (2) 75 year old, billionaire oligarchs to compete for their money. They are a corrupting influence US democracy. These Oligarchs certainly do present a private tyranny.....especially in the US where money now represents free speech.
***** "control your life in every aspect. Including the workplace. No more private tyrannies!"
Form your own company, with your own money. What you are describing is not controlling your own life, it's controlling others.
warriorprince101010
You're preaching to the choir, man. I don't need to hear it, the socialists do.
+warriorprince101010 you said "in free markets the poor can start their own business"
Sure they can, then along comes walmart with their monopoly on chinese manufacturing, and bingo your scrapin for some business.
Everyone should be allowed to hear him speak. He can show everyone how pitiful the case for socialism is.
Everyone should have the freedom to voice their opinion, even if that opinion is wrong.
He advocates for a combination of socialism/capitalism, like that of Australia post WW2, which is now declining rapidly as it heads towards a more privatised ultra-capitalist country.
@@NangDoofer Australia was doing fine until the Covid karens came alone, but everything happens for a reason. The Great Reset, Great Crash or 2nd Great Depression, whatever u want to call it, will not go how your shepherds have planned is what I am betting on.
@@jayz8839 are you talking about a financial disaster? one happens every 10 years for like the past 40 years, it's pretty normal lol
@@NangDoofer The UN's announced Great Reset will be much bigger, Klaus Schwab has also announced most will own nothing when the dust settles.
Inflation will hit u like u hit the environment with 150 billion face nappies a month, the crash and suffering is well deserved and needed.
I want so much for socialism to work for socialists. My advice would be for them to stop the ambition of seizing the means of production but to build brick by brick their own means of production.
You see the means of production is the same as education. One has to start with almost nothing and then little by little learning and finally graduating. The shock factor of graduating without years of patiently learning is will be enormous. How would one like to fly a plane without having learned how to fly a plane? Or do brain operation without having learned to do brain operation? Now, politicians seizing the means of production, without them having built it up from scratch will be more or less the same. It will be catastrophic for the economy. That's the reason why all socialist take overs were followed by economic disasters. Seizing tge means of production does not guarantee production. It guarantees disaster.
Socialists should insist on acquiring their means of production instead of seizing them. Any ideology with good intentions which insists on seizing is not worthy to be born. Anyone with firepower can just seize. But functioning workable ideology can develop its wealth by developing and producing its own without seizing from others.
Have you ever heard of Antony Eden, he did exactly what you discribed.
He created the NHS from the ground up and produced a health system that is still functioning over 70years later.
Its not practical to dismantle industry to rebuild and perfectly achievable via fabianism to produce a workable socialist system with the pre existing structures of society.
In the UK those industries brought into public hands quickly went from being under the management of a socialist government chaired by Anthony Eden to the management of a Social Democratic, Conservative government of Winston Churchil. So in reality socialists had no control over the freshly nationalised industries and therefore your arguement while well made is actually flawed.
Your confusing Marxist communism with Socialism. In the UK Marxism never took root and it was the Fabian model of socialism that was adopted. Fabianism believes in a none violent, gradual process of removing private ownership from the state and introducing society to the concept of mutual ownership and collective responsibility of the state.
Socialism is the concept of collective control and management of resources for the good of the entire population and not the elite.
There would be no comparison if the state tried to compete with the markets. Work for a period in any state run organisation and you’ll see total mis-management and inefficiency!
This is so ridiculously stupid. I have heard this claim before. It is so stupid it pains me to even adress. You're not actually engaging with the claim why the 'means of production' need to be seized according to socialist ideology. They need to be seized not by ONE person, but the people who already work them. Instead of those who know own them, use them for their own benifit on the backs of others, they need to be taken by those who already produce with them. It's a very simple claim. And as for the rest of your comment it is just vague nonsense as much as the call to 'human nature' in response to socialism is.
I lived in China for a year. Trust me, you do not want to use them as an example to support socialism.
+mike thompson I agree, but I'd like to echo your statement 11 times louder in order to reflect my 11 years in China. Bang on.
mike thompson They could have very well used a European country with Socialist aspects to try and drive the point home
Brandon James Guetersloh
No, China is a socialist country led by the communist party.
"Communism" has never been archieved, comunism the the final state of Socialism where there is no money, nations or social class.
Comunism is socialism (Socialism is the workers controlling the means of production), but socialism can take many forms.
Most "communist" countries you hear about are authoritarian Socialists, or Leninists.
That means the workers *allegedly* control the means of productions indirectly by being the goverment doing in for them (idealy they would democratically elect a manager to manage, not control, but in this countries democracy doesn't seem to exist).
So China is indeed Socialist.
+mike thompson Well said.
