5:23 define hate speech. The law is absurd, especially in Scotland. I Hate speech is freedom of speech, because you need correct definition of hate speech
Freedom of speech is telling the truth. People who think they're superior like Jones, call anything they disagree with as "hate speech". He's an eejit of the highest order.
"The gold is God's." I wondered where that came from. Come to conclude that the stable (non-corruptible) does not exist in this world. Practically all high ideals are dead before they even start in this cosmos. They are at best RULES and TOOLS that and NOTE how badly WE ARE FAILING. Be careful who ends up with the power to dominate what needs to be "fixed", how and when. Personally, just bend over and keep trying your best. Just be honest in your analyzing and record keeping of it all. Computer aids especially. Like the first period of light of earth formation, It is helpful (translated 'good").
People have seen how the Conservatives are when free from another enterprises control as well as reflecting on the problems that affect the majority. It’s quite generational and politics is becoming more a part of age development younger and with more individuals, there are also people reaching the political age that is more considered at the same time. Given this it’s like expecting an individual 20year old to be taking a mortgage seriously, evolution of individuals takes time and when its matured it will represent collectively. This is my views on current affairs and attitudes. With more solutions and structured arguments there will be structured principles of society for future generations to align with if they choose.
I don’t think I agreed with a single thing he said. But I’m glad he has been given the platform to voice his opinions and participate in the public discourse.
@@SebPZLDN he wants to be protected from the mob while thinking it's funny to throw milkshakes at "nazis". He cant understand why people throw insults at communists.
Should matter what the people want not electorate. Thing is socialism has worked but authoritarianism (even disguised ones like owen jones, believe in cancel culture etc) ruin it completely. Socialism economically was far more successful than capitalism at first.
Corporate interests spend so much time, money and effort in trying to divide poor working people from the middle class in every way. During my lifetime we have lost so much quality of life due to the “free market” in terms of affordable housing, stagnation of wages, accessibility to higher education, rent increases, austerity and cuts to the NHS. if I have a message for young people it would be to fight as hard as you can for a living wage, affordable housing, unionisation free healthcare and protection of the environment and do not stop. My generation grew complacent we believed those in charge knew what they were doing. Also things disappear gradually so you barely notice, no media attention, no awareness, look around you, what law was dismantled, what protection has gone? Look at the comments section so much hate.
I believe installing consent as a foundation principal is important for a strong majority that could achieve liberal democracy. Not just between individuals and contextualised though.
Come now, we do at least owe Mr Jones thanks for the hundreds of thousands of votes he delivers for the Conservative Party by reminding everyone just what it would be like if someone like Jeremy Corbyn actually managed to get their hands on power.
Cubans are now enjoying the transition from Communism to Capitalism, from repression to freedom, it’s a steady move but it’s happening and it’s a breath of fresh air for many thousands who see opportunity and reward for hard work....
A society that revolves around competition instead of cooperation debases us and is forcing regression of what it is to be human. I have noticed more tribal mentalities emerging and I don’t believe it’s coincidence or organic development of humanity seeing as we moved past this. It’s often remarked that we made it to where we are due to our ability to collaborate yet nonsensical fanatics think rolling in the mud and howling at the moon is a more civilised way of being.
@@Rikard_A No he's correct. The idea of Penguin Books as a seller of books wouldn't need to exist because you would just need a cooperative to fill the role of sourcing and distribution of books. The idea of one cooperative owning a system like this isn't necessarily a bad idea, It would allow everyone access to the books ( in theory).
i think a different argument should be made. Mao probably didn't actually want approx 50m Chinese dead during the Great Leap. Despite that, in pursuit of communist ideals, he became more and more willing to allow these deaths in the pursuit of the final goal. We must focus on the end goals of communism (I do believe in some socialism, I'm British and am pro public healthcare for example) as opposed to fighting the justifications before it. We really need to hammer home what seemingly good intentions will actually bring us. We also need to separate communism and democratic socialism. You might not like Bernie for example but he's no Stalin or Mao.
@@Hobbyblasphemist All socialists are violent totalitarians as there is no other means of extracting the wealth and property of the people and handing it to the state. Its just a question of degree.
daddyalien I believe is a healthcare system that delivers the best outcomes for the money invested. I believe the NHS fails overwhelmingly to achieve this. Why prioritise an ideology over people’s lives?
6:05 - 'if someone lends you their megaphone then asks for it back they haven't attacked you freedom of speech' - no they haven't, but if you think that's what de-platforming is then you haven't been following. If you don't own the megaphone and form a mob and forcibly take it - that's attacking your right to freedom of speech. And if you form a mob and threaten the owner of the megaphone to take it off you, this is also interfering with freedom of speech. And this is part of the policy of the new-left. To undemocratically silence the views of the right. If you don't believe me then just check what Marcuse himself wrote: 'Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left...This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc
Who doesn’t own the megaphone? Every megaphone is privately owned if you’re talking about social media and the like. The claim that the poor, oppressed wealthy right wing 1%ers never get to express their views because the big bad Hollywood Left won’t let them is one of the most bullshit claims in modern culture. Fox and Fox News is one of the biggest media giants in the world and certainly the states, and the US has right now the most constantly vocal extreme far right wing leader in modern history. Tell me again how much more ratings these media outlets would get if they all went right wing. Oh right, they’d lose ratings. It’s about money, you biased hypocrite.
Usually has good intentions and sounds well-meaning but as with most journalists/politicians (often Oxbridge), lacks any real ideas as to how those changes might be brought about. What may sound good in theory in a book or newspaper column is a lot more messy in the real world.
You have to feel for young Owen. Every so often he runs excitedly out of his bedroom eager to share with the family his latest online discovery, only to find that everyone else (including the dog) already knows far more about it than he does
@@frankshailes3205 "spouts less crap" is an elegant turn of phrase. But you're right about the fake names: hats off to OJ for not hiding his keen and original insights under any bushels
‘Ireland is much cheaper’ Thanks. Also his point is wrong the Irish government vote for the head of state, the public only vote for MPs which then vote for the head of state.
And so what, you can be rich yourself and not be satisfied with the state of the world, unless you don't ever look around. We're all connected and have to live together whether we like it or not, or we'll destroy each other and the planet. Learn about Resource based economy/open access economy for solutions.
It was never given an actual chance it was a bone thrown to dogs to ensure voting power and to sate the public. The NHS was the one serious attempt after the liberal reforms and it’s being dismantled for boom in economy for bragging rights, ensuring voters favour, just like social housing being sold off for the same reason. Taxes are paid by most with the consideration it is towards the function and longevity of the nation not to inflate economy which actually ensures the opposite.
What Owen doesn't ( or can't ) understand is that on paper and in theory it may all make perfect sense. But the reality is that Marxism and Socialism has been tried and has consistently failed. The "older Labour voters" that he says have turned Conservative, have the life experience and knowledge to know what they regard as the best option, and so chose accordingly to reject Corbyn and Labour.... The young just haven't realised it yet.
@@liamloxley1222 - I didn't say it was destined to fail, but it HAS failed on a huge scale. Millions have starved or been killed by the oppression of the Soviet Union and China ( the two biggest) over the years. Only when Capitalism was embraced did these Countries modernise and the lives of their people improve... North Korea or South Korea, which would you sooner live in ?
Socialists optimistically believe that young socialists who benefit from freebies won't grow up and become old conservatives who have to pay for everything.
What do you have against the NHS? That is socialism. What do you have against a national financial support mechanism like Furlough or Universal Credit when you lose your job or means of support, receiving enough so that you can exist? That is socialism. What do you have against workers rights so that greedy bosses don't abuse their workers? That is socialism. These ideas have functioned very well in the 20th century as opposed to previous centuries when people were left to die by the roadside when they hit hard times. If you want people to die, then what does that say about you? I know economics so don't try and blind people over Capitalist or Marxist Economics. It is the extremes that are bad. We are hurtling to Victorian times when only a handful of people had too much and the majority have nothing. Actually further back to the Dark Ages when they lived in castles and the majority barely existed. You're not very forward-thinking now are you?
