Aaron Clarey - 1 of 14 - How to Argue Against Socialism and Defend Capitalism

[IORNation]

this guy has no idea what hes talking about if he truly thinks that capitalism can eliminate poverty. It does the opposite. capitalism makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. it doesnt eliminate poverty it eliminates middle class. why anyone would think it helps the masses is just plain ignorance. the truth is if your rich capitalism works for you because it makes sure that you always have your money but if you arent rich (Which is 95% of the country) than it does nothing but screw you over.

[symbolicexpultion]

I find it ironic that he mentions that the standard of living increases for the masses when our unemployement rates are through the roof, more and more people are becoming homeless every day, and the rich keep getting richer. Capitalism has always been extremely biased, since no middle or low income individual in their right mind would ever support it, which is why I find this extremely hard to be credible.

Capitalism almost makes me ashamed to be American

[Winnersdonthavecows]

This is one of the BEST videos I have seen on this subject.

I have seen points in this post which I have never thought of before viewing it.

I have been quoating this points in my daily life & very effectively I might add.

[Dysanfel]

The ideas of what constitute socialism or capitalism are so broad and varied that arguing this point is a senseless endeavor. Never mind the fact that no important economy in the history of organized man has ever exhibited total behavior one way or the other. Every first year Poly Sci student can tell you to look behind such rhetoric for a ideological message.

[proletarian48]

@punkswar- What good of capitalism? I never knew it had anything good about it!

[punkswar]

Random thing i've noticed. Socialist advocates never stray from the theory and how it SHOULD be not what it is in practice, and when they bash capitalism, they stick solely with the bad that exists in practice and avoid the good with the perfect implimentation of it.

[proletarian48]

The second comment i made was about how unreal capitalism really is

[proletarian48]

2.) First of all socialism has never been implemented on society because it will naturally occur as capitalism fails. And if there is a socialist country it would obiously fail due to the fact that a lone country or countries cannot exsist as socialist in a capitalist world. And socialism is real because the masses are not stupid like you. As the economic crisis causes the people to all become subject to society, they will naturally have a common goal to rebel againast society.

[proletarian48]

Since you have too many incorect statements i'll just pick the main two. 1.) because of capitalism poverty is wiped out or severely lessened. Are you stupid. Look at today most of the world is capitalist and most of the world is poor. In fact 7% of our population accounts for more than 84% of our wealth. Thats because capitalism's goal is profit and the best way to make more profit is by placing all the wealth in the hands of a few rich bastards like you.

[TheCommieBunny]

the track record? I suggest you take a look at the millions of people killed in the States. Native Americans....

[captaincholera]

In a capitalist economy, the goal is money, Why on earth would you pay your employees more than you have to if your trying to make the most money? Take a company like wal-mart, they charge their employees more than they pay them for their health insurance plans, why wouldnt every compayny do that? Btw its appalling that you suggest removing taxes on corporations, thats not capitalism that would be like an oligarchy, which is basically what our country is now anyways right?

[madass888]

@captaincholera

Money is a mere tool in an economic system, it's just paper. Capitalism is all about production. For example, no libertarian likes the current situation where banks backed by their government friends can create money out of thin air.

[captaincholera]

This is all well and good, but only if you think that the goal of an economy is to make money. The fundamental goal of an economy is NOT to make money, is simply having more money than others the MOST important thing in your life? absolutely not. The goal of an economy is a high standard of living, and for everyone to be able to live with peace of mind. I think we can all agree that no one should ever be worring about if thy can eat today or not...

[jediknight36]

What a d-bag. This guy really is an idiot. He knows nothing of any subject he is talking about. Socialism is working great, all over the world. Hope this guys never drives on a public road.

[mikebaileygates]

@jediknight36 just where exactly is socialism working?... You may have to visit a capitalist website via a capitalist web provider on your capitalist computer to answer this question.

[jediknight36]

@mikebaileygates You mean using the internet, invented and subsidised by the government, by technology that the research for was paid for by the government, on the telephone lines that are owned by the public, that run along public road ways that have cars that are inspected for safety by the government, some of which carry meat and produce inspected by the government, that passes by houses with government safety standards, protected by the socialist military? Those?