Uber Kommandont You mean Denmark and various Scandinavian countries? They aren’t socialist. They have minimal to zero corporate taxes. They are very capitalist oriented, they just have a large welfare state.
How can you read off a sheet of paper at this level of debating?
I don't find this level of debating particularly high, especially that of the "socialism does *NOOOOT* work" guys, but also that of this one kid.
Lol, people watch these videos, read that it says "does work" and immediately dislike and refuse to listen.
Lord Meowric OR they just got to around minute 4, laughed their ass off and then disliked
Lord Meowric Or they actually listen and realize that all the arguments made generally tend to be arguments from emotion rather than arguments from evidence.
*As is always stressed: show me one example of any major multicultural socialist nation that doesn't carry with it a massive amount of debt.* The logical counter to this would then be to point out that "capitalist" nations also do, however I would then ask you to show me how many social programs that capitalist nation has, and I'm betting you'll find that the debt level is almost always a direct correlation of the size of government and social programs.
The reason why? I've already done the research in college, so I'm positive of your research results, and as a result, its a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally safe bet to make.
formdoggie5 None of his arguments in the video were emotionally driven. What research? just saying it does not prove it.
Jon Cantwell
He wrote in bold letters : "show me one example of any major multicultural socialist nation that doesn't carry with it a massive amount of debt"
If you achieve to do that, you get to win the debate.
iotaje1
Yeah I read his comment before I commented.
Its nonsensical which is why I requested to see his research. Have you seen other research that corroborate this if so link it to me.
This guy didn't define the debate very well. He seemed nervous, but got better as it went along.
He tries and narrows the debate to "Can Socialism work" on its merits. Well I hate to inform him it's not about merit but real life behavior.
There is not one socialized country where the people benefitted more then its government run leaders. You simply existed to better the state not the person. This is why socialism fails, the state as value the person doesn't. The opposite is true of people, they will always put them self first over the other in most cases. Its simple human behavior. Its one reason government run socialism will always be by force.
Replacing the word "socialized" by "capitalized", "government/state" by "bank/capital", "force" by "scheme", your sentences still make sense though. Try it.
I wasn't trying to write a book on the subject, given the space allowed. You still got the same outcome where the few "State" has value and the person gets its value from what the state determines is productive. If it worked you would not need prisons, gulags, or forced labor camps. It only works when fear is used as a weapon.
Its a system of mediocrity. No one person had more then the next. So all incentive is removed " No reward for hard work" it only works for the few at the top that run it!
Just because something hasn't worked in the past doesn't mean it will never work, that seems to be a rather fallacious line of reasoning akin to "it hasn't rained before, therefore it will never rain"
Spoken like a true imbecile!
Claude Rains try addressing my point rather than attempting to insult me.
Apart from, USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, Angola, Vietnam, Cambodia, Eastern Europe, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela Socialism works, it was paradise for the people in those countries and do not let anyone else tell you any different.
Socialism even with the best minds in the USSR trying to make it work..failed. China, with 1.5 billion minds fails to make it work....
Every time socialism raises its head, it falls short. From Venezuela, to Cuba, from Cambodia to North Korea....
Those that advocate socialism and state control, don’t realise how destructive a force it usually is. I’ve debated socialists who thought the dictionary definition was far right propaganda..yes, the oxford English dictionary definition.. when asked name a socialist country..say Scandinavian nations..Holland and Germany.( not socialist no5 anywhere near)..not Venezuela or the like..
Socialist delusion is only a poor substitute for wanting control over others to supplement the lives of the pigs at the top of that pen.
They confuse socialism with social market economy, which is different. You have basically a free market but with some regulations and safety-nets for the people - which is quite reasonable as long as you find ways to financially support it, which gets exceedingly difficult now that the baby-boomers start entering their pension age.
Not just 'fall short', it causes massive misery, starvation and inequality. Meanwhile in our awesome western capitalist societies, we have too much food too much stuff. So much food and stuff we have issues that we have problems in that we throw away too much.
Cuba and Yugoslavia both worked
@@hoebread7584 that was funny
Reuben Thomasson it hasn’t at all. It kills folk it doesn’t like, jails dissenters and you can’t opt out of that system. It’s just another form of slavery and misery. You’ve got folk ratting on family because they don’t support the regime, you’ve got everyone living in poverty too. While those at the top live in luxury. You’ve rampant corruption and no way out of it. That’s not success at all.
No it doesn’t. No where it’s been tried.
well fuck, anarchy "works," if your definition of "works" is broad enough. if the first thing you do is loophole your way around the proposition by stretching the meaning of the word "work," that pretty much tells us how much confidence you have in socialism. this is a hurried 10 minute excuse/apology.