Queenie Boadicea the NHS has been funded by the Tories more than any other party. The furlough scheme was brought in by a capitalist party - you can have a capitalist society that supports people. The UK is proof of that
Remainders, a vote was taken as to Brexit or not, the MAJORITY won with a vote to leave the EU, NOW PLEASE SHUT UP. You lost the vote, get used to it and let us get on with our lives, this continuous whining and plotting will NOT CHANGE anything except make everyone's life a bloody misery
Owen Jones, forgive these people in the comment section for they know not what they do. Nor do they even understand the complexity of your concepts or how to interpret them. Here's some perspective people - when you believe your party is righteous but the opposite party believes that they are righteous, neither one is righteous, there is only your way and their way. Break free from that paradigm and the world is yours, else be a slave of your own ideologies.
@@montoyamontoya579 money itself cannot lead to happiness but maybe to joy via say a hobby or doing something creative. The novelty of most things you but does wear off but people require a certain degree of comfort an that type and level of comfort differs from person to person and that's something that leftists do not understand. I don't begrudge a man because he has a private jet and uses it to get him to get from point A to B faster than had he used a scheduled passenger airline.
Freedom off speech wasn’t conservative, it was liberal. Your definition of “hate” is troublesome. Your definition of hate is someone that challenges an opinion from the left, this isn’t hate speech. This makes you dangerous. Freedom of speech is not “freedom of speech as long as you play by the lefts rules”
He quite clearly defines hate speech and emphasises that inciting violence and aggression against any group or opinion is rightly criminalised. It seems you didn’t hear or understand that
Well, I understand why people like you don't like that definition of freedom of speech. I mean. If I was a racist, xenophobic,or homofobic I would also try to hide my shit behind the famous "you must accept other points of view" bullshit. You know that it's not possible to tolerant intolerant people, as well that it's impossible to accept any form of discrimination. It goes against human rights, and agains most countries law.
4 года назад+1
There won't be an end of capitalism unless Brexit occurs no division in the UK and a cure would be finally found to cover the scars of the divided and the more polarised UK. I believe the UK government is day-in day-out work for this!
4 года назад+1
There is a kind of space between the UK Unity and the UK Constitution as countries cannot be relieved, as the UK is stick to the EU, which Winston Churchill has made European currency model as EU Single Market to the UK's currency. But after Brexit happened, these works have seen errors between the UK and the EU.
4 года назад+1
Meanwhile I liked Owen Jones' speech with Penguin Books UK a lot!
a lot of people mock Owen , and justifiably so,. But in truth, his ignorant ,child like views and opinions are dangerous because ,like it or not, young people hear it and some buy into it. we have a generation coming through who don't understand the importance of questioning opinions and free thinking. Owen jones pushes ideals like socialism that have failed EVERYWHERE!.....id love to see him go and live in Venezuela for a year and learn how stupid socialism is in practice. he may learn something, and he may grow up a bit. he wont though, he isn't interested in learning!
"It would be hubristic on the part of its [capitalisms] defenders to presume that we will always have a society organised around an economy based on profit and market forces." That's no assumption I make. Most of human history has been characterised by powerful institutions presiding over people who had no power to make any choices in their own lives. Free market societies, where ordinary people have been permitted to pursue their own goals and their own values, without interference and force from above are rare and precious blips on the timeline of humanity. The linguistic trick Jones and others play is referring to market forces, profit, and even corporations as if they were entities which operate in a vacuum, without any interaction with human beings. Rather than what emerges when people are free to choose what they buy and how they buy it. You cannot control market forces, profits made, or even corporate production, you can only control the people who interact in a market, who voluntarily exchange for profit, and the products they purchase, whether from corporations or local stores.
I believe capitalism can work if it’s done properly. Properties largely being privately owned was the governments fault anyway for selling off public owned houses to generate a boom. The NHS is slowly being privatised by paying private companies to run it and the massive imbalance of medical staff compared to admin staff shows that it is treated like a job factory more than the national health service , if the service doesn’t serve the nation then it isn’t owned by the nation and what is a nation without the people that form the public.
People always talk bad about capitalism because they are envious of the wealth of one percent. Ironically the poorest countries look at us the same way. The entire way these socialist think is wrong. You need to look towards the bottom and do the comparison there. Do the poorest people in your country have things that would be considered rich in other countries? Are the poorest people in your country dying of hunger on a massive scale? Do the poorest people in your country have the same rights as the rich? Do the poorest people in your country have access to medical care? I know a lot of us have our grievances with the rich but they are a benefit to spend their money here whether we like it or not.
It’s not envy. “Concentration of wealth leads to concentration of political power which in turn leads to legislation further increasing this process”.. Noam Chomsky’s description pretty comprehensively describes what’s happened since Thatcher deregulated everything so her chums could make even more money. Also, do you think we should question the legitimacy of forms of authority, particularly those which add to social problems rather that alleviate them?
So many people insulting on the comments. If you have any idea of how to make this system a bit better, say it. If you are happy with capitalism, leave this guy alone.
Capitalism has been successful because it is consistent with human nature whereas communism and socialism have been largely unsuccessful because they are contrary to human nature. However, pure capitalism has been gone for some time now in favor of government and regulatory oversight to keep the corporations from going too far with how they treat workers, the environment and each other. These safeguards have been important in the evolution of capitalism to allow people to work hard and earn a realistic wage, as well as making sure corporations are not purely focused on their profit margin. Punishing people for being industrious, inventive and hard working by going after the wealthy or redistributing wealth is absurd and will never work on the long run because that type of system literally discourages a healthy economy. Encouraging people to be lazy by giving them money for doing nothing, while simultaneously telling people who have worked hard to be successful that they don't deserve their money (and giving it to the lazy people) is completely illogical. The richest people in the world today like Bezos and Gates literally founded their multi-billion dollar empires out of nothing, worked out of their garage and put in crazy long hours and hard work to get where they are. You don't like their success, then get out there and make your own company instead of whining about having no money and demanding someone give you a hand out. His statements about free speech also bother me as people have long been allowed to voice their opinions, but trying to characterize things as "hate speech" is a dangerous slippery slope. I don't want to hear some idiot KKK member or neo-nazi give a speech, but they still have the right to do so and we all have the right not to listen. The slippery slope comes when people want to characterize anything they disagree with as "hate speech" and seek to censor that next, which is not appropriate. For example, people who express an opinion that homosexuality conflicts with their religious views is not "hate speech", but is often characterized as such (actual hate speech would be calling for the lynching of all homosexuals). People who act on hate speech should be arrested and punished appropriately, but simply restricting the ability to express an opinion is always going to be a dangerous precedent in any society. Whether you are a member of the "left" or "right", "conservative" or "liberal", you all need to remember that what matters most in ANY free society is the ability to have different opinions and the ability to express those opinions. Free societies function on the basis of working together to come up with laws, policies and ideals that will benefit as much of the society as possible and still allow people with different views to more or less get what they want. Compromise, open discussion and actual debates (online name calling does not count) are quickly becoming things of the past, which will ultimately cause our society to become a thing of the past if we don't remember to respect each other's views and values.
Capitalism works because people have just adopted that nature. Socialism can work especially without authoritarianism, its been far successful at the start of it being used than capitalism.
So let me get this right, more younger Labour voters are moving away from Labour towns to our Cities, where capitalism excels along with youth opportunities.
Very few youth "excel". Many will never own a home at this rate. Just because that's where you have to go to get the top jobs and start a career doesn't mean most people are succeeding.
Socialism is more popular than people realise. Everyone went out and clapped for a socialist idea for 10 weeks including Boris. Most people accept the idea of free education for all children funded from general taxation ( first suggested by Marx in the Communist Manifesto)
It's not 'free education'. It has to be paid for via taxes, and via force to collect those taxes. And if the masses of people don't like what is being 'taught', they cannot boycott it by withholding their funding, and going elsewhere.
