Socialism Does NOT Work | Theodore Dalrymple | Oxford Union
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 дек 2013
- Theodore Dalrymple gives his argument that Socialism does not work.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
Theodore Dalrymple begins but highlighting the problems that Socialism claims to resolve. Socialism is a system by definition aims to benefit every member of society, however members of any society will have different opinions on what is beneficial for them. For socialism to work someone has to organise it and those organisers are very unlikely to act selflessly with just the pure interest of the people at hand, therefore it will not work. Theodore sums up that for socialism to work it needs ""all of the people are altruistic some of the time and some of the people are altruistic all of the time, that all of the people can be altruistic all of the time"".
Filmed on Thursday 28th November 2013
MOTION: This House Believes Socialism Will Not Work.
RESULT: Motion Defeated
STAY CONNECTED:
Facebook @ theoxfordunion
Twitter @ / oxfordunion
Oxford Union Website @ www.oxford-union.org/
ABOUT THEODORE DALRYMPLE:
Influential writer, renowned for his persistently conservative philosophy. Anthony Daniels, who generally uses the pen name Theodore Dalrymple, is an English writer and retired prison doctor and psychiatrist. He worked in a number of Sub-Saharan African countries as well as in the east end of London.
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 190 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.
Rights managed by Oxford Media Associates www.oxfordmediaassociates.com/
Filmed by Oxford Media Solutions www.oxfordmediasolutions.co.uk
“Utopia is approached over a sea of blood and you never actually get there”.
after each bloodbath, there are demands for the next, because those that wanted didnt got into power
For those who don't know him, Theodore Dalrymple (pen name) is a psychiatrist who spent many years working in British prisons and dealing with the social pathologies of modern England. He has written a number of insightful columns for The City Journal and other publications and is the author of several books on the decline of British Culture and decay of its social fabric.
+Jimmy The Horned God He has written a number of good books in very good English
+Michael Hiteshew His writing is extremely insightful and enjoyable.
@@tdevry It sometimes throws me when people correct their own usage of English when they are speakin, speaking naturally is more convincing but then you realise that his need to use his words correctly gives him more authority in that that I can be sure that I know what he wants to say explicitly and his thoughts are less open to interpretations.
Have you ever heard the slam poetry that is becoming de-rigueur on US campuses. There are people winning debates flowing nonsense words together in a rhyme.
CORBYN WAS THERE HE STILL HAS HIS JEALOUSY FOR THE RICH
@anti stuff if you can't process what he said here, it tells something about you rather than him.
“You can only impose theoretical absurdity by force”
Good point, except Socialism isnt theoretical absurdity. Its a well developed and researched analytical framework of the mechanisms of history and economics applied to the conditions of Capitalism which has in practice uplifted the living conditions of billions of fucking people. It has just been caricaturized by dishonest Bourgeois forces to fool working people into shooting themselves in the foot by opposing their own fucking liberation.
Socialism /communism is by far the best system to bring equality of outcome. Everyone gets an equal share of nothing.
except some people who somehow decide that they get more because they are more important "cough cough socialist party members cough cough"
I agree with your conclusion about what Socialist equality of outcome means - Zippo. The Pareoto Principle is also known as the 80/20 rule. It is a law, which states that
for many events, roughly 80% of the positive effects come from 20% of the causes. In other words, the people who put in the most effort get the most out of the event.
Equality of opportunity is what is required NOT equality of outcome.
Bernard Guy Nunns. Except those in Control! They get the best part! While the lower ranks get less or nothing!
Cuba eradicated child malnourishment lmao. Try again.
@@airex12 What did they do for that? Make it illegal for people to list starvation as a cause of death like Venezuela?
He is the only one who actually answered the debate question.
I liked that the other Tories tackled the question in different ways. They all went at it from different angles, rather than repeat each other (for the most part), and each of them did a far better job of answering the debate question than Corbyn did. Corbyn just waffled in an attempt to appeal to emotion, by trying to paint Socialism as a benevolent ideology, and that everything that is wrong with the world is result of a lack of Socialism.
@Zalamael Semper Dius And that's all Socialist apologists really have to offer you, appeals to emotion, faux-moralistic nonsense and pseudo-intellectual double-talk.
@@zalamael That's just inaccurate on so many levels. First of all, appeal to emotion is THE central tool of liberals and apologists of neoimperialism, whose arguments basically boils down to this: Look we have a lot of shit in our backyard, but look at what's cooking in the front : innovation, better economic capabilities, technology and whatnot. They conveniently ignore, just like any good old liberal, the history of this capital accumulation and how the capital is still being amassed.. Brits can proudly say that they've done great things and achieved civilizational progress precisely because they managed to murder millions and plunder massive wealth from the colonies. And American economy is pretty much built on slave labor. And the reproach from these nincompoops will again be, but look, we haven't killed our own citizens like the communist countries have. That's the type of intellectual chicanery that conservative idiots have always resorted to.
The people who keep on repeating the old adage that socialism have and never will work are definitely the ones who have no idea what's going on in the left scholarship and how much inspiration even bourgeois folks have derived from scientific socialism and related fields of inquiry into economic and developmental issues.. No sense of history, logical consistency or moral objectivity.
@@lokayatavishwam9594 I got as far as 'neoimperialism; then I stopped reading. Because you come across as a twat. Stop being a twat.
Basic Argument:
Socialism requires altruism of the people all the time.
Some people are altruistic some of the time and some people are altruistic all the time.
Not all people are altruistic all the time.
Therefore, it is too optimistic to be true.
well put
The state exists to ensure altruism through laws and taxes, did you liberals forget about that entire concept?
@@Fr_87 It can´t be altruism if daddy state force you to pay taxes
That summary is entirely incorrect based on its fundamentally flawed premise. Altruism does not exist at any time and certainly does not appeal to most people most of the time. If the opposite were true, then there would be examples of great success in entirely socialistic states. Venezuela has debunked that assertion.
The problem is not only altruism. The problem is that it's impossible (and horribly damaging) to provide equality of outcome: the only way to simulate such a condition is to enforce lies, censor public speech and punish absolutely innocent people as scapegoat for the failure of that very system.
"The organized and the organizer." Strong point. Those that want to say what to do and those that are the less fortunate and go along a blind path of hope.