That is what HE means by socialism (which is always a highly contested term). At least he defines it, which most people in debates fail to do.
A British socialist wearing tails. I love this... This is like watching a dog dancing on its hind legs
All Animals Are Equal. Except Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others.
What people debate about socialism and capitalism which one is better than another one in macroeconomics but it is not the main purpose for socialism. Socialism is good because it is equally good for all the people in a society.
Wow, I kinda feel bad for him. Looks like he really wanted to root for the opposition
Why? LMAO.
People who dislike this video and this man's fantastically delivered argument are either stupid, willfully ignorant, or selfish and rich. This man is extremely intelligent and made brilliant points, but y'all don't wanna hear the truth.
@@Wackaz it’s probably because he’s a kid with zero life experience. All he’s spouting is ideology, whereas those against socialism actually gave facts and real life examples
@@Wackaz yeah you socialist have all the truth. Just don't open your history textbook!
@@andrewf4623 all the real life examples they gave were totalitarian communist regimes, and not for example the prosperous social democracies in Scandinavia.
@@NangDoofer democracies in Scandinavia are not socialist, They simply have higher taxes than most other western countries. Apart from that, they have less restrictions on the free market than even the USA. Sorry to burst your bubble, comrade.
PS: this is to say nothing of the fact that the USA has been Scandinavia's protector for the past 70 years. Let's see them do free healthcare with their own military big enough to repel Russia.
How ironic that they get their "free" healthcare because the evil capitalist America is giving them free military protection.
"It's not hard to grow from an incredibly low place" and yet his opening salvo was on how the "capitalist" recession of 2008 as opposed to the "socialist" recessions of the 70's and earlier were overcome so much quicker? Doesn't that imply that the recent recession in fact had little effect on the overall value of our economy and simply took a small bite out of production? This guy needs to prepare his arguments better, he set himself up on that one.
No. I think he still made the point. Both have ups and downs. No real front runner
This is a Terrible arguing point. “Does it work”
Yes it works, it works terribly for the majority of society.
A true and more productive question is, “Is socialism a desirable system for most people in a given society to live in?”
Merely asking if it works is baby food, which the opposing side properly threw up or spit out as a adult that eats baby food usually does.
The opposition addressed and answered the productive question. Which I stated above.
If I were to ask you does the least productive person at your job work?
Yes would be the easy answer. But the true answer and most productive thing about his “work” is that it is undesirable to have him pulling little weight and his non production hurts the rest of the work team, so does he work, yes he does, but is it productive no it’s not.
Mr. Sullivan is correct that socialism is fundamentally an economic system based on public or collective ownership of the means of production. But unfortunately he does not quite grasp what "public ownership of the means of production" means or meant in the context of socialism.
The idea of "public" or "common" ownership in socialism is to re-organize the economy into a single interlinked network/organization for production and distribution (historically this was called "production for use" or "planning"). Simply having the state own shares in companies but having these companies organized as business enterprises (capitalist entities) is not socialism. It is just a different institutional form of capitalism - this applies to the UK in the Attlee period and China today.
i believe he just said capitalism is better then socialism.
why? those words did not come from his mouth.
+Dorian Leakey yes they did. he said if this debate was if socialism was better than capitalism, he may be on the other side of the aisle. open Ur ears
So, not quite what you typed.
Hurrr durrr socialism is buurrrdd the
well the theory is that with more health care and better and accessible education we would have more alive, healthy and educated people which would make a more productive society.
i am acknowledged to know ur argument, i am not here just for the purpose of winning
He was getting good there for a while until he used China as an example for his argument....EPIC FAIL.
I can't help but notice the differences in preparation or lack thereof. He isn't even "thinking" here. He's just spewing a salad of letters on a piece of paper that were chosen prior to his presentation.
it's hard arguing for socialism when you can tell in his heart he knows it doesn't work. Also eyes off the paper. its the Oxford Union ffs.
does this guy seriously suggest to switch to the chinese model?
Well, Mao's China was one of the best success stories we've ever seen. 💯
@@MoseseYT if everyone pushing for it volunteer to be amongst the 60+ milion people who got murdered by their own government .. let's talk
Uses china as example but answered his own question before with iceland - its not hard to grow from a low base .
I lived and travelled throughout Socialist Czechoslovakia during the 80's and what I witnessed was horrifying! Poverty. Empty shops with people queuing outside to buy the remnants. Eggs and milk that were possibly ok or possibly not, with no chance whatsoever of returning the "off" products to the shop or store - a case of "you spend your monies and you takes your chances". Lines of men and women lining the streets, paintbrush in hand... painstakingly... snail-like slow... painting miles of walls. Wages so low that poverty was the norm. Socialism and then of course Communism - the so-called 'step up', do not work. Simply because the people don't work! And why don't the people work? Back to the wage problem which is absolutely SHOCKING in Socialist/Communist countries... but they won't tell you that!! That's why the farms failed big time and the people starved! No pay - no play... and it all makes perfect sense!!!