The government needs to stop impeding parts of the free market by calling it criminal just because it’s how the poor advance in this solely opportunistic society or they need to apply law to the upper tiers that is in the publics interest. For example the purchase of cannabis is consensual meaning an informed decision but sub-letters are allowed to hide their charge in with the charge for rent which isn’t a consensual agreement.
For such an intelligent, well educated and articulate bloke, he hasn't got a clue on the real world. Although anyone who thinks a democratically elected head of state would be better is just clueless! We have the Queen, who is unbiased and dedicated to the country and not promoting themselves. If the monarchy was abolished we would literally have Boris Johnson as President! Also you will NEVER have a socialist state which respects human rights, has great expansion for tech and sciences and a healthy GDP.
No we wouldn't - Boris Johnson is prime minister not president because he isn't directly elected, and so doesn't have those kind of powers. That's got nothing to do with the queen.
Many good points! Royalty is living history, and is very innocuous when they are only representatives. Monarchy is European 🇪🇺 countries is a lovely piece of theatre that most gay people support actually! I would prefer our monarchy to be modeled on Scandinavian - Dutch lines. Many members of the Dutch Royal family do full time jobs and pay tax just like anyone else in their country.
A few places where socialism and communism has failed USSR, Cambodia, India, Yemen, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Afganistan, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Nepal, Syrian arab republic, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, Slovakia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Rep. of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, Angola, Benin, Dem Rep. of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Mozambique. And ones still around, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Venezuela. And Owen Jones would be the one to usher in the Utopia here in the UK. Here's an idea. Why don't all socialist/communist people who live in the UK and who hate capitalism and the freedoms of the UK, move to one of the above mentioned countries, or if this is too much and you insist on staying here, buy some land, set up a commune and go and live the dream....... BUT ... and this is important, don't take me with you and don't make me pay for it.
Thank you Penguin books UK for posting this video. I thought Mr. Jones had disappeared. His youtube site hasn't had a video for many months. Looking forward to his book being available in September on my kindle.
No, a platform is not a privilege it's a birthright. The British left should not be flirting with totalitarian drivel like who gets to speak and who doesnt. That's how horrible things like grooming gangs and Stalinism happen. I'll have to disagree with Jones on this.
Sounds like a student that never grew up or ever did any real work in his life. I don’t go to work every day so others that are perfectly able don’t have to.
Owen Jones, I am afraid, has taken a turn for the worse. Around four or five years ago, he decided to sit down and talk to people with whom he disagreed (Jacob Rees-Mogg, Peter Hitchens, et al.), and he gave them all a fair hearing, while having civil and good-hearted (and thoroughly watchable) discussions with each of them. Since then he has seemingly done nothing but denounce anyone to the right of Enver Hoxha as being on the 'far-right.' There has apparently been no reflection on his part, and indeed the part of many others of his political persuasion, as to the intolerance which undeniably exists on the Left and why the Left continues to lose. For Owen, and I am afraid for many others, the term 'left-wing' is synonymous with virtue and moral righteousness, while 'right-wing' or 'conservative' equal to mean-spiritedness and even downright evil. Things are far more complicated than demagogues such as Owen would have us believe.
@@qetoun You haven't presented an argument, so there's no substance to counter. Anyone can fling baseless charges of "going soft" but it doesn't get us anywhere, does it? Maybe it relieves your feelings.
@@frankshailes3205 I never said he was going soft, I said that he's a fake' OJ doesn't really believe in any of the Leftwingery he promotes. This is obvious as he does nothing more than virtue signal and show off his feelings like a cheap gold watch.
To a man who benefits from capitalism I doubt he would really want to stop. It's surprising when people spout communism and socialism without explaining the experiment has already been done and it didn't work. While workers rights does sound appealing taxing the rich rarely does more than encouraging businesses to take their investment and employment opportunities elsewhere.
In my opinion, The reason why I don’t think socialism would work is because of power and greed. Even if you did get in place to do things it’s the wolf in the sheep’s clothing that will take advantage of this system. I do know most people mean well, but there is some also who just want to see the world burn as well. Peace and love.
Yes we can and have, we waste half of what we produce. Scarcity is being artificially maintained in order to make money and keep power. Like planned obsolescence. If we stopped competition and mindless consumption we would live well. Learn about Resource based economy, The Venus Project, Jacque Fresco.
People vote conservative as they get older because age is positively correlated with wisdome. You have to be very naive to think that Owens position is practical, workable or even desirable.
So you had a hard time with capitalism and think things can't change and blame the young who try I see everybody mad at everybody turning to themselves and that's not how we'll get out of this mess. Resource based economy/open access economy if you're interested in solutions
Well if this is how Penguin spaff their money on savants like Owen who dines in Fredericks which is bloody expensive then the hypocrisy about the subject matter is lost on Owen himself.
Let's remember what "capitalism" is. Capitalism can be thought of as an "economic system", or it can be thought of as normal trading. Where successful people are the people who meet the personal demands of others better than anyone else and/or find a lucrative way of siphoning value from deals by playing as a "middle-man". Which let's not forget, also helps the other parties looking for a market (a deal they were both happy to knowingly sign-off in order to get what they want) A society driven on "what people want" where the one's that can provide those things are the people who get the power, to me I think that's actually on of the most morally and logically just ways of distributing power. The one who puts the food in your mouth has more of a say over the household. The people we depend on the most. Owen would rather take the collectivist approach, where the good football players have to pass back to the shit one's just to make everyone feel valued. Yeah, nice idea, but the problem is, the good footballers feel undervalued as a result and stop smiling, then the manager brings in new rules where everyone has to be smile and say positive things and then the good footballers move club or commit suicide, ultimately putting the club in an even shitter position than it was in the first place. You'll see this effect unfold in any country which has tried to make socialism work. You'll see this in any institute, business or organisation etc which equally adopts the same mentality. Radical left politics today is required to embrace subjectivist philosophy whole-heartedly in order to survive the interrogation it deserves. The complete disregard of logic or objective truth, so that they can essentially shoot down any argument that calls it out as theft or slavery of a kind. By basically saying "that's just your opinion". The good footballers in this analogy are used to represent the people who pioneer, invent, discover, design etc, the people who (when incentivised) make the rest of our dreams come true. Those people crack boners when they think of all the money they can make if they work at it, and if you take that option away from them, or tinker too much with it, they will not bother, and you will need to rely on the shittier people to design and produce your next car or iphone. It's funny how many people actually swing past this point. If you're a feminist, and your car is broken, do you search high and low for a female mechanic so that you ACTUALLY show you value women as much as men, or do you prefer the big strapping chisel man to see to your clutch? Or perhaps you're expected to spend money in areas which value women, even though you didn't need the service or product at that moment in time. Is that how it works? Or if you're against big money making companies and their devious ways, would you be happy to not buy their latest products so not to encourage them? I don't see any of this. I see people keeping up with the latest tech no matter what, in order to be popular and then being jealous because when they find there's someone out there with more than them.
you have no idea what the he’ll you’re saying. capitalism has a very clear definition, and markets are not intrinsically tied to markets. you can have market socialism. capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. full stop
@@alexanderthedude5474 Yes, the official definition is "means of production owned by individuals". But I have given more of an elaborate response, because the short definition is difficult for many to understand to know how either option could affect them. The definition infers that people are allowed to manifest wealth on private property as they wish. Allowed to employ who they want, allowed to pay as much as they want, allowed to choose the company logo they want etc etc etc. In the UK we have the old way blended with influences from more social forms of government. Which means that individuals are now not allowed full control of say, a company they conceived independently (it does happen). Instead required to satisfy huge amounts of legislation, requiring licenses, qualifications, structural work, pensions and taxes; as well as loosing the full freedom to employ as they wish. Things which often sound good on the surface but cost a lot of money to implement, which ultimately comes out of everyone's pocket. Socialism would be a system where you wouldn't even get that. Where even the most talented/skillful inventor wouldn't be allowed to own a business, even if they could invent and produce every square inch of it. Rather that the government (through it's local council's) would own all industries and all forms of production. That the inventor would have to ask the council for a job with the hope of being chosen over their lesser suited counterparts, only ultimately to end up taking orders from someone lesser suited to the industry hoping to be paid what the feel they deserve. I know socialists would say that in a capitalist system "the workers would feel the same, wanting to be paid what they truly deserve". But the difference is, in capitalism nothings stopping them. They're free to create business too if they feel the same way. Only it's obvious that they can't and don't want to, rather to make excuses and try and take legal ground over someone else's means of production.