Even worse: the well-intentioned "organizers" who realize the absurdity of it all drop out. Left behind are the ill-intentioned organizers who have less compunction using the force necessary to make the absurdity a reality.
Finally, I've watched a couple of these and this is the first time the speaker has identified what definition of socialism he is using.
the kind that doesn't work? yeah, that's hard to identify..........................................................................
@@billyb4790 No, the kind that... IS IN THE BOOK. That IS the definition of Socialism.
And of course it is also the kind that doesn't work because... I am not sure if I should let you figure out the answer. But if you are a Socialist I should not trust your intellect.
... because Socialism does not work.
Now, of course, you and your intellectual beacons can define Socialism however you please and think may be workable. But that is of course YOUR definition.
Theodore is an amazing writer and orator
Yes he is a great writer and a great speaker but he is not an orator. He himself has said as much.
@@bernardguynunns5658 Hang on, what is the difference between a great speaker and an orator? I would say they are the same thing. And to be fair, Theodore certainly is a great speaker, his pacing is good, he keeps his words concise, but mostly, he actually answered the question in a meaningful way. I watched Corbyn's speech, and he wasted his 10 mins, he was more interested in demonising capitalism and the Tories, instead of explaining why the system he supports so fanatically could actually work if he ever gets the chance to force it onto us.
@@zalamael In a way you highlight the difference between a good speaker and an orator. One has the mechanics of speaking in hand but the other goes further. An orator elicits emotion from the audience. A good speaker might never do this.
@@bernardguynunns5658 Ah, thanks for the clarification. So in laymen terms, a good orator is more engaging for his audience, whereas a speaker can get his message across, but doesn't elicit a reaction from his audience. Kind of like being monotone, where you say the words, but don't infuse them with the right kind of inflections and connotations?
I've seen this before in presentations, some speakers were stood still, reading every word from a sheet, and were very monotone in their delivery, but then others did it without a script, walking back and forth along the stage, waving their hands and gesticulating to punctuate their points (making them far more engaging, especially in subjects I wasn't familiar with).
Thinking about it, I would say Theodore was decent at both. He can be a bit dry at times (based on this speech), but at other times, he was more engaging. It makes me wonder, with all of Corbyn's experience, if he is dry on purpose. Maybe he wants his audience to stop listening, I have certainly seen many other politicians do the same thing, they intentionally bore their audience to disguise the fact that they didn't answer the question that was posed.
not as good as Richard Wolff...
These debates would be so much better if you could watch them from start to finish not chopped into little pieces.
Just use the playlist
"Sure, but Democratic socialism is different. Trust us: we'll make it work this time."
-Bernie Sanders and his followers
You just said democratic socialism is different from socialism and then joked about it being socialism.
Nikola Ovcharov you CLEARLY missed the point there
Bernies policies are social democratic. He may name it something else but that is what they are like Scandinavia.
Yes we will need pure socialism. We should put capitalism where it belong, in the scrapyard it's a paradox without future!
@@ronitdebnath there's no such thing as socially democrat. There's just democracy and there's just socialism. Don't kid yourself.
....and Corbyn sat there like a turnip.
I say old chap, that’s being a bit harsh on root vegetables, what? 🧐
And to think that you get free NHS and education etc through socialism??
That's because he is a turnip.
Alf Tupper
Nothing is free.
@@billlyspencer3118 Social provision and socialism are not the same thing. Educate yourself.
I'm living in a post-soviet Ukraine and I can tell you that we're still suffering consequences of the socialist system. Both in our economics and people's minds.
That was one long and cruel social experiment that I wish never happened to us and never taken away so many lives of the best folks who happened to be born here.
If Americas youth get their way, we'll be going through the same
Stalin's genocide of the Ukrainian people should prompt your neighbors to apologize daily instead of militarizing at your borders.
yes but I'm a 19 year old gender studies major. Surely I know better than you and I say socialism WORKS!
@@billyb4790 But I live in a country that is socialist and I have free dental and healthcare so maybe use google once in a while.
It was wonderfully brief and lock-tight. He didn't accept any of the traps. And the silence may as well have been resignation on part of the opposition.
I think they found the argument boring mate
With regard to the silence of the opposition (eg, Jeremy Corbyn, the hero of workers all over the world): Wrong! They were silent because they were not arguing in favor of bringing back the proletariat state like that of the USSR. They just want to do what is right, what is moral, and what is compassionate. How could ANYONE be opposed to putting compassion into society? How could ANYONE be opposed to helping the poor? Under capitalism, the poor starve and receive absolutely NO medical attention.
@@GregoryTheGr8ster Nobody IS opposed to "putting compassion into society." This is a cartoonish caricature of of capitalists, where they're all mustache-twirling villains like Mr. Potter from "It's a Wonderful Life." REAL people who become successful are not all or even mostly like that. They are not scheming to screw people over at every opportunity. But these socialist schemes for "putting compassion into society" usually involve, at bottom, making it so that people who make bad decisions don't suffer the consequences thereof. Well guess what, nobody LIKES seeing someone who makes bad decisions suffer for it. Any human being with even a minimum of human empathy would rather not see other people suffer. But they (unlike you, apparently) simply have the adult realization that if you remove the bad consequences of bad decisions, then most people never learn to make good decisions. It may sound wonderful and compassionate to "take the sting out of poverty," but it's precisely the sting that made EVERY self-made man I ever heard of raise himself up OUT of poverty. He wanted a better life for himself and his family, and that sting motivated him to go get it. That takes real, dedicated, hard work, and NO outside do gooder will ever provide enough. The do gooder MAY provide enough for you to get by, but he won't make you prosperous, because no altruistic do gooder will ever have the same motivation to better your life that you yourself will have to better it. This is just a fact. And this is why this altruistic do gooderism NEVER produces the results that the free market, with people acting in their own enlightened self interest produces.
Remember the old saying: give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Well, free marketers want to teach a man to fish, while socialists just give a man a fish. And that requires the socialists to "redistribute" one to him the next day as well, and the next, and the next, and the next, and so on. This is NOT the best way to help people. Giving the man a fish may make you feel good about yourself, and you can go to bed thinking you've helped him, and you are so very compassionate. But the man never becomes self-reliant, let alone an entrepreneur who can improve his skill and catch even MORE fish, and buy more boats and hire other men to work for him, and so on, producing more wealth and prosperity.