USSR was state capitalism not socialism
Economy 101: don’t compare different economic growths from different countries in different years.
Ben Sullivan chooses to omit the issue of ethics from the debate of whether or not the economic system of socialism works or not. I would reply to him that one cannot quite separate practicality from morality, insofar as economies have a significant effect on people's well-being and livelihoods - it is quite appalling he uses China as an example of a successful socialist economy (when in fact it is a state capitalist economy). I also dislike how he gets very flaky and says how he might even be on the other side if this was a debate about whether socialism or capitalism is the better system, considering the fact he is on the side of people who are devout advocates of socialism.
Lol yeah the capitalists weren't that good, albeit some good rhetoric and typical Hayek-like arguments - I found thankfully that Sullivan was the worst out of the four socialists, and found Corbyn and Clark to be good (although they could have given some more solid examples/cases/arguments on the actual practicalities of socialism).
Fair call, I have wondered similar things at times
I agree with you - as soon as I heard that I stopped the video. Everyone knows an economic system is more than just that - it is a social order. Certain systems benefit certain individuals, and certain organisations. Thus your benefits in wealth and accumulation of such certainly determine a moral aspect, as that wealth holds influence, power, and honour.
"In order to win the debate tonight we on side opposition we don't need to prove socialism is better [...] but rather it is a workable system". And there is where they lost the debate. This is purely rethorics. Dictatorship is also workable. The better proof is that history is full of such systems and humans have survive under these systems. And so what? To win the debate there are two questions they need to answer: First question, the one they avoid by rhetorics is "compare to what?". And the second, they did not answer at all is: "at what cost?". One has to take into account what is lost. Corrollary of the cost is the following question "how much time bearing the cost?". The "workeable" notion suppose answers on the costs of the system to be maintained in a perspective taking also into account long term. Look: USSR is workeable, at the price of millions of deads by hunger and direct killing by the state. And it last several decades. And so what? Would you say it is workeable? I can draw complete stupid examples: In the way to increase my blood pressure I can throw myself into the lion's cage of a zoo. It is fully workeable. Tell me about my very same blood pressure one minute later once lions will have torn me apart? This video is complete bullshit reasoning.
My father in law was the Director General of a massive steel plant in the USSR. His brother was a Professor in Physics in the University in Moscow. His another brother was the Soviet Representative in the UN Peace Keeping Force.
My wife and brother in law were students in the same factory school alongside the sons and daughters of ordinary workers.
They both have to do work as ordinary workers for two years before they were allowed to go the University, where sons and daughters of the ordinary workers could go straight. My wife had worked as a cleaner in a hospital before she was allowed to be a student in the Medical School of the Moscow State University. My brother in law had to work as a metal worker before he was allowed to a student of the Baumann University Engineering school in Moscow.
This was Socialism in the USSR. It had worked very well before it was destroyed by Yeltsin and his cronies.
I would be interested in learning more of their experiences.
Sounds interesting, how prestigious were these universities.
The kid is clever and pretty quick on the ball. He's wrong as far as his arguments are concerned. But he clearly did a lot of work on information gathering, even if it was gathering information from a biased source.
everything is biased to a certain degree...
Makes some reasonable counterpoints on it. Good video.
We just watched this young man describe what took China 6,000 years to build vs what took America 500 years to build. Dating Christopher Columbus's voyage at 1492... so truly it is what really took America far less than 500 years to build.
The development of Capitalism in the USA was supported by mass murder of the native americans, slavery of the Africans, Colonialism of the entire Latin America.
Relevance? The Chinese economy of even a 1000 years ago has basically to bearing on its current economic model. They had to rebuild actually after Japanese occupation in world war 2.
This guy is soooo wrong on China. There are more bronze busts of John Cowperthwaite (Former Governor of Hong Kong + famed Neo Liberal) than Karl Marx there, and their state sector is half the size of ours (with no NHS, and next to nothing in state benefits).
There's also the small problem of all those Gulags and the dreadful (thankfully mostly renounced) legacy of Maoism.
+Tim Patmore Hong Kong is just one city out of hundreds of similar size, and also happens to have a slightly different economic system because of their status of former british colony, so it's it kind of hard to generalize just because of one city.
+Francisco Galárraga Indeed on the generalisation point, but there is also Singapore and the Tiger Economies of South East asia that imitated Hong Kong and its model for success.