@@C.D.J.Burton ok, but your longer response is not an accurate economic definition. i’m glad you see it so wonderfully, but what you’ve defined as capitalism is firstly, not capitalism, and secondly, not the really existing economic system we work within. also, you seem to be straw-manning state socialism as the entirety of socialism, and forget that socialism is simply public ownership of the means of production; it is capitalism antithesis. your talk of local councils it’s the luxemburgish communist approach, which is yes, socialist, but not all of socialism. socialism can exist with no state. that’s what anarchism is: socialism with no state. don’t use forms of marxism or state socialism as the definition of socialism. socialism, like capitalism, is a very broad term. i’m not going to argue with you about the merits of capitalism because it’s not worth either of our times, but i want to make clear that there are wide varieties of economic systems and you seem to be taking a very specific form of system and portraying it as the wider definition, both with socialism and capitalism.
@@alexanderthedude5474 My definition was just fine, my elaboration is no different than the one you're suggesting. It doesn't matter which one of the fifty-million different types of socialism you bring to the table, they all share a common theme. I'm building an engine in my bedroom at the moment, and when it's finished I could sell it to someone I know for about £1000. Now none of your socialist forms of society would allow me to do that autonomously in private with full privacy, and allow me to keep the profits, would they? And secondly, in your government-less socialist society, who's going to stop me? Someone who's like the police but isn't the police? You do realise that the only difference at this stage would be that the person just wouldn't be wearing a badge saying "police". X'D This is why anarchism is a joke to anyone who actually knows anything about government. You have made yourself sound very silly pal.
@@C.D.J.Burton again, talking about the merits of a system instead of how it’s defined. now all of the sudden you realize non-state socialism exists after saying all of socialism requires a state. again, socialism is public ownership. all you’ve shown is that you know nothing but think you know a lot. look into makhnovia, rojava, the free trade of 14th century mediterranean merchants, the current ownership of mondragon, wsdes in general, the wobblies, the cnt and other syndicalism communes of the spanish civil war. what you’re saying can’t exist has and does. people like you piss me off. you found one ideology that fits your conception of how the world should be, then you twist other peoples ideology into your own bullshit definitions and claims that anyone who knows anything about economics/government/sociology/whatever would agree with you. i hate to tell you this, but we live in a large world filled with people much smarter than you or me who all have excellent arguments for things you and i dislike, and they probably know more about those things than both of us do. get next to it
I think hate speech should be protected but challenged. Call the hate-speakers ridiculous and reason them out of it, but don't throw them in jail, fine them, etcetera. Yall brits are crazy with ye speech laws. I'm very much with Noam Chomsky on this issue. I suppose it's free speech absolutism or something that I support; albeit , I say this that I'm open to change my mind, because I don't really trust myself and am heavily reliant on bayesian thinking & dialectical thinking. 5:23 I would glady succeed from the British again with their laws ROFL! P.S. I'm a leftist who holds this opinion (I hope this will protect my right to comment this comment lol).
Power doesn’t exist, only competence, the top 1% also pays for the majority of the welfare. So I’m assuming your happy getting the working people to pay triple tax when the top 1% disappear.
Erm hello do you see what capitalism does? Some enormously rich and miserably poor. Some people own things and for that simple fact exploit and reap the benefits of everybody's work instead of letting everyone enjoy it. Plus the constant competition for survival that is totally stupid. You only know of this and communism. Learn about Resource based economy/open access economy
5:23 define hate speech. The law is absurd, especially in Scotland. I
Hate speech is freedom of speech, because you need correct definition of hate speech
I hate owen jones speech.
Freedom of speech is telling the truth. People who think they're superior like Jones, call anything they disagree with as "hate speech". He's an eejit of the highest order.
What do you think it is?
@@flowerofscotland8839 Give us an example of that, and an example of how he thinks he's superior.
‘All popular ideas’ - not at the last election they weren’t.
lol how quickly they forget...
@Plazmatron Spoken like a true, loving and tolerant socialist.
"The gold is God's." I wondered where that came from. Come to conclude that the stable (non-corruptible) does not exist in this world. Practically all high ideals are dead before they even start in this cosmos. They are at best RULES and TOOLS that and NOTE how badly WE ARE FAILING. Be careful who ends up with the power to dominate what needs to be "fixed", how and when. Personally, just bend over and keep trying your best. Just be honest in your analyzing and record keeping of it all. Computer aids especially. Like the first period of light of earth formation, It is helpful (translated 'good").
Yikes, who would want a "strong living wage" right? Workers rights? Absolutely disgusting
People have seen how the Conservatives are when free from another enterprises control as well as reflecting on the problems that affect the majority. It’s quite generational and politics is becoming more a part of age development younger and with more individuals, there are also people reaching the political age that is more considered at the same time. Given this it’s like expecting an individual 20year old to be taking a mortgage seriously, evolution of individuals takes time and when its matured it will represent collectively. This is my views on current affairs and attitudes.
With more solutions and structured arguments there will be structured principles of society for future generations to align with if they choose.
I don’t think I agreed with a single thing he said. But I’m glad he has been given the platform to voice his opinions and participate in the public discourse.
@Deshawn Terrell your comments on this video are amazing. I'd love to know if you're completely clueless or just trolling 😂
@@SebPZLDN he wants to be protected from the mob while thinking it's funny to throw milkshakes at "nazis". He cant understand why people throw insults at communists.
However, were you ever to speak out against the little marxist shit you'd be deplatformed, or worse, quicker than he could get your trousers off
When will you get the message, Owen?
No electorate in their right mind would vote for a socialist party.
Should matter what the people want not electorate. Thing is socialism has worked but authoritarianism (even disguised ones like owen jones, believe in cancel culture etc) ruin it completely. Socialism economically was far more successful than capitalism at first.
Owen Jones grew up in the wealthiest area of Cheshire 😂🤣
Stockport, I thought?
Eoghan Moriarty Yh but he’s deffo a champagne socialist, his mum was a uni lecturer
@Eoghan Moriarty Yep! Stockport , Cheshire.....Bramhall to be precise.
Optimum Solutions His dad worked for the council and his mum was a uni lecturer and he grew up in a big house he’s said that himself u mong
@@jneal21 I don't think he ever suggested he came from the slums or anything.
"Is there a difference between freedom of speech and trolling?" You answered your own fucking question, they're distinct concepts for a reason.
Totally agree Owen , never buying a penguin book again !
Corporate interests spend so much time, money and effort in trying to divide poor working people from the middle class in every way. During my lifetime we have lost so much quality of life due to the “free market” in terms of affordable housing, stagnation of wages, accessibility to higher education, rent increases, austerity and cuts to the NHS. if I have a message for young people it would be to fight as hard as you can for a living wage, affordable housing, unionisation free healthcare and protection of the environment and do not stop. My generation grew complacent we believed those in charge knew what they were doing. Also things disappear gradually so you barely notice, no media attention, no awareness, look around you, what law was dismantled, what protection has gone? Look at the comments section so much hate.
I believe installing consent as a foundation principal is important for a strong majority that could achieve liberal democracy. Not just between individuals and contextualised though.
Come now, we do at least owe Mr Jones thanks for the hundreds of thousands of votes he delivers for the Conservative Party by reminding everyone just what it would be like if someone like Jeremy Corbyn actually managed to get their hands on power.