@@GregoryTheGr8ster that's not true. Welfare is there for people who need it. Compassion is already in our society; Those who can't see that are the ones who lack compassion in themselves.
@GregoryTheGr8ster what a disingenuous point( trap)!
Watching this two days after the 2019 General Election. Seeing Jeremy Corbyn’s posture in the room, can you IMAGINE what kind of mood he would have created in the country if he had become Prime Minister?
Boris, Trump and Brexit are silent majority F-U to the left
Socialism works on the basis of equality - it is just that some are more equal than others...
Orwell or Erik Blair was a British Spy. He started his career as an elite police officer in India.
Equality is useless. Take 2 people, 1 with size 4 feet, and the other with size 12 feet. Equality is giving them both the same size shoes. Either 1 or both of them will end up with badly fitting shoes
Therefore we should enhance inequalities.
@@petermernagh9991 Equity
Ahhhh, those halcyon days when universities entertained ideas... but now, words are "harm" and ideas are "violence"...
2000: "ladies and gentlemen, does socialism work?"
2022: "ladies and gentlemen........."
...... "OMG did you just assume my gender???"
@@billyb4790 lol
Notice those for socialism, in the main, consider themselves above dressing for the occasion... because rules don't apply to them (as the organisers - rather than the organised)...
I was debating with a socialist (communist really). I asked him what would he do having all the power of state. He said he would nationalize all the private businesses and created collectives to benefit all. I asked him just one question after that the debate ended: *What would you do with the people who refuse to have their business nationalized?* The opponent froze a bit and started thinking.. I just know he was thinking up to idea of gulags, but he wouldn't tell and changed the topic. Just one simple question leads to totalitarian regime, yet he's still socialist.
You hit the nail in the head there. :)
Just like to share an observation I made a while ago, btw, that it seems to me that there's a paradox in the communist mantra _"to each according to his need..."_ Need is what drives innovation and innovation is what fulfills need. It's a cyclic thing. And so in order for there to be needs fulfilled there has to be innovation, but for there to be innovation, there has to be needs unfulfilled, which makes a communist utopia, where everyone has all that they need, impossible. (Not that we hadn't reached that conclusion before, but this is just getting there from a different angle. :p)
SmartK8
Then he was a dipshit, you put them in work camps and re-educate them.
@@rstevewarmorycom you have proven why the case for Marxism, Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism, communism, fascism is authoritarianism...
It's weird that all socialists when imagining their end goal have themselves as the dictator and would hate to be under another dictator with a differing view from there own. They don't even like people being free to hold or voice an opposing view.
@@sallybaddeley6060
Total lie. Very few socialists want the bother of being a dictator, favoring absolute popular democracy as the means of governance. As for opposing views, socialists don't care as long as they don't try to implement it and oppose socialism. As for trying to organize others against a decent socialism, now that can get you a work camp appointment.
Darymple, always sober and straight to the paint
Was he a decorator as well? I didn't know he could paint. Or was he an artist?
@@khchoi2012 Or was he just appealing to base emulsions ?
It's just a slip of the keyboard. He simply put an extra 'a' in pint.
@@jamesoneill5070 Thank you, Sir.i would never have guessed otherwise.
He’s a painter?
The six wonders of Socialism:
1. There is no unemployment, yet nobody works.
2. Nobody works, yet everybody gets paid.
3. Everybody gets paid, but nothing can be bought with the money.
4. Nothing can be bought, but everybody owns everything.
5. Everybody owns everything, but everybody is dissatisfied.
6. Everybody is dissatisfied, but everybody votes for the System.
yes and if you object you get smashed up and shot by the army
"If your Utopia comes, you'll be its second victim" - Peter Hitchens
Why would we care what he says?
@@brianlaudrupchannel Because it's a warning. Not that socialists ever listen to reason.
Capitalism is defined by innovation, Socialism by planning.
I love men like that :)
Truly well spoken. Especially the part about managers vs managed, rulers vs ruled. You can have a society where everyone is free, or you can have a society where only some are free, but without masters there are no slaves...it is impossible to have a society where no one is free.
just brilliant.
There is a lot to be said for British aristocratic rhetoric :)
mysticfool Mostly that it is just rhetoric.
@@kencur9690 Nah, it's plain objective fact. Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
This guys literally had me smiling... What a speech.
Katy Clark is fuming as her worldview is being demolished.
Harold Leicester sometimes I have that reaction when I have to listen to an excessive amount of BS for a extended period of time.
"They were fat, and the peasants were thin." Isn't that always the way of things?
Biden and O'Biden are thin. What happened? O'Biden smokes; but Biden?
That was in a socialist nation, one would have had a different expectation from the theory.
Socialism means the rich gets richer ,and middle class on food vouchers ,and poor for ever
U are brain washed
You're thinking of capitalism. What you described is exactly what happens in capitalistic America.
sounds like capitalism to me
No, the rich get poorer in socialism.
Hey Bernie Sanders, you fool, Watch this!
Dan Morris you are the fool. Bernie Sanders is a Social Democrat, not a SOCIALIST. Just as the speaker pointed out at the start of his speech nations like Norway and Sweden are Social Democratic, and we know how successful these economies are, so much so that the speaker felt it important to make exception when speaking against Socialism.
+Joshua Mac thank you. you beat me to it.
You are a tool! Bernie has been a member of the Socialist Party for decades. You are an ignorant idiot. The Dumbocrat Party has over 60 members of the US Socialist Party. Most of the Black Caucus are members of the Socialist Party of America. The largest nation in Scandinavia is Sweden and it has less than 10 million citizens. America has over 330 million people. Good luck with your phony "Social Democracy" bullshit. You are just a loser that has no money and you want to steal other people's money. Try getting some of mine and eat a .40 S&W 165 grain JHP.
+Dan Morris 1: I can gaurantee i make more than you per year considering how you talk. 2: just because i think bernie sanders is the best choice for presidency does not mean i believe the US should switch to communism. And how can you say that many people would not benefit (including yourself) from some socialist ideas? I am not saying that we need to go to an extreme form of socialism, but is a mix of both not clearly the better choice?