"Slightly different economic system because of their status of former british colony" is a total red herring. Does being a former British colony automatically mean prosperity? Was Grenada a success when they adopted communism? Or Uganda?
Adopting the right system matters, not their colonial status. Hong Kong was a fishing village before Cowperthwaite's efforts.
This young man looks pretty Nervous
lol "there is no reason why socialism cannot work..." obviously this guy has never read Mises. Yeah no reason at all... except the the problems of incentives, concentration of power, and, oh yeah... the calculation problem which is the clincher. This guy was a fail, at least become familiar with the history of your ideology.
Incentives does no service to society.
***** Hello friendly socialist! do you not think people respond to incentives?
even if they don't, that still leaves concentration of power and the calculation problem as obstacles ;)
Tits Magee i am not extremely well versed on socialism, but to say the only reason people want to be a doctor, teacher, or architect is to get fancy items is nonsense and a material capitalist ideology. Socialism is not the belief im absolute reasource equality as well, that is communism.
You also would need to participate in society under socialism to get a lot of the benifits. And even if people are pursuing careers now just so they can by a new BMW, that is just due to the dominant capitalism ideology which would change.
Sorry, but this kid does not understand anything, but he might be right in saying that the Socialism and Islam is on the march to world domination. So have we failed in the past, but never on this scale.
What points did he make?
The guy at the beginning supports socialism... I wonder how socialism got him into Oxford...
Ridiculous argument about China being socialistic. China has been socialistic for more than half a century. All those decades, they have been dirt poor. China only became richer recently only to the extent they converted significant portion of their already socialistic economy to market economy. The relative gain in their prosperity is proportional to the amount of adoption of capitalism. In other words, china is successful DESPITE it's still persisting ridiculous control of large portion of it's economy.
The first three minutes are skippable all he does is identify the opposition and guests.
I'll just put this here
"Liberalism is not Socialism, and never will be. There is a great gulf fixed. It is not a gulf of method, it is a gulf of principle … Socialism seeks to pull down wealth; Liberalism seeks to raise up poverty. Socialism would destroy private interests; Liberalism would preserve private interests in the only way in which they can be safely and justly preserved, namely by reconciling them with public right. Socialism would kill enterprise; Liberalism would rescue enterprise from the trammels of privilege and preference … Socialism exalts the rule; Liberalism exalts the man. Socialism attacks capital; Liberalism attacks monopoly." Winston Churchill - 1908
Moyes Out.
lol.. Ole out??
3:57 THERE FACES XD
This guy actually made the best speech of the whole debate. All other speakers misinterpreted the motion and argued that socialism is worse than capitalism rather than it can’t work. Well done on him he dealt with the POIs well and had sound arguments.
Why did I slip into a daydream of digging my own eyeballs out with a spoon while listening to this dude?
People who dislike this video and this man's fantastically delivered argument are either stupid, willfully ignorant, or selfish and rich. This man is extremely intelligent and made brilliant points, but y'all don't wanna hear the truth.
@@Wackaz Woke Arthur, shut up.
It is not the Ideology that gives people good or bad government socialism, capitalism, fascism all can work with honest government that works for the people. Not government that works for the benefit of the few.
Sullivan countered the Point of Information about the Nordic country having a twelve percent growth by dismissing it as a product of recovery from a devastating economic downturn. He then follows with an analysis that China is doing great. Since the Chinese economy has only recently joined the world marketplace in such force, his argument can be dismissed by his previous counter-argument.
I'm unhappy that his introductions did not echo the decency and respect of the first introductions.
He did very well to frame the proposition accurately. It is not whether socialism is desirable but whether it "can work". And rather like a jalopy "works", socialism works.
That's the ONLY way you can make it sound like a real possiblity - that there is no reason to think that it will not work in Britain... nice one!!! But pull the other one - it's got bells on!!!
People who dislike this video and this man's fantastically delivered argument are either stupid, willfully ignorant, or selfish and rich. This man is extremely intelligent and made brilliant points, but y'all don't wanna hear the truth.
I would hate to be mr. Sullivan and go down forever as a dogmatic ideologue.
"You'll find that you're wrong."
I lost my shit.
So...
Giving away free shit and having standards drop is a good strategy?
And then borrowing against the future while output drop is a good economic policy?
What the heck did you put in your tea?
I don't know, but you should stop drinking it, because that's not what is being discussed here.
@Andrea Mendenhall No, they are not capitalist in the same way as the west, and they are not transitioning.
They do what works, whatever it's called.
And you appear to have causation and correlation confused.
A weak speaker. I would have personally argued that unregulated capitalism fails and therefore is dead without socialist policies.
Reasonable regulation of corporations and preventing monopolies is not socialism.