Cubans are now enjoying the transition from Communism to Capitalism, from repression to freedom, it’s a steady move but it’s happening and it’s a breath of fresh air for many thousands who see opportunity and reward for hard work....
A society that revolves around competition instead of cooperation debases us and is forcing regression of what it is to be human. I have noticed more tribal mentalities emerging and I don’t believe it’s coincidence or organic development of humanity seeing as we moved past this. It’s often remarked that we made it to where we are due to our ability to collaborate yet nonsensical fanatics think rolling in the mud and howling at the moon is a more civilised way of being.
Penguin books wouldn’t exist without capitalism.
Don't conflate market economy with capitalism.
@@Rikard_A No he's correct. The idea of Penguin Books as a seller of books wouldn't need to exist because you would just need a cooperative to fill the role of sourcing and distribution of books. The idea of one cooperative owning a system like this isn't necessarily a bad idea, It would allow everyone access to the books ( in theory).
@@hobosliveson All monopolies are garbage.
@@qetoun In a capitalist system, yes. Under a socialist system, books would be taken to read and people would bring them back (more of a Library).
@@hobosliveson Most 5 year olds are less naïve than you. Socialism is thuggery, nothing more.
Socialism 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 have all failed. But don't worry Comrades, Owen will make Socialism 6.0 work
“Real socialism has never been implemented”... “So what is real socialism and why will it work this time”... “Err... dunno”
i think a different argument should be made. Mao probably didn't actually want approx 50m Chinese dead during the Great Leap. Despite that, in pursuit of communist ideals, he became more and more willing to allow these deaths in the pursuit of the final goal. We must focus on the end goals of communism (I do believe in some socialism, I'm British and am pro public healthcare for example) as opposed to fighting the justifications before it. We really need to hammer home what seemingly good intentions will actually bring us. We also need to separate communism and democratic socialism. You might not like Bernie for example but he's no Stalin or Mao.
@@Hobbyblasphemist All socialists are violent totalitarians as there is no other means of extracting the wealth and property of the people and handing it to the state. Its just a question of degree.
daddyalien I believe is a healthcare system that delivers the best outcomes for the money invested. I believe the NHS fails overwhelmingly to achieve this. Why prioritise an ideology over people’s lives?
I thought we were already on Socialism 7.0 ?
6:05 - 'if someone lends you their megaphone then asks for it back they haven't attacked you freedom of speech' - no they haven't, but if you think that's what de-platforming is then you haven't been following. If you don't own the megaphone and form a mob and forcibly take it - that's attacking your right to freedom of speech. And if you form a mob and threaten the owner of the megaphone to take it off you, this is also interfering with freedom of speech. And this is part of the policy of the new-left. To undemocratically silence the views of the right. If you don't believe me then just check what Marcuse himself wrote:
'Liberating tolerance, then, would mean intolerance against movements from the Right and toleration of movements from the Left...This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc
Who doesn’t own the megaphone? Every megaphone is privately owned if you’re talking about social media and the like. The claim that the poor, oppressed wealthy right wing 1%ers never get to express their views because the big bad Hollywood Left won’t let them is one of the most bullshit claims in modern culture. Fox and Fox News is one of the biggest media giants in the world and certainly the states, and the US has right now the most constantly vocal extreme far right wing leader in modern history. Tell me again how much more ratings these media outlets would get if they all went right wing. Oh right, they’d lose ratings. It’s about money, you biased hypocrite.
Usually has good intentions and sounds well-meaning but as with most journalists/politicians (often Oxbridge), lacks any real ideas as to how those changes might be brought about. What may sound good in theory in a book or newspaper column is a lot more messy in the real world.
You have to feel for young Owen. Every so often he runs excitedly out of his bedroom eager to share with the family his latest online discovery, only to find that everyone else (including the dog) already knows far more about it than he does
At least he spouts less crap than you do. And doesn't hide behind a fake name.
@@frankshailes3205 "spouts less crap" is an elegant turn of phrase. But you're right about the fake names: hats off to OJ for not hiding his keen and original insights under any bushels
‘Ireland is much cheaper’ Thanks. Also his point is wrong the Irish government vote for the head of state, the public only vote for MPs which then vote for the head of state.
He's referring to the President, not the Taoiseach.
Capitalism made Jones what he is today.
And so what, you can be rich yourself and not be satisfied with the state of the world, unless you don't ever look around. We're all connected and have to live together whether we like it or not, or we'll destroy each other and the planet.
Learn about Resource based economy/open access economy for solutions.
GAWD I hope so! How wonderful it would be to live in a world without crapitalism.
Socialism's age has come and gone.
Time for apocalypse then?
Resource based economy/open access is the way if we want a future...
It was never given an actual chance it was a bone thrown to dogs to ensure voting power and to sate the public. The NHS was the one serious attempt after the liberal reforms and it’s being dismantled for boom in economy for bragging rights, ensuring voters favour, just like social housing being sold off for the same reason.
Taxes are paid by most with the consideration it is towards the function and longevity of the nation not to inflate economy which actually ensures the opposite.
When has Owen ever been a blue collared worker?
What Owen doesn't ( or can't ) understand is that on paper and in theory it may all make perfect sense. But the reality is that Marxism and Socialism has been tried and has consistently failed. The "older Labour voters" that he says have turned Conservative, have the life experience and knowledge to know what they regard as the best option, and so chose accordingly to reject Corbyn and Labour.... The young just haven't realised it yet.
@@liamloxley1222 - I didn't say it was destined to fail, but it HAS failed on a huge scale. Millions have starved or been killed by the oppression of the Soviet Union and China ( the two biggest) over the years. Only when Capitalism was embraced did these Countries modernise and the lives of their people improve... North Korea or South Korea, which would you sooner live in ?
Socialists optimistically believe that young socialists who benefit from freebies won't grow up and become old conservatives who have to pay for everything.
Come on guys please take some more lessons in political science 🤦
What do you have against the NHS? That is socialism. What do you have against a national financial support mechanism like Furlough or Universal Credit when you lose your job or means of support, receiving enough so that you can exist? That is socialism. What do you have against workers rights so that greedy bosses don't abuse their workers? That is socialism. These ideas have functioned very well in the 20th century as opposed to previous centuries when people were left to die by the roadside when they hit hard times. If you want people to die, then what does that say about you? I know economics so don't try and blind people over Capitalist or Marxist Economics. It is the extremes that are bad. We are hurtling to Victorian times when only a handful of people had too much and the majority have nothing. Actually further back to the Dark Ages when they lived in castles and the majority barely existed. You're not very forward-thinking now are you?
Queenie Boadicea the NHS has been funded by the Tories more than any other party. The furlough scheme was brought in by a capitalist party - you can have a capitalist society that supports people. The UK is proof of that
Remainders, a vote was taken as to Brexit or not, the MAJORITY won with a vote to leave the EU, NOW PLEASE SHUT UP.
You lost the vote, get used to it and let us get on with our lives, this continuous whining and plotting will NOT CHANGE anything except make everyone's life a bloody misery
Loves the sound of his own voice. All I see and hear are "Head" and "Dick" but not necessarily in that order.
Look at this vermin all brave and tough behind his phone. Tramp!
Owen Jones, forgive these people in the comment section for they know not what they do. Nor do they even understand the complexity of your concepts or how to interpret them. Here's some perspective people - when you believe your party is righteous but the opposite party believes that they are righteous, neither one is righteous, there is only your way and their way. Break free from that paradigm and the world is yours, else be a slave of your own ideologies.
Thanks, I needed that after reading the unrelenting bile :)
Good lad! Still standing, not ducking out of the fight...
Man's a soldier.
Best wishes & solidarity to you Owen.
(and your cat.)
Why would millionaire Owen Jones want to end capitalism ?
Maybe because money alone doesn't buy happiness and he is aware of people suffering around him and we can do much better?
@@montoyamontoya579 money itself cannot lead to happiness but maybe to joy via say a hobby or doing something creative. The novelty of most things you but does wear off but people require a certain degree of comfort an that type and level of comfort differs from person to person and that's something that leftists do not understand. I don't begrudge a man because he has a private jet and uses it to get him to get from point A to B faster than had he used a scheduled passenger airline.