I can guarantee that you didn't watch the debate that I commented on. The speaker is an MD and he has worked for 30 years in a UK hospital and the prison next door. He's had to work under the yoke of socialism. If you like socialism look no farther that our VA system or an Indian Reservation, where crime and alcoholism is rampant. The important comparison is that my net worth is much greater than yours. I have the same mysterious powers that you claim. I'm a wealth creator, not a taker. You are obviously a nasty leach that wants to take the wealth created by others and steal it.
Anyone that supports Bernie Sanders, is planning on taking the wealth of others. BTW, you probably haven't figured out that it's not how much you make, it's how much you keep. Having created, managed and sold 3 businesses, I've been able to legally shelter most of my income. Show me one dime of wealth that Bernie has ever created? You can't, because he's a loser like his supporters. You might as well get a T-Shirt that says: " I'm a loser, I support socialism" on the front and back. Good luck with your social dumbocratism. I was in 5 countries in Northern Europe this past April and you can feel the lack of energy and drive in the air. You ought to move over there. You can become another sack of crap and depend on others giving you the scraps off their table. I create my own wealth and depend on self, not others.
Socialism will work if and only if the public maintain a capitalist mentality!
however, in a decade of Socialism, hard work and self-reliance would have gotten decimated!
+Abdul Gemayyel Why not just be anaro-capitlists no government coercion and self ownership of your property and make profit.
FrecklyCash5959 Because Healthcare is the same as the Military.....it is not Socialism to have one!
Benzodiazepines
The reason why peeps want socialism is like Nietzsche calling peeps sheeps in thus spake zarathustra. We want someone to think for us, to lead us, take care of us, BE responsible for us, and carry OUR burdens for us and so on. Capitalism teaches us to be strong independent individuals. As we all should be: responsible for our own actions and each carries our own burden.
So if you were in a family, and your child was disadvantaged in any way or form (class, gender, disability, sexuality, ethnic group, religious beliefs,)you would leave them to their own devices and tell them “take responsibility”. To weigh the individual with his own actions is to ultimately disregard environmental affect.
It is an empirical understanding for anyone to realise we are beings of our surroundings - from evolution to present day - and if these surroundings are flawed the conclusion of an individuals actions are significantly altered. It is completely unjust to measure everyone with the same stick, punish everyone by this same stick, and laud everyone with this same stick.
You must lean of equity and determinism my friend as If we lived in what you idolise, there should be no bureaucracy, no social security, no charity. Nothing better than a village out in the desert.
@@ryanfinnerty6239 "So if you were in a family, and your child was disadvantaged in any way or form [...] you would tell them to take responsibility”
Absolutely. Because while you're constantly told otherwise by people telling you what you want to hear (for their personal gain, not yours), the hard facts are that nobody is going to take responsibility for your life except yourself. 🤣
Beautifully delivered.
I really enjoy the obvious difference of view of BENEFIT in a marriage. A small collective of 2 still have disagreements of all ilk.
Politicians seizing the means of production does not work.
How is this still even a question. 100% failure rate.
Mark D And the motion that socialism doesn't work was apparently defeated. This is Oxford. Supposedly our brightest and best. Scary
@Emperor Ssraeshza How about the scandinavian countries?
William G That’s called capitalism. The state doesn’t run the economy. They use their tax revenue for welfare programs.
@@GoProGuyHD Please don't comment if you didn't watch the video. Dalrymple addressed that.
It's still a question because free markets have collective action problems: transactions costs that make deals prohibitive/impossible, holdouts/eminent domain, agency costs etc. These problems leave an opening for socialists to raise the question. Imperfections invite alternatives.
Just a regurgitation of Hayek's The road to serfdom
I find it totally mind boggling that anyone in the 21st century can believe that any "ism" can answer, or have answered, everything equated with 'the good' in modern society. This brings me to the free market. The hubris of the Thatcherites speaking here is tantamount to a Leninist Communist. The problem with our modern society, is precisely that we have gone from a 20th century, where people believed in the 'isms' of fascism, Communism; to now believing in capitalism with the same sought of ideological and messianic rigor. Lets not forget that the economist Jevons was irritated when astronomers contradicted his view that sunspots should correlate with his prescribed eight year economic cycle! The belief in the so-called 'naturalism' of any 'ism' is its own grotesque Achilles heal.
In Europe, especially in Scandinavian countries, they used socialism which works sp well for decades
reason > force
Enough is never enough.... that's why!
Presumably Corbyn had his hearing aid turned off for this.
Fear the red menace.
@@meetrasurrik6982 as I mentioned above: I see that cnut Corbyn sitting there. Clearly he hasn't listened to what Mr Dalrymple has said. And what is so frighteing is that on the 12th of December 2019 he could be our new Prime Minister. Holy Cow.
Corbyn at 1:26 getting vexed at someone suggesting socialism wont work
Such a great mind and a perfect soul.
This is one of the things I loved about Ayn Rand's "The Virtue of Selfishness". A selfish person knows that isolating oneself for one's own interest is extremely limiting and may be counter productive. It may sound like an oxymoron, but to be a truly selfish individual (to be about one's own self-interest above all) is to be voluntarily cooperative with their fellow man.
Don't let this speaker's eloquence, wit, and vocal timbre distract you from his message: "The very idea of socialism is absurd from the start. You can only impose theoretical absurdity by force."
The whole debate link:
ruclips.net/video/ryeHIY8uBnQ/видео.html
Why do we even need to keep having this debate? Where’s it worked? Nowhere so where’s the argument?
Sweden for example
Social democracy, they’re pro capitalist and it works well.
@@FormulaProg the thing is u can't relate socialism to n. Korea or the ussr clause those are authoritarian régimes and socialisme is about democracy and not making the rich richer and the poor poorer
@@FormulaProg like u see in the us à lot of people are poor because of capitalisme which t'axed the poor heavealy and left the rich without any real taxation
@@vitoscalita Sweden is not a socialist country because the government do not control the means of production. Simple really.
I've read one of his books.
Clever dog!
Voluntary collectives inevitably become Coercive when the imput / output expectations are realized
Take note Jeremy
Jacob I don’t think he did somehow
Nothing really worth taking note of there
Bravo, bravo!
no one will work for others indulgences.
Who is organizing the organizers?
Spot on.
This is the only part of the debate worth watching.
he looks like he's eating a truffle in the thumbnail.
Chasing after utopian dreams always ends with a dystopian reality.
I'm loving T.Dalrymple books, at all.