[jediknight36]

All that aside, Cuba, Vietnam, Chile, Venezuela, Argentina, North Korea, Germany, Sweden, France, oh, and all the ones wikipedia lists.

Socialist countries today seem to be doing well, IN SPITE of Capitalism's constant attack on them.

[myusernameisluc]

@jediknight36

Yeah, socialism works great. A state debt 5 times GDP=working great!

And look at the Sovjet Union, North-Korea, Cuba, China, Kenya, etc. What great properous countries!

[ninjapirate0507]

@myusernameisluc Or then again Sweden, which kicks our ass in many categories.You are cherry picking.

[myusernameisluc]

@ninjapirate0507

Sweden doesn't differ very much from USA. Besides, Sweden also has a high state debt, so you didn't make a point.

[ninjapirate0507]

@myusernameisluc Oh, and keep looking for your elusive free market. It doesnt exist. And never will, because greed will take over and ruin all of it every time.

[myusernameisluc]

@ninjapirate0507

The state is a remnant of times when we were still beasts, and couldn't know better. If the aura of legitimacy around it is lifted, if it is seen for what it is: an ordinary criminal group of people that use violence against innocent people, we will have an indefinite free market.

Besides, how would it differ from you ideals? Greed is a natural state. When you eat a sandwich you are greedy.

Still, greed is innanimate, and therefore can't do anything, including "taking over".

[ninjapirate0507]

This guy is an idiot who doesn't seem to know the first thing about socialism let alone capitalism. Capitalism means keeping the fruits of your labor? Like how the worker gets a miniscule sliver of the value he produces for the corporation?

[myusernameisluc]

@ninjapirate0507

You confuse Capitalism with corporatism. In corporatism corporations use government to stop competition with endless regulations and taxes. So the workers don't have any choice, they can't go and keep more fruits of their labor with a competitor.

Capitalism means there are no government regulations. Corporations are giant legal institutions made so by government.

[ninjapirate0507]

@myusernameisluc I'm not confusing anything. In Capitalism you produce value for the corporation and keep almost none if it yourself. I fully understand what corporatism is, the policy of the American right wing.

[myusernameisluc]

@ninjapirate0507

I know that's your view. But do you have any arguments to back it up? Why was what I said not true?

[ninjapirate0507]

@myusernameisluc Yeah, reality backs up my position. When you work for a corporation, you are producing far more wealth for them then you are getting. This is seen in the huge gap in the US between rich and poor, and the ratio of the CEO's pay to that of an average worker.

[myusernameisluc]

@ninjapirate0507

Of course a worker doesn't receive all the wealth he creates. The owners take the risk of losing money or even bankruptcy. That's what they get paid for. While that ratio is currently disproportional, it is for reasons I stated in previous comments. (It's caused by corporatist(state) regulations, not capitalism/free market)

[ninjapirate0507]

@myusernameisluc So does the worker!!! What do you think is going to happen if he no longer has a job? The people who produce should own the means of production.So the high salary of CEOs is due to government regulation? Congratulations that is the stupidest fucking thing Ive heard all day.

[myusernameisluc]

@ninjapirate0507

A worker get's paid for working, not for living. The owners of a company going bankrupt is entirely different than someone having no money. The worker does not invest his capital, the owners do. The worker gets paid for working, the owners get paid for risking their capital.

I argued the effects of government regulations in previous posts. Your ridicule is misplaced. Saying something is stupid without giving arguments is a lot more stupid than anything that is substantiated.

[ninjapirate0507]

@myusernameisluc The ridicule is not misplaced. Your placing of blame on regulations is absurd as we have seen time and again the results of deregulation. The worker DOES invest his capital in a job. He invests his life. The capitalist investing has nothing to do with the fact that he would not produce a single thing without labor. Labor is as equal as capital, simple as that. We need a system that guarantees a living wage at the very least.

[myusernameisluc]

@ninjapirate0507

Then give an example of where deregulation had adverse effects.

The case of China indicates otherwise; the economy there only began to grow when the government began deregulating.

Maybe you should look up the definition of "capital" and "investing" (of course in the correct context), because by definition a worker does not invest his capital.