Mr. Jones, you really don’t seem to be that bright.
Freedom off speech wasn’t conservative, it was liberal. Your definition of “hate” is troublesome. Your definition of hate is someone that challenges an opinion from the left, this isn’t hate speech. This makes you dangerous. Freedom of speech is not “freedom of speech as long as you play by the lefts rules”
He quite clearly defines hate speech and emphasises that inciting violence and aggression against any group or opinion is rightly criminalised. It seems you didn’t hear or understand that
Well, I understand why people like you don't like that definition of freedom of speech. I mean. If I was a racist, xenophobic,or homofobic I would also try to hide my shit behind the famous "you must accept other points of view" bullshit. You know that it's not possible to tolerant intolerant people, as well that it's impossible to accept any form of discrimination. It goes against human rights, and agains most countries law.
There won't be an end of capitalism unless Brexit occurs no division in the UK and a cure would be finally found to cover the scars of the divided and the more polarised UK. I believe the UK government is day-in day-out work for this!
There is a kind of space between the UK Unity and the UK Constitution as countries cannot be relieved, as the UK is stick to the EU, which Winston Churchill has made European currency model as EU Single Market to the UK's currency. But after Brexit happened, these works have seen errors between the UK and the EU.
Meanwhile I liked Owen Jones' speech with Penguin Books UK a lot!
a lot of people mock Owen , and justifiably so,. But in truth, his ignorant ,child like views and opinions are dangerous because ,like it or not, young people hear it and some buy into it. we have a generation coming through who don't understand the importance of questioning opinions and free thinking. Owen jones pushes ideals like socialism that have failed EVERYWHERE!.....id love to see him go and live in Venezuela for a year and learn how stupid socialism is in practice. he may learn something, and he may grow up a bit. he wont though, he isn't interested in learning!
"It would be hubristic on the part of its [capitalisms] defenders to presume that we will always have a society organised around an economy based on profit and market forces." That's no assumption I make. Most of human history has been characterised by powerful institutions presiding over people who had no power to make any choices in their own lives. Free market societies, where ordinary people have been permitted to pursue their own goals and their own values, without interference and force from above are rare and precious blips on the timeline of humanity.
The linguistic trick Jones and others play is referring to market forces, profit, and even corporations as if they were entities which operate in a vacuum, without any interaction with human beings. Rather than what emerges when people are free to choose what they buy and how they buy it. You cannot control market forces, profits made, or even corporate production, you can only control the people who interact in a market, who voluntarily exchange for profit, and the products they purchase, whether from corporations or local stores.
Absolutely right
then get rid of money and economic value of goods and services. Problem solved.
I believe capitalism can work if it’s done properly. Properties largely being privately owned was the governments fault anyway for selling off public owned houses to generate a boom. The NHS is slowly being privatised by paying private companies to run it and the massive imbalance of medical staff compared to admin staff shows that it is treated like a job factory more than the national health service , if the service doesn’t serve the nation then it isn’t owned by the nation and what is a nation without the people that form the public.
SHUT UP THE MARXISTS . Shut down Owen Jones 😆😆😆😆😆😆
How did Owen Jones become a spokesman for the labour movement. Who put him in charge,apart from himself.
People always talk bad about capitalism because they are envious of the wealth of one percent. Ironically the poorest countries look at us the same way. The entire way these socialist think is wrong. You need to look towards the bottom and do the comparison there. Do the poorest people in your country have things that would be considered rich in other countries? Are the poorest people in your country dying of hunger on a massive scale? Do the poorest people in your country have the same rights as the rich? Do the poorest people in your country have access to medical care? I know a lot of us have our grievances with the rich but they are a benefit to spend their money here whether we like it or not.
It’s not envy. “Concentration of wealth leads to concentration of political power which in turn leads to legislation further increasing this process”.. Noam Chomsky’s description pretty comprehensively describes what’s happened since Thatcher deregulated everything so her chums could make even more money. Also, do you think we should question the legitimacy of forms of authority, particularly those which add to social problems rather that alleviate them?
I love how reactionary the comment section is, you are just giving a reason for another French Revolution or worse: another Stalin.
We need more Big Questions!
I love it when a rich lefty talks about how much they dislike capitalism. Of course they want communism! It'll make them richer.
A resource based economy/open access economy would make us all rich
Explain how.
Keep licking that boot sir. I'm pretty sure you'll be rich like Bezos/Musk any year now.
Yes, it gives those who work the money not those who "own the workers" the workers own their workplace and can democratically decide how its run
@@Gigachad-mc5qz Who 'owns the workers'? What are you talking about?
How will Penguin Books survive without capitalism?
So many people insulting on the comments. If you have any idea of how to make this system a bit better, say it. If you are happy with capitalism, leave this guy alone.
This guy is 36 years old 🤯
Capitalism has been successful because it is consistent with human nature whereas communism and socialism have been largely unsuccessful because they are contrary to human nature. However, pure capitalism has been gone for some time now in favor of government and regulatory oversight to keep the corporations from going too far with how they treat workers, the environment and each other. These safeguards have been important in the evolution of capitalism to allow people to work hard and earn a realistic wage, as well as making sure corporations are not purely focused on their profit margin. Punishing people for being industrious, inventive and hard working by going after the wealthy or redistributing wealth is absurd and will never work on the long run because that type of system literally discourages a healthy economy. Encouraging people to be lazy by giving them money for doing nothing, while simultaneously telling people who have worked hard to be successful that they don't deserve their money (and giving it to the lazy people) is completely illogical. The richest people in the world today like Bezos and Gates literally founded their multi-billion dollar empires out of nothing, worked out of their garage and put in crazy long hours and hard work to get where they are. You don't like their success, then get out there and make your own company instead of whining about having no money and demanding someone give you a hand out.
His statements about free speech also bother me as people have long been allowed to voice their opinions, but trying to characterize things as "hate speech" is a dangerous slippery slope. I don't want to hear some idiot KKK member or neo-nazi give a speech, but they still have the right to do so and we all have the right not to listen. The slippery slope comes when people want to characterize anything they disagree with as "hate speech" and seek to censor that next, which is not appropriate. For example, people who express an opinion that homosexuality conflicts with their religious views is not "hate speech", but is often characterized as such (actual hate speech would be calling for the lynching of all homosexuals). People who act on hate speech should be arrested and punished appropriately, but simply restricting the ability to express an opinion is always going to be a dangerous precedent in any society.
Whether you are a member of the "left" or "right", "conservative" or "liberal", you all need to remember that what matters most in ANY free society is the ability to have different opinions and the ability to express those opinions. Free societies function on the basis of working together to come up with laws, policies and ideals that will benefit as much of the society as possible and still allow people with different views to more or less get what they want. Compromise, open discussion and actual debates (online name calling does not count) are quickly becoming things of the past, which will ultimately cause our society to become a thing of the past if we don't remember to respect each other's views and values.
Capitalism works because people have just adopted that nature. Socialism can work especially without authoritarianism, its been far successful at the start of it being used than capitalism.
We already live in a society of cooperation, the problem here is the concentration of wealth that leads to a concentration of power.
How are the book sales and patreon funds looking, Owen?
So let me get this right, more younger Labour voters are moving away from Labour towns to our Cities, where capitalism excels along with youth opportunities.
Very few youth "excel". Many will never own a home at this rate. Just because that's where you have to go to get the top jobs and start a career doesn't mean most people are succeeding.
Penguin books must be crapping themselves about the end of capitalism 😂😂
Another troll hiding behind a fake name.
@@frankshailes3205
Are you?
@@blackniall8509 It isn't going to end, and any attempts to end it and destroy the market economy, will result in tyranny, poverty and misery.
Who are the rich, those earning over £80k/yr like MPs?