Spot on. Thank you.
How can one take seriously the opinion of a man who confuses corporatism for the merely corporate? This man isn't exactly an embodiment of intellectual finesse.
Tanzania was never a socialist / communist nation? It was social democratic as they were elected in parliament from what I remember.
When I bring up the problem with socialism necessitating massive bureaucracies, people never get it. What's so bad about bureaucracy?
My personal experience: After I moved to a new town, my disability cheque didn't show up. So I dragged my crippled ass for 1 1/2 hours of bus rides, spent 3-4 hours in line, finally saw a worker who said "just take these forms home, fill them out, get a landlord signature and bring them back." So I did....
I bussed it back, waited another 3-4 hours in line, got to the desk where they said "no, that's not right, you need to do it with _these_ forms."
So I did it all again, and again, and again....
It took *9 fucking trips* (while awaiting rent and food money) because on each of the first 8 trips, a worker gave me entirely different instructions with different forms.
Not one hand in that place new what the other was doing... or what it was doing itself, for that matter.
Yeh we people who are truly disabled...hate being so.. hate being reliant on others..or the government..and we are the ones who see the insanity of the system UP CLOSE
Imagine having Theodore Dalrymple and Roger Scruton as uncles. Such wonderful precise insight. Ne timeas.
Ignorant American here trying figure out what's going on here. I imagine this is the college and this is some sort of a debate?
Capitalism is a terrible economic system until you consider the alternative......
The Soviet Union could not even produce enough toilet paper for its citizens! Case Closed.
Well being embargoed by the entire west would have anything to do with that at all?
TheEvilAdventurer The Soviets had a vast population of slave labour and all the looted raw materials of northern asia and eastern europe... and they were still dirt poor. WHY? because state planning of the economy is akin to suicide.
qetoun Or a corrupt political class funneled wealth into their own pockets, like the reason that people are poor in over places which are capitalist as well
yep, the party elite of the soviet union, having full control of the means of production lined their pockets alright. In the west, greater economic freedoms and property rights has lead to higher living standards and wealth creation from the bottom up. There's a world of difference between good freemarket capitalism and crony corporate faux capitalism.
+qetoun The irony of the Soviet union was how the Communist leaders became the new bourgeoisie. Though I will not damn the soviets completely, I'll credit them for their accomplishments. They went through so much conflict and war and managed to become a super power that lasted for 50 years to rival the western world. They never had the development nor the means to out compete the advantaged west, but they did give us a red scare! For all the bad stuff and bullshit, I never honestly figured out exactly what was responsible for their demise. That I would have liked to understand, but there is only propaganda for or against and little information that gives good understanding of the matter :(
It seems like no one can actually explain Socialism in its proper forms, only in its extreme forms or pre-defined forms but not in its varieties of packaging.
"proper form" = the fantasy world in the head of the half wit Socialist.
In my opinion, this is a well constructed speech on how Socialism is BAD from a philosophical stand point. Dalrymple does not produce any evidence suggesting that Socialism does not WORK. At one point he mentions that Socialism must be forced on to society, but I would have to disagree. I believe that Socialism may be forced on to society, but if society is willing to convert to any new system not just Socialism then the government would not be forcing anyone to do anything. I am also irritated with Dalrymple's concept of the Organized and the Organizers. I am confident when I say that people have the potential to organize themselves. No one needs a superior power to watch over them and give them orders, because if they did then we would no longer be talking about Socialism. Having one elite group organizing a vast majority is borderline Communism. Why can't the people, as a whole take responsibility and organize themselves? Why does there have to be a leader or elite group? In my opinion, Theodore Dalrymple did not provide solid evidence as to why Socialism does not work.
With a quip about married life he answered your question of "Why can't the people, as a whole, take responsibility and organize themselves" The "people" are not a monolithic block. The people are of different ages, from different regions, possess different amounts or property, live by different values, and have different goals in life. While it may be feasible to organize a small group of people -- say, some people in Plymouth Massachusetts, circa 16000, it's much different to organize a large group of people, say, Philadelphia circa 2024.
The biggest problem with socialism/communism is its insistence on equity.
People do not want to be equal. The era of “participation trophies” has begun young people Obsessed with WINNING.
Pro-socialist arguments being made on youtube (capitalist) connected via the internet (capitalist) on a computer (capitalist) powered by organized electrical currents (capitalist). You all are just so silly to me. And precious...but in a silly way.
***** shhh, don't tell them that the Internet is a socialist technology... They might not use it again
You're conflating "government" with "socialist". Capitalism doesn't prohibit government spending; it merely restrains and prioritizes it intelligently. I'm fully aware that the government research wasn't without some sort of minority role. However, the internet wasn't born of one project; rather it was a series of advancements that built upon each other but here are the facts: what you are using today and calling the "internet" as well as the subsidiary technology (again youtube, the computer, etc.) that makes this specific dialogue over it possible are LARGELY the result of capitalism.
The internet, the tech inside laptops and smartphones, were created through the public sector. Get you're facts right. Space rockets were also funded through the government. The government is good for invention, but capitalism is good at distribution, and cheap products.
@@s-kazi940 and where did the government get that money from?
Social (socialist) Media
Centre, leaning towards the right is the long term solution to a healthy,dinamic, innovative society and economy. The more you go to the left the more inefficient and unrealistic it gets.
I love english humor.
The virgin Theodore Dalrymple vs the chad Michael Parenti
It's great to see this kind of debate at a university like Oxford. I have found from personal experience that people who support socialism and are advocates for social policy sit around and say that they have been oppressed by the existence of rich hard-working people without being hard-working individuals themselves, I think this is illogical. Oxford is a difficult institution to become a student at, which requires hard work and dedication. It's sad that the people who studied or currently study there will be branded as oppressive evil people based on the situation which arises as a result of hard work. This debate shows that Oxford uses an open-minded attitude to accommodate discussions regarding socialism.
Corbyn obviously didn't listen to a single word that was said
Now here is a man who fights valiantly against windmills and burning strawmen.
^^^ arse pain alert.
@@willnitschke Maybe you should avoid shoving your head up your own rear. :-)
@@schmetterling4477
@@willnitschke And now you are just feeling sorry for yourself. :-)
@@schmetterling4477 Moans angry arse pain at everyone, now pretends to be a superior type, LOL! You're the gift that keeps on giving my sad little fellow! ;-)
Socialism: hold my crappy socialist beer.