Imagine thinking that an economy of over 1 Billion people being larger than most nations with less than 100 million people is an example of success...the irony of him claiming pointing out Iceland's fast recovery from 2008 is a "clever use of statistics" while making a fallacy based on the Money Illusion.
Fun fact about 2008 from within the industry FYI: The global market recession was caused by the NYSE and NASDAQ which were caused by the US housing bubble....itself caused by the nationalization of the mortgage market. Not exactly a great case for nationalization and against free markets. Iceland wouldn't have had to recover anything had socialist ideology not taken over the US federal reserve and housing approach in Congress...not to mention their faster recovery was the result of free market choices.
China is not socialist anymore. Yes, the state has still a too large influence but the trend of increasing wealth and living standards was thanks to the state's role decreasing and Deng allowing private ownership.
I consider myself to be left-leaning but he really didn't argue his points well enough. China is, absolutely, not the best model to use to advocate for social change and he tries to use the economic argument of recessions; not exactly the best way to convert the capitalist mind-set when, by his own admission, "happen all the time." In truth, you need to distribute power as fairly as possible and this hasn't really proved successful in either capitalist or communist regimes. There isn't a perfect answer because completely reinventing the wheel inevitably causes wanton destruction, but maintaining the status quo is also flawed in how it spreads disillusionment and increases vulnerability. I'm no expert but eliminating corporatism and crony capitalism would be a good start so then smaller businesses and the "disaffected" might have a fairer chance of prosperity and that might even out the financial imbalances. Also, fairer taxation for companies would help (admittedly this would need to be agreed globally) but the truth is nobody will forfeit their power.
People always die in Socialism. But this guy can make it better, I guess.
An old man in the USSR lines up for hours to buy meat, only to find out there’s none left. He flies into a rage, screaming about how horrible and stupid communism is.
A KGB agent walks up to him and tells him to calm down, adding “don’t forget what happened to people like you back in the old days” and making a “gun” shape with his hand.
The old man goes back to his apartment, empty-handed. His wife says, “they’re out of meat?”
He replies, “it’s worse than you think: they’re out of bullets.”
We are all aware that socialism is theoretically possible (or "works"), but it is not moral nor liberal.
If other countries use policy A that works better then policy B, then why would I implement policy B in my country? It would be less competitive and so it wouldn't work.
The USSR was a market economy, central plans are just loans and private plots were extensive
The only place where socialism survives is in social democracies and even there the people pay for the misadministration of a government who overstretch its responsibilities and runs on debt. A rich country can hold that for more time if it has low corruption but ultimately what awaits is failure.
I didn't quite catch it. When did these people climb out of the sewers?
how come none of these speakers talk about market socialism and worker cooperatives.
because both of these things are not possible under a socialist totalitarian regime like the ussr, cuba or north korea. try telling dear leader kim jong un that you would like to change the system even just a little, and he will have you shot or fed to starving dogs.
Zishy those are called state capitalist regimes not socialist and by the way north korea has officially said its changed ideaology to juche.
dinero rey state capitalism is an oxymoron. north korea can call itself whatever they like. if you proclaim that your ideology is "self-reliance" for which the word juche is roughly translated to, then you cant at the same time open your hands and take millions in food aid and other kinds of foreign aid. if your system is so broken, that a large amount of the general population cannot afford to eat healthy on a daily basis, then your system is not working.
Zishy state capitalism is not an oxymoron, it is the state acting as a capitalist and we have examples of it here in the Britain the NHS, railways, post offices, municipally owned utilities etc. Socialism is workers direct control so forming collective councils or electing managers which was not seen in any of these states.
dinero rey then you have no clue what socialism means and what capitalism means. look in a dictionary first
It is a different kind of socialism, not the one that failed yesterday and the day before and before that. Please just one more try!!
He makes some terrible arguments in favor of socialism. He actually contradicts himself. In knocking down the growth rate of capitalist Iceland since the recession of 2008, he cites that it's easy to grow when you start from such a low point. Then he cites China's high growth rate as a victory for state planning (socialist economy) when the truth is China's growth A) still starts from a very low point of wealth and B) China's growth is coming at the expense of capitalist countries because labor is cheap. This guy is a nitwit.
There is no reason? How about its track record for catastrophic failure?
People who dislike this video and this man's fantastically delivered argument are either stupid, willfully ignorant, or selfish and rich. This man is extremely intelligent and made brilliant points, but y'all don't wanna hear the truth.
Look at the USSR for the years between 1954 and 1986. Socialism worked.
After the deaths of 10s of millions, and eventually resulting in the USSR's collapse. Yea worked a treat.
SLOW DOWN!!!