Socialism is more popular than people realise. Everyone went out and clapped for a socialist idea for 10 weeks including Boris. Most people accept the idea of free education for all children funded from general taxation ( first suggested by Marx in the Communist Manifesto)
It's not 'free education'. It has to be paid for via taxes, and via force to collect those taxes. And if the masses of people don't like what is being 'taught', they cannot boycott it by withholding their funding, and going elsewhere.
Dear Big Questions, can you please read out the questions so that the videos are comprehensible to those not using visual clues?
The government needs to stop impeding parts of the free market by calling it criminal just because it’s how the poor advance in this solely opportunistic society or they need to apply law to the upper tiers that is in the publics interest. For example the purchase of cannabis is consensual meaning an informed decision but sub-letters are allowed to hide their charge in with the charge for rent which isn’t a consensual agreement.
For such an intelligent, well educated and articulate bloke, he hasn't got a clue on the real world. Although anyone who thinks a democratically elected head of state would be better is just clueless! We have the Queen, who is unbiased and dedicated to the country and not promoting themselves. If the monarchy was abolished we would literally have Boris Johnson as President! Also you will NEVER have a socialist state which respects human rights, has great expansion for tech and sciences and a healthy GDP.
No we wouldn't - Boris Johnson is prime minister not president because he isn't directly elected, and so doesn't have those kind of powers. That's got nothing to do with the queen.
@@spooky6043 you’re really not getting the point. He COULD have been. Or even worse for that particular GE it could have been Corbyn!
1:25 literally every society has those few who own more than majority. even in USSR or anywhere else
Many good points! Royalty is living history, and is very innocuous when they are only representatives. Monarchy is European 🇪🇺 countries is a lovely piece of theatre that most gay people support actually! I would prefer our monarchy to be modeled on Scandinavian - Dutch lines. Many members of the Dutch Royal family do full time jobs and pay tax just like anyone else in their country.
7:20 how about far left , Owen?
That would be the voice of the people.
@@nocash7550 voice of people is not far left
@@imicca I think you'll find that it is.
@@nocash7550 i think you will find very few people are insane idiots who believe in communism and marx ideology
The amount of trolls that follow this poor guy around the internet is horrific.
@Andy Frost and what has he done to deserve this title ?
You misspelt "hilarious".
by trolls I take it you mean anyone who isnt a marxist dogmatist without the ability to think outside socialist doctrine?
Andy Frost I highly doubt you actually know what Marxist means.
@Andy Frost north Korea would suit him more, opinions are illegal there.
Will we ever see the end of Owen Jones is what I want to know
Whether you agree with him or not, he’s well worth listening to ✌🏼
For the comedy value maybe!
He really isn't.
Look at the PHD in economics! 😂
Economics of today is bullshit anyway, money? Come on
Owen you have ambition use it,start a business employ people pay them ,pay your tax vat holiday pay, everyone benefits and you will learn a lot
0:33 no. in dark ages people hoped for better to come. they did not think of age being forever
I hope we will
And replace it with.. East Germany? North Korea? China? the USSR?
A few places where socialism and communism has failed
USSR, Cambodia, India, Yemen, East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Afganistan, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Nepal, Syrian arab republic, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan, Slovakia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Rep. of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, Angola, Benin, Dem Rep. of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Mozambique. And ones still around, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Venezuela.
And Owen Jones would be the one to usher in the Utopia here in the UK. Here's an idea. Why don't all socialist/communist people who live in the UK and who hate capitalism and the freedoms of the UK, move to one of the above mentioned countries, or if this is too much and you insist on staying here, buy some land, set up a commune and go and live the dream....... BUT ... and this is important, don't take me with you and don't make me pay for it.
Thank you Penguin books UK for posting this video. I thought Mr. Jones had disappeared. His youtube site hasn't had a video for many months. Looking forward to his book being available in September on my kindle.
No, a platform is not a privilege it's a birthright. The British left should not be flirting with totalitarian drivel like who gets to speak and who doesnt.
That's how horrible things like grooming gangs and Stalinism happen. I'll have to disagree with Jones on this.
6:50 no, death and violence is on streets and real life, not online
The only thing I disagree with is his stance on free speech
Pareto distribution is unfortunately a law of nature.
The answer is No and Yes.
Sounds like a student that never grew up or ever did any real work in his life. I don’t go to work every day so others that are perfectly able don’t have to.
Owen Jones, I am afraid, has taken a turn for the worse. Around four or five years ago, he decided to sit down and talk to people with whom he disagreed (Jacob Rees-Mogg, Peter Hitchens, et al.), and he gave them all a fair hearing, while having civil and good-hearted (and thoroughly watchable) discussions with each of them. Since then he has seemingly done nothing but denounce anyone to the right of Enver Hoxha as being on the 'far-right.' There has apparently been no reflection on his part, and indeed the part of many others of his political persuasion, as to the intolerance which undeniably exists on the Left and why the Left continues to lose. For Owen, and I am afraid for many others, the term 'left-wing' is synonymous with virtue and moral righteousness, while 'right-wing' or 'conservative' equal to mean-spiritedness and even downright evil. Things are far more complicated than demagogues such as Owen would have us believe.
Perhaps, or he's just a conman and pretending to be leftwing is just a business for him. No different than a Televangelist.
@@qetoun Oh look, another troll hiding behind a fake name.
@@frankshailes3205 Oh look its someone who has no counter argument...
@@qetoun You haven't presented an argument, so there's no substance to counter. Anyone can fling baseless charges of "going soft" but it doesn't get us anywhere, does it? Maybe it relieves your feelings.
@@frankshailes3205 I never said he was going soft, I said that he's a fake' OJ doesn't really believe in any of the Leftwingery he promotes. This is obvious as he does nothing more than virtue signal and show off his feelings like a cheap gold watch.
To a man who benefits from capitalism I doubt he would really want to stop. It's surprising when people spout communism and socialism without explaining the experiment has already been done and it didn't work. While workers rights does sound appealing taxing the rich rarely does more than encouraging businesses to take their investment and employment opportunities elsewhere.
In my opinion, The reason why I don’t think socialism would work is because of power and greed. Even if you did get in place to do things it’s the wolf in the sheep’s clothing that will take advantage of this system. I do know most people mean well, but there is some also who just want to see the world burn as well. Peace and love.
Yes monetary system will always generate that.
Learn about Resource based economy, The Venus Project, Jacque Fresco
@@montoyamontoya579 So, no money then?
As soon as anyone uses the words platform and privilege I stop listening (along with living my truth)
No..
socialism yes!
And where has it had the desired results?
You can't abolish scarcity.
Yes we can and have, we waste half of what we produce.
Scarcity is being artificially maintained in order to make money and keep power.
Like planned obsolescence.
If we stopped competition and mindless consumption we would live well. Learn about Resource based economy, The Venus Project, Jacque Fresco.
@@montoyamontoya579 How do we 'stop competition'? And should we use the State to stop it?
People vote conservative as they get older because age is positively correlated with wisdome. You have to be very naive to think that Owens position is practical, workable or even desirable.
Another youngster believing they know more than anyone else.. wait until you are old enough to experience life buddy.
My generation are idiots and I’m 18
He has a very realistic approach. He himself admitted he doesn't see those changes im the foreseeable future, or in his lifetime at all.
Capitalism will eventually change until it is completely unrecognizable and it is not a matter of "it" but "when"
So you had a hard time with capitalism and think things can't change and blame the young who try
I see everybody mad at everybody turning to themselves and that's not how we'll get out of this mess.
Resource based economy/open access economy if you're interested in solutions
Well if this is how Penguin spaff their money on savants like Owen who dines in Fredericks which is bloody expensive then the hypocrisy about the subject matter is lost on Owen himself.
Let's remember what "capitalism" is. Capitalism can be thought of as an "economic system", or it can be thought of as normal trading. Where successful people are the people who meet the personal demands of others better than anyone else and/or find a lucrative way of siphoning value from deals by playing as a "middle-man". Which let's not forget, also helps the other parties looking for a market (a deal they were both happy to knowingly sign-off in order to get what they want)
A society driven on "what people want" where the one's that can provide those things are the people who get the power, to me I think that's actually on of the most morally and logically just ways of distributing power. The one who puts the food in your mouth has more of a say over the household. The people we depend on the most.