I wish we had a politician of his calibre here in the states. right now we have nothing but socialist clowns.
Yup too many clowns graduated from clown school and became politician. All that bullshit about the rich stealing from the poor. Yet I don't see any of them donate a large majority of their income to provide free health care or college like how they preach. It's all a about virtuous talk but never any action on their part with their own money to show how it's done. That clown Bernie Sanders wanted 15 dollars minimum wage. When he campaign staff asked for it, he had to cut down their hours in order to pay 15 an hour. Money doesn't grow in trees.
He is a looser! The right way is the wrong way!
Dear, it's up to you to prove to me...
I lived under socialism in the USSR and the quality of life, including friendliness, safety, security from social predators and social parasites, was much higher than in these 30 years of my life under capitalism. The main thing I will tell you is that under capitalism people get WORSE, i.e. more immoral and selfish I'm not interested in living under capitalism. Well, you live, I don’t mind, only you don’t need to draw conclusions instead of me. Deal?
Ahh, but you miss the essential point about human nature -- EVERYONE has a right to be free to choose for themselves.
I would say if you're a dysfunctional half wit, you might do OK in a Socialist society. The problem is that in a Capitalist society, all your flaws become painfully obvious.
@@egverlander human nature is an unbelievably nebulous notion. The good and bad of man is so easily encouraged, changed, hindered, praised. Capitalism implants social tools to extract the worst in us, in order to provide the best for oneself. Even on a simple theoretic of power, and a primal instinct of honour and success, capitalism marketises this whole belief and enforces a rat race in which where one must succeed, another must fail. That is the fundamental moral flaw in capitalism. There must always be a poor, always a rich, always corruption and always amoral doings and advertising to lead lives astray and ruin them equally by temptation slight in the ‘human nature’ but readily fed by the world around us.
@@egverlander you cannot choose to beat your employees even if you want to. It is not quite freedom then, is it?
0:18 primitive hunter-gatherers had socialist systems
True. Socialism works in families, primitive small tribes, and on manned missions to Mars. Everywhere else, millions go hungry or starve.
This black and white capitalism vs socialism debate really get to my nerves. They act like it isnt a spektrum and like every industry is the same the fuck
Strange..
Ofcourse socialism works
We've had socialism in the UK since 1948 its working fine so far
As Teddy says, this is not even possible in a marriage. Yet, we do have marriages. And, I would add, it is not even possible in democracies, whose aim, especially in representative democracies, is to choose the best for society, through the majority and even when it goes against the majority - a paradox we now must live with everyday - and yet, I do not see him attacking democracies. I'd say that the family unit, when healthy, also goes for the best of the unit, though here too, it is hard to agree on what is truly best for it. And yet, he does not attack families either. So why, pray tell, is socialism the only problem when many other aspects of human civilisation call for a similar goal, or at least a goal with similar challenges?
Myrmidon Not at all, in fact not even remotely so, and I suggest you view the clip again. You also miss my point entirely. He does not *explain*, as you claim, but holds it at fault for a thing which many other aspects of human civilisation similarly call for, and yet he does not attack these things, not because "he wasn't there to talk about those things", as you again erroneously deduct, but simply because he knows full well that these contradictions, as he calls them, are in reality inevitable paradoxes of the human condition. If he were to continue his unfair - and ridiculous - assessment to its logical end, we would have nothing left, especially not the democratic principles in which capitalism thrives. He expects more from socialism than any other of these things - namely that *all* members of society know and agree on what is beneficial, something he admits is not possible in a marriage while being precisely its end - and thus applies a double standard. He either has a very poor understanding of paradox, or he uses sophistry to manipulate the mind, both equally deplorable.
By the same standard, and logic, all these things, including democracy, "fail because of their very intrinsic nature", since the problem of not agreeing on the good is a philosophical sine qua non of life. Yet we do have democracy, family and marriage and he does not hold them to account despite not being able to achieve what they too purport to pursue.
Onto your own points. Clearly you have no idea what Socialism and the concept of State means. The State is the individual as collective so I cannot see how that limits freedom. On the other hand, a system like capitalism advocates the liberty of a group of individuals at the expense of others, for anyone in their right mind would realise that not everybody can be a rich land owner, and capitalism proposes a hierarchy where the capitalists are on top and those not having capital depend on them. This is the very basis of capitalism. One must have a very limited definition - and understanding I would add - of freedom to think of it as merely a question of a laissez faire attitude adopted by the State, while ignoring all the ways this can and indeed is restrained in a capitalist system. Everyone is free to buy a yacht and become a millionaire in a capitalist system, right? Ridiculous propositions like this one - which never reflect the reality of things - make capitalism more of a fairy tale than a serious economic system. Ironically, this is what capitalists accuse socisalism of being, conveniently forgetting that the only way capitalism can be taken seriously is by renouncing to most of its promises, including that of freedom, which in the end turn out as empty as Teddy's argument.
Myrmidon Ever heard of projection? I suggest you read up on that, no matter how patronising you think the suggestion. And follow that up with irony.
I never called you ignorant. I did interpret what you said as lack of knowledge, and thus ignorance, on the State, and I did so rationally, and I unashamedly maintain this interpretation.
Now that we've dealt with your little bit of entirely non-patronising, non-adversarial preaching, let's deal with your points.
Once again you miss the point. Here is a transcript of what he said in the beginning: "I in turn will point out what I think this side of the house is under no obligation to prove and that is that no system other than socialism, shall we say feudalism or slavery or primitive hunting-gathering […] or even the corrupt corporatism of contemporary Britain fails to solve the problems that socialism is allegedly the solution to. All we have to do to show that socialism does not solve the problems that it allegedly solves and *fails to do so because of its very intrinsic nature*… etc."
This means that his whole argument is based on the premise that Socialism fails because it does not render a solution which no other system can ever render, namely because of the inability to agree on the common good. That is enough for him to discredit the system. My point is simple: this is not a fair critique because, applying a reductio ad absurdum, one would find out that many other things part of civilisation fail on similar grounds. The onus is indeed on him to prove otherwise. For if he is not attacking almost all other aspects of human civilisation, including rule of law and democracy, simply because he is not under the obligation to do so, then a simple thought-experiment of a critical mind will resolve the matter in seconds, and come to the conclusion that all these suffer from the same malady. Therefore, all of humanity does not work, which is a silly statement and only worthy of poetic truth. His contribution, on that basis, provides absolutely no added value, and he is merely parroting a truism.