Isn't it rather pathetic that a country of nearly 1.4 billion people, China, (more than 4 times the population of the USA) isn't the largest economy? (Yes, I know, at PPP it now has a narrow lead, but at nominal GDP, it's still a distant second.)
“And other hilarious jokes you can tell yourself”
How can you be a Persona fan and be against socialism lol.
People who dislike this video and this man's fantastically delivered argument are either stupid, willfully ignorant, or selfish and rich. This man is extremely intelligent and made brilliant points, but y'all don't wanna hear the truth.
I lived in China. Great place and people, but far fewer freedoms, corruption of public services with and an elite class and massive poverty of the people.
DOES NOT..
I fully expect this person to be a Tory politician in 10 years time because he fundamentally does not understand socialism. One day he will explain that he spoke from the idealism of youth and had now matured and realised the errors of his youthful exuberance. The truth is that socialism DOES work but for none of the reasons that he gave in his argument.
So the against socialism side was made up of very experienced individuals, yet FOR socialism they could only find this kid with no life experience?! Sounds about typical…
Jeremy Corbyn has no life experience? Nice one mate.
John Redwood and Daniel Hannon have vast experience of being wrong practically about everything
what is the difference between chinese 50% ownership of companies, and 10% income tax versus 35% corporate gains tax plus 25% average income tax? i will tell you: china has less paper work. otherwise the effect is the same.
Totalitarianism is the difference.
I think he does not fully understand China's economic situation. Yes, it is true that over 30% of the companies are owned by the government and it also seems that the government manages them well. However, it is doubtful if China has sound law and order system to run such a so-called socialism society. Without the basis of democracy, the brutal intervention of China government is always the case which cannot offer a stable environment for foreign business to invest. I support socialism yet it is hard to agree with Chinese style socialism especially when the leader's opinion is always more important than ordinary people's needs and there is no room for negotiation.
+Jesse Chou He also neglects to recognize that all the good moves for the economy have stemmed from REDUCING state control, and allowing private enterprise to compete. He says the percentage of state owned companies now, yeah well it was 100% at one point and China was in the shit back then.
Who's the fellow speaking at 7:25?
I am a socialist because sharing is just the right thing to do. We should share everything. Women should make themselves available for sharing and caring. We must be a community.
Yes but you must have a warped definition of what sharing is. sharing , in my honest opinion, is voluntary. socialism is force. simple as that. is it generosity when you are "sharing" under the threat of force, whether it be jail or death?
Jacabo Blanco Sharing is just the right thing to do. Men work and share that work with the community. Many women don't work and can share intimate time with the men that don't have women to make them happy. The community will be better.
+Jacabo Blanco socialism does it by force becuase you have to. Do you expect people so used to the capitalist system, so used to hearing "greed is good, keep everything, share none!" To just smile and give up some stuff? Also with voluntary giving, you will never have the constant equal amount of goods given to those who need it. Force is used so it can be predictable, so you know what to expect in amount, so you can know how much to give and how much go keep for surplus, instead of having a guessing game. Its like your paycheck being voluntary. Would you rather have a steady paycheck with the same pay, or have your boss choose how much money he gives you? What we do need to make force work is a goverment of the people, but not wholly the people. The people are only as smart as the people. The people are not experts in government and the economy(well some are) so why should they choose which one of them gets to run it? Democracy only works partially.
cody aldi Exactly. Women often forget or neglect to share physical comfort with hard working men that share their labor. We need government to fix this so we can have a better community.
I feel very bad for this guy. He was too nervous.
A typical socialist script reader
... Yes, China is growing larger than it previously was. This just happens to coincide with the adoption of some capitalist policies but alright, lets go with it.
What point are you trying to make?
_That a country with 4.3x the population of the US may overtake said country in 100 years?
_Let's also mention the free market economy point by discussing how free market economies can be hindered.
_For example, if governments bail out large failing businesses it does not allow for the competition needed to lower prices. By definiton, bailing out a company, especially a large corporation, is against competition as it means that other, or smaller, companies cannot take its place nor be rid of it as it is a step away from being state funded at that point.
_If you add on mass regulations it will increase the cost of items making it more difficult to price in a efficient way.
_Capitalism is more than just a free market where you are able to own privatly and price based on the market, if put in a pure form it means minimal if any regulation and free trade. Neither of which we have, nor have we had in the time since China began its shift. As far as regulation goes in China, you must understand that there is a difference between what is put on paper and what is put into practice too. If you look at their laws China is one of the most restrictive countries. Yet if you ask the people, many of the laws are not commonly upheld unless there are other reasons pushing them.
_Interesting though that when it came to this part you changed from "Capitalist system" to "free market economy" to limit the scope of the point being made as if other factors did not have large effects on it. (Of course Socialist market economy was still used)
50% of output by state owned companies.