Owen would rather take the collectivist approach, where the good football players have to pass back to the shit one's just to make everyone feel valued. Yeah, nice idea, but the problem is, the good footballers feel undervalued as a result and stop smiling, then the manager brings in new rules where everyone has to be smile and say positive things and then the good footballers move club or commit suicide, ultimately putting the club in an even shitter position than it was in the first place. You'll see this effect unfold in any country which has tried to make socialism work. You'll see this in any institute, business or organisation etc which equally adopts the same mentality. Radical left politics today is required to embrace subjectivist philosophy whole-heartedly in order to survive the interrogation it deserves. The complete disregard of logic or objective truth, so that they can essentially shoot down any argument that calls it out as theft or slavery of a kind. By basically saying "that's just your opinion".
The good footballers in this analogy are used to represent the people who pioneer, invent, discover, design etc, the people who (when incentivised) make the rest of our dreams come true. Those people crack boners when they think of all the money they can make if they work at it, and if you take that option away from them, or tinker too much with it, they will not bother, and you will need to rely on the shittier people to design and produce your next car or iphone.
It's funny how many people actually swing past this point. If you're a feminist, and your car is broken, do you search high and low for a female mechanic so that you ACTUALLY show you value women as much as men, or do you prefer the big strapping chisel man to see to your clutch? Or perhaps you're expected to spend money in areas which value women, even though you didn't need the service or product at that moment in time. Is that how it works?
Or if you're against big money making companies and their devious ways, would you be happy to not buy their latest products so not to encourage them?
I don't see any of this. I see people keeping up with the latest tech no matter what, in order to be popular and then being jealous because when they find there's someone out there with more than them.
you have no idea what the he’ll you’re saying. capitalism has a very clear definition, and markets are not intrinsically tied to markets. you can have market socialism. capitalism is private ownership of the means of production. full stop
@@alexanderthedude5474 Yes, the official definition is "means of production owned by individuals". But I have given more of an elaborate response, because the short definition is difficult for many to understand to know how either option could affect them.
The definition infers that people are allowed to manifest wealth on private property as they wish. Allowed to employ who they want, allowed to pay as much as they want, allowed to choose the company logo they want etc etc etc.
In the UK we have the old way blended with influences from more social forms of government. Which means that individuals are now not allowed full control of say, a company they conceived independently (it does happen). Instead required to satisfy huge amounts of legislation, requiring licenses, qualifications, structural work, pensions and taxes; as well as loosing the full freedom to employ as they wish. Things which often sound good on the surface but cost a lot of money to implement, which ultimately comes out of everyone's pocket.
Socialism would be a system where you wouldn't even get that. Where even the most talented/skillful inventor wouldn't be allowed to own a business, even if they could invent and produce every square inch of it. Rather that the government (through it's local council's) would own all industries and all forms of production. That the inventor would have to ask the council for a job with the hope of being chosen over their lesser suited counterparts, only ultimately to end up taking orders from someone lesser suited to the industry hoping to be paid what the feel they deserve.
I know socialists would say that in a capitalist system "the workers would feel the same, wanting to be paid what they truly deserve". But the difference is, in capitalism nothings stopping them. They're free to create business too if they feel the same way. Only it's obvious that they can't and don't want to, rather to make excuses and try and take legal ground over someone else's means of production.
@@C.D.J.Burton ok, but your longer response is not an accurate economic definition. i’m glad you see it so wonderfully, but what you’ve defined as capitalism is firstly, not capitalism, and secondly, not the really existing economic system we work within.
also, you seem to be straw-manning state socialism as the entirety of socialism, and forget that socialism is simply public ownership of the means of production; it is capitalism antithesis. your talk of local councils it’s the luxemburgish communist approach, which is yes, socialist, but not all of socialism. socialism can exist with no state. that’s what anarchism is: socialism with no state. don’t use forms of marxism or state socialism as the definition of socialism. socialism, like capitalism, is a very broad term. i’m not going to argue with you about the merits of capitalism because it’s not worth either of our times, but i want to make clear that there are wide varieties of economic systems and you seem to be taking a very specific form of system and portraying it as the wider definition, both with socialism and capitalism.
@@alexanderthedude5474 My definition was just fine, my elaboration is no different than the one you're suggesting. It doesn't matter which one of the fifty-million different types of socialism you bring to the table, they all share a common theme.
I'm building an engine in my bedroom at the moment, and when it's finished I could sell it to someone I know for about £1000. Now none of your socialist forms of society would allow me to do that autonomously in private with full privacy, and allow me to keep the profits, would they?
And secondly, in your government-less socialist society, who's going to stop me? Someone who's like the police but isn't the police? You do realise that the only difference at this stage would be that the person just wouldn't be wearing a badge saying "police". X'D This is why anarchism is a joke to anyone who actually knows anything about government.
You have made yourself sound very silly pal.
@@C.D.J.Burton again, talking about the merits of a system instead of how it’s defined. now all of the sudden you realize non-state socialism exists after saying all of socialism requires a state. again, socialism is public ownership. all you’ve shown is that you know nothing but think you know a lot. look into makhnovia, rojava, the free trade of 14th century mediterranean merchants, the current ownership of mondragon, wsdes in general, the wobblies, the cnt and other syndicalism communes of the spanish civil war. what you’re saying can’t exist has and does. people like you piss me off. you found one ideology that fits your conception of how the world should be, then you twist other peoples ideology into your own bullshit definitions and claims that anyone who knows anything about economics/government/sociology/whatever would agree with you. i hate to tell you this, but we live in a large world filled with people much smarter than you or me who all have excellent arguments for things you and i dislike, and they probably know more about those things than both of us do. get next to it
“Everyone to blame” yet you believe in systematic racism. You just contradicted yourself.
I disliked this video. I’m not even a westerner.
Does Owen play the flute?
Well I know he likes an organ in his mouth!
No.
Under a socialist system books would be our toilet paper and our food supply should collectivization prove...unfruitful.
No, because it’s done well but it’s not perfect
On point as always... “in no way do I think capitalism is the end point of human existence”.
I dont want to shift to communism. Crazy, I know.
2:05 - public ownership means government ownership - its complete crap
I think hate speech should be protected but challenged. Call the hate-speakers ridiculous and reason them out of it, but don't throw them in jail, fine them, etcetera. Yall brits are crazy with ye speech laws. I'm very much with Noam Chomsky on this issue. I suppose it's free speech absolutism or something that I support; albeit , I say this that I'm open to change my mind, because I don't really trust myself and am heavily reliant on bayesian thinking & dialectical thinking. 5:23 I would glady succeed from the British again with their laws ROFL! P.S. I'm a leftist who holds this opinion (I hope this will protect my right to comment this comment lol).
Power doesn’t exist, only competence, the top 1% also pays for the majority of the welfare. So I’m assuming your happy getting the working people to pay triple tax when the top 1% disappear.
I think your cat needs feeding
End Capitalism now!!!!!!!!!! I have the latest iphone you know!
Does that make you rich? Or happy?
Learn about other systems that haven't been tried like Resource based economy, The Venus Project
Socialism: no iphone. Watch out for your tooth brush
Any other system except for capitalism course stagnation and poverty. Why do fight for these systems which have coursed so much suffering..?
Erm hello do you see what capitalism does?
Some enormously rich and miserably poor.
Some people own things and for that simple fact exploit and reap the benefits of everybody's work instead of letting everyone enjoy it.
Plus the constant competition for survival that is totally stupid.
You only know of this and communism.
Learn about Resource based economy/open access economy
He's a nob, get him off
Has he heard of China?
9:09 - thats thank to woke schools and unis
Go back to school mate.
So Owen... ever done a real job?
He looks like greta thunberg