If, on the other hand, he believes this to be the *defining negative characteristic* of Socialism - which is the only interpretation which lends his argument any value - then he is clearly wrong since all the other systems judged to work suffer from exactly the same malady that is at fault for Socialism not working. And this, clearly, is a double standard.
Just because he does not himself talk of the significance of his argument, does not mean that the critical audience should not take it into consideration. Nor does it mean that it does not affect the plausibility of his argument.
The point of contention is not whether any system is perfect, but whether or not Socialism works - if we did take his claim (it is *not* a deduction) to its logical end, then it should show not that no system is perfect, but rather that no system works, and this resolution would make his argument worthless whatever the answer, for the reasons explained above.
As for definitions, what is silly is to even attempt encapsulating a whole system in one sentence. But even if I allow it for the sake of the argument, the State is still not defined. As I said, the State is but the individual made collective, so power to the State is power to the individual. Certainly, you may argue that history has never seen such a State, but one must decide whether we are dealing with this academically or historically. His argument is founded on pure theory, and so the idealistic definition of the State will do. It’s a matter of goose and gander.
The government *always* acts on behalf of the citizens, under whichever system. Part of your confusion stems from the fact that you are comparing an economic system, capitalism, with socialism, which is a politico-economic system. Governments do not fit in capitalism - the proper analogue here would be democracy. But perhaps what you really meant was the State, since governments merely govern the State’s will. And since the State *is* the individual made collective, then it is the citizens who act on their own behalf. One may find fault with the collective acting on behalf of the individual, but that is another matter altogether.
In any case, the promises which make democracy or capitalism “acceptable” are precisely those I have shown to be empty. In a democracy, to take your own example, one is decidedly not free to run for office or have that option. One may be given the illusion, but not the actuality. There are many things which limit the majority of people from running for office. Theoretical freedoms do not equate to real freedoms.
You are guilty of the same imbalanced assessment that Ted offers. While you have no problem identifying the core problem of Socialism, that is to say that the collective will will be at odds with the individual will - and this itself is greatly debatable, but would lead to an even lengthier discussion - you shy from identifying similar problems faced in the real capitalism world. The freedom you mention is simply non-existent since capitalism relies on the very restriction of that freedom to exist. The freedom gained by the few can only be sustained through freedom lost elsewhere. There can never be absolute individual freedom: this is even more impossible than absolute collective freedom, for whereas the latter may be true in theory, the former is inherently illogical (oh, the irony!).
Capitalism sets a Master/Slave society with increased freedoms for the former at the expense of the latter. In a system where money equates to power, and can buy almost everything, the rich will naturally not only be wealthier than the poor but also more powerful. Even considering the most trivial real-life situation, a parking place for the disabled, for instance, one can see that the rich capitalist can park with no concern for fines and tickets, whereas a poor worker does not have the same “freedom”. Replace parking place with parking in the middle of the road, running for office, or any other facet of every day life and the freedom quickly dissipates from the poor. Why? Because under capitalism *almost everything* depends on ownership of capital. That is the basic tenet.
Your last point is both misleading and irrelevant: rags to riches is not a phenomenon exclusive to capitalism. Even during feudalism, and even slavery (!), these cases occurred. Are we to believe then that slavery actually engendered freedom? What you are doing here is mixing correlation with causation: instances of rags to riches happened under feudalism, slavery and capitalism, but this does not mean that they were caused by them.
You may respectfully suggest that my hatred of capitalism is based on a series of straw men, but allow me to suggest that your love of capitalism is based on an even greater series of illusionary choices, aptly called the American Dream. Of Mice and men, anyone?
Ken Cur And just to provide my own thought: the definition is indeed correct, and also not absurd. It is his interpretation which is silly, absurd and puerile. For "all" in that context, and in the context of marriage, family and even democracy, refers to the collective and not all the individuals.
But I'm guessing Teddy is not familiar with quantifier shifts.
Myrmidon No, I am not aware of that at all. And I do believe that nobody on the planet who has lived the same history I did is either, at least not empirically speaking.
What I am aware of though is that I will never convince you otherwise no matter how solid the arguments I put on the table.
So that's that. And seeing how we're both tired, perhaps it's a good thing.
Ken Cur For what it's worth though, the point is not illogical by my own admission, since obviously marriage is not "a merely economic" system. Nor is democracy or the family. Which are the examples I used.
Not that that should matter either: for the point is that something which fails to stand to his erroneous interpretation does not work, irrespective of what that thing is. So either it is true and his whole argument is redundant (as we'd be left with nothing), or it's not true for at least one thing he believes in, and thus his argument is not true a priori (as he contends).
Also both a and b are wrong: a because as I explained we are taking about collective representation, not individual, b because it is a non-sequitur: his point was about the failure to agree on the good, and that is what I was attacking.
I dont really have a political opinion. I'm just here because of the thumbnail.
I almost wish we could enforce socialism to make all people to listen to and read Dalrymple.
Brilliant! Absolutely brilliant!
Dalrymple is more sensible than the previous anti-socialist, but that is not saying much. still he is far more reasonable.
a pity then that he stands on the age old myths of the libertarian and the neoliberal.
Teachers comments:
"You were the best response"
Did I see steam coming out of Jeremy's head? I bet he's got a picture of Pol Pot up with the flying ducks. Now there was a humanitarian.
Thank God for sanity. Need to pass this on the Democratic Party nuts
The democrats aren't even socialist. Can you prove that they are?
@@jibjub2121 I believe socialism is trending with young democrats.
Parker Williams I hope they’re not, for the sake of our brothers in America
@@brumav9779 I agree, but once they leave the academia bubble they'll get a reality check.
Sam Allen well Sam, they have declared themselves as such and even if they don’t meet whatever your technical definition of socialism is, hopefully you realize that they are speedily trending left on the political spectrum. They will eventually destroy us just like ALL previous leftist regimes. Small government is less threatening and provides more individual freedom. I hope you can see the dems dark future so we can avoid it
Socialism worked very well indeed for the good doctor. He has always worked for the state sector. Gets a generous pension from them (I mean us) too.