43% of profit...
_Acknowledging the fact that many of those companies could be in less profitable markets, this still doesnt stand out as an amazing thing. The employement was good, but the same type of companies in private hands "may" have done better.
13% of fortune 500 companies are chinese state owned.
_Ok, and they also have a captive consumer base larger than that of the US and Russia combined. Not to mention the fact that they are better able to mass produce and flood other countries, known to be the largest consumer, with cheap products due to lower labor costs, let alone flooding their own.
China invests 35% gdp, which is more than the UK and US "while they were industrializing"
_ 1. Who invests? The government, private companies, or both?
_ 2. What about today? What is the investment rate today in the US and UK?
_ 3. Of course there are large investments, but in what? "Central planning?" Pretty sure the ghost towns they're building will not topple the current systems.
_ If they are investing in other government owned companies then there is no guarantee that a larger investment would matter.
_If they are investing in themselves, the existing gov owned companies, then you better hope that those companies have stable markets as that is another benefit they may not reap as public owned entities, flexibility.
I could go on but feel like addressing points as they are made is easier than attempting to figure it all out at once.
Not trying to offend, just stating my views on the points presented.
Also the recession is a world wide event. We live in a global economy to ignore that is to be disingenuous.
share the wealth, capitalism might be a perfectly productive system but it does not distribute resources in a just method
denmark
do people in denmark freeze on the streets homelss or die from lack of health care? i distrust your stistics and say you are wrong
OK,Ok.Now for all those who dont understand whats going on, let me put it simply.You only have three options in life 1-you can choose to be poor and suffer 2- you can be a 9 to 5 slave and live from week to week or 3- build your own wealth and prosper.Thats it,thats all you need to know.Everything else is bullshit.
Thank you for the gentleman in you that appreciates there is a limit on spitefulness. Thank you for being adult enough to see not all dialog is acceptable. Lets leave on at least respectful terms in that we both have different views that we rightly or wrongly will probably will never change our views. However i am sure we both truly believe that we want what we our self consider is best for the UK long term regardless of each others views. I just think we should respect other views as God forbid if we ever had to go through what we did in the past we would all need to help each other and fight as one. I can remember one cold snowing day on a London underground train a young West Indian girl collapsed on the packed train and everyone just stood there ignoring her plight. I took it upon myself to walk through the carriage to help to revive her. I pulled the Emergency Handle and after several minutes working on her with my untrained medical ability i asked is there any Doctors or Medical people on this train. To my total amazement a Women in her mid 40's came forward and said yes i am a nurse ! WHAT ? Your standing there when i am working on this girl to save her life alone? She said yes you seemed to be doing just fine so i let you get on with it! WOW ! With that the Train driver appeared with Paramedics who put her on a stretcher and away they went thanking me over their shoulder for my help. I just got up walked off back to where i was standing beforehand as if nothing had happened. Never did hear the outcome but i would hope that young lady survived and was just fine. It just goes to show all too many people are prepared to just stand by the wayside and almost let someone die in front of them without even offering to help. I thought that could have been my child or my family member and many people would just stand by and watch you die in front of them without conscience. We should help each other respect each other without hesitation, regardless of colour or creed it's irrelevant as far as i am concerned. I would do it again in a heartbeat. You just never know when you need the very person who is standing next to you to save your life. I hope you agree. Be nice ague your case but be nice not too angry or spiteful. p.s i know i can be as much to blame in triggering your reaction but thats what i was trying to do get under your skin and by rising to my bait it seemed to be working. I could see i was getting your goat and that was a perceived win as that was my intention. But jokes and provocation can get out of hand which is what i didnt intend i would never really want to hurt you i just wanted to win the argument which we both know can never happen as we both have our committed points of view. So i am sorry for that my friend.
At 08:05, "It's not hard to grow from an incredibly low base."
Which he then contradicts by trying to say China is "working socialism", since it was Socialism that put China down to practically total economic collapse, with the Cultural Revolution and Great Leap Forward. It is only the Chinese abandoning principled Socialism and allowing some measure of Capitalism that has brought on growth, and even while hampered by the continuation of Socialist intervention, "it's not hard to grow from an incredibly low base."
The "Special Economic Zones" of China are a direct admission that Socialist intervention destroys wealth, and they know it, so when they want human flourishing they repeal those interventions.
The left arguing that millions of Chinese people working in sweatshops is a good thing, haha
I know that feel bro.....he already tried hard to defend his point of view.
This guy is twitching too much
I just saw in the description box that the motion was defeated. So that means it was voted that socialism does work?
Yes
Oh it's interesting watching this now considering the recent global events. With the poor workers rights, human rights and the appaling nature in which they handled Covid-19.