Marie Noonan If you have read his works you would be aware of how that state sector healthcare does not work too well either. And if he was a private sector doctor his pension would be far more generous and no doubt you would be accusing him of being greedy still.
His 'works'? Oh my goodness.
'And if he was a private sector doctor his pension would be far more generous and no doubt you would be accusing him of being greedy still.'
No b/c I wouldn't be paying for it.
I think this is the only one of these talks where the speaker doesn't rely on derisory comments or cheap one-liners, bravo! Having said that, he does do something which I wish they would all stop doing, pointing out specific little examples from history and saying "well this happened 50 years ago, so therefore socialism does/does not work". These people don't seem to realize how much the world is changing, looking to the past may have been more valid 50-100 years ago because society wasn't changing very fast, but today it is. Technology is changing our world at an increasing rate and I wish these people would consider this instead of spouting things about Stalin or Marx or Sweden. What happens when we have machines doing nearly all our manufacturing for us? Must we find ever more obscure forms of work to keep our current capitalist system running? What if we had vast computer systems capable of managing our economy far more efficiently than we ever could? I'm a little biased towards socialism because I don't think the current system of exponential growth is sustainable, but I'd love to hear some serious thought on this as these things could indeed happen in our future!
capitalism does not run on labor. if no one wanted material wealth, their would be no supply. think of the middle ages, where there was roughly a free market in some regions, and the peasants had a massive improvement in their standard of living.
however, people valued religion, so the markets produced lots of religion. in this case, it is prayer and sermons, not labor, that keeps the market going.
more machines will change nothing, there is nearly an infinite amount of work that could be done.
NeverOddOreveN
It's true that we can always find ways to work, but it seems that a big part of capitalism is need, I need to buy food or I will die and someone needs to grow/pick/transport that food to me. If we could eventually have machines doing all the essential work for us (such as farming, construction, medical procedures etc.) and maintaining themselves, can we still have a capitalist system based on non-essential labor?
Aphobis that doesnt make sense. there is no "essential labor"....humans can survive on about 1$ a day...that means anything else you make is "non-essential". as machines become more advanced people will find new jobs, as has happened for the last 200 years.
Listen and re listen
That's it? Unconvincing. Seems like he could have made a much more airtight argument...? Maybe if I listen to it again...
+drstrangelove09 Considering that not a single word was wasted as fluff or filler, with absolutely solid arguments the entire way through, I would suggest that you ought to listen to it again. Or as many times as it takes to understand it.
+AxebeardHammerdick
I heard it. I was hoping there would be a convincing argument but it was nothing.
i think he is defining capitalism??
Are you serious? You must be 'Murican (joking :)
Duong Pham actually i am merican , and no not joking
Absolutely not he is talking about the likes of the USSR and Cuba.
bighands69 my dear friend its the same thing under a different name
A. Houtan
Then you aren't very well educated, because Fascism is not the same thing as Capitalism. By definition Capitalism is an individualist ideology, whereas Fascism is Collectivist. To ignore that will take ignorance.
2:19 Bro really said socialism dosent work cause his marriage is failing 💀
If I didn’t understand it wrong, the result was that the house believes that socialism will work, right?
Very naive British who knows nothing about Capitalism except from a rosy colored glasses lack of perspective. If you could live in America now where Oligarchy rules, 1% own 90% of all the riches in this country. Where Capitalism has resulted in real unemployment rates from 11-20%. Where Health care and education costs are crippling middle class families and yet are declined in our standards compared to the rest of the world. Where the median income of middle class families is lower than it has been since the 1990s. When production is at an all time high and the rich get richer and the poor have gotten poor and the middle class is disappearing. When our highest economic point in America was reached following the Socialist policies of FDR, and the more we have moved toward capitalism the more we have seen the gap between rich and poor grow, the less healthy, less educated, less happy as a nation we have become. This Capitalist train is running hot on its tracks and the rails that support the train are wearing down fast, it is a disaster waiting to happen, just as Einstein himself observed had happened in 1929 in the US and is destined to happen again here in the US within this decade. And when it does it will be tragic.
Furthermore this speaker brings up countries like North Korea, ignoring the years of Economic Sanctions and isolationism which lead to its demise. Not to mention that the growth rate in North Korea is now 2-3% per year, now that the sanctions have been lifted. He also attempts to scare everyone with Hitler, when in fact Hitler was a National Socialist, it was the Nationalist part that moved the people to have strong sentiments against foreigners, not the Socialist part, otherwise most of Europe wouldn't be some 20-30% minority, who enjoy equal rights throughout Europe, here in the US, the capitalist society this guy espouses, minorities are shot down by police. He also fails to bring up successful markets like Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada.. all socialist, with strong, competitive markets and economies on the world stage despite only have 10 million or less population, it produces at the level the capitalist USA, with over 300 million people, imagine what America could do under a Social Democratic economy. Europe do not fall for this speakers poor analysis of the outcomes of capitalism, the only reason your smaller nations are able to compete with the US economically despite your much smaller population is because you are for the most part socialist. Think about it.
+Joshua Mac Hahahaha! Capitalism has resulted in unemployment of 11-20%??? Before what kind of employment did you have? Socialist/Govt interference has resulted in the loss of those jobs! A minimum wage makes it expensive to produce goods in your country that's why all your manufacturing jobs have all been pushed to Asia! The highest economic point America reached was when it could produce it's own goods and that was not because of socialism! You've never been in a country where some or most industries are ran by government, have you? I have been and I have also seen the changes when those companies were privatized! Govt never gets things done and can never be punished for not doing it correctly
+Joshua Mac What a shame you wasted all your time writing that massive wall of text when damn near every sentence you wrote is blatantly false. I can hardly imagine how you managed to write such a load of BS in a single comment. And speaking as someone with experience in both Europe and America, I can assure you that the social welfare policies of Europe HAVE NOT helped its economic prospects. It has had the exact opposite effect. Combine that with the protectionist nature of EU trade and the staggering growth of corporatism (crony capitalism), and you end up with an economic nightmare. Go figure the EU is the world's only shrinking trading bloc, with absolutely pathetic growth rates and unemployment figures. It's a bloody disaster. Come live here for a few years, then let's see how you feel about your claim.