"Labor" and "capital" are two entirely different things, and serve seperate purposes and have seperate effects.

[ninjapirate0507]

@myusernameisluc I never said they were the same thing, I said they were of equal importance. An example? Too easy. Deregulation destroyed the airline industry. Not to mention help cause the Great Depression and the recent recession.

[myusernameisluc]

@ninjapirate0507

Of course, I wouldn't argue they are both essential.

What airline industry? Airplanes are still flying, aren't they?

The great depression was caused by the easy credit policies of the Federal reserve; the central regulation of reserve rates and interest rates. Further government intervention only made recovery more difficult. USA has had more depressions than "the great depression", the worst ones during times with relatively high government regulations.

[myusernameisluc]

@ninjapirate0507

Same with the current reccession (of which we haven't even closely seen the worst of yet BTW), caused directly by the housing boom and bust, that was able to form because of easy credit policies of the government institution the Federal reserve.

[mredstriumph]

@myusernameisluc

the easy credit policies of the Federal Reserve...

..necessitated by the DEBT created by socialism. The US went from the world's largest creditor to the world's largest debtor in a single generation because of the "New Deal", the "Great Society", unsustainable bloat of government on all levels, and the unholy alliance of public sector unions with politicians to bilk the public.

"easy credit" (artificially low interest) was created BECAUSE it benefits govt debt - social=cause

[myusernameisluc]

@mredstriumph

"Socialism" doesn't create anything, only people do.

While socialist services make up a great deal federal spending, "defense" (i.e. colonization attempts) makes up an even greater deal. But they can't be seen apart from each other. They both serve to enhance the power and wealth of government officials and their corporate friends, either direct, indirect, or both.

The only way government can grow is bigger, until it collapses, taking everyone down with it.

[mredstriumph]

@myusernameisluc

Not to disagree with you, but if you go to usdebtclock - DOT - org, you'll see that defense spending is the THIRD largest budget items listed, and of six total categories listed, defense is the ONLY category authorized by the Constitution. The other 5 are ALL socialism.

Note also that interest on the national debt is an EXPENSE, not a source of revenue as it SHOULD be. You can thank Woodrow Wilson (D) & a filibuster proof "progressive" Congress & Senate for that (Fed Reserve)

[myusernameisluc]

@mredstriumph

Those are the official numbers. They are manipulated though. A more realistic one you can find at warresisters[DOT]org/pages/pie­chart[DOT]htm.

I don't understand how paying interest on debt can be a source of revenue.

The constitution doesn't really mean anything to me.

Calling the FED not a part of the government is I think more a difference in semantics than reality.

I understand inflation is a tax, no argument there.

[mredstriumph]

@myusernameisluc

Please watch the "Brief Overview of Capitalism" video in my upload section. It will (partially) explain the relevance of the Constitution.

How the debt can be a source of revenue? This is ostensibly money that we the people lend to ourselves, for ourselves. Where besides to the people should that money paid in interest go?

That the Fed prints our money and not even your Congressman or Senator can audit them to see how much is printed or where it went seems relevant

[mredstriumph]

@mredstriumph

Search youtube: Ron Paul Audit the Fed

You will see that even Congress (let alone you or I) does NOT have authority to see where the money goes. Nor has an independent audit of Fort Knox been done since the Eisenhour Administration. Nor do we know who owns the gold in the IMF.

The next time you see footage of a printing press churning out pages of hundreds ask yourself if it matters that the US Congress can't audit the Fed. What would YOU do if u worked there &no1 was looking?

[mredstriumph]

@myusernameisluc

I strongly suspect your "war resistors" site is a Communist front organization, (discoverthenetworks - DOT - org) & have no faith their numbers because:

1) Their site says right up front they atribute %80 of nat'l debt interest solely to the THIRD largest federal expenditure to make their case. I suspect that would be far from their only distortion if I looked into it.

2) US Constitution dictates that ONLY Congress can appropriate money, & appropriations r public record

[mredstriumph]

@myusernameisluc

Further note that the Federal Reserve (which is NOT a part of the US govt, as I'm sure you realize) is the mechanism through which government has artificially been setting the interest rate.

It is also the mechanism which allows the government to spend without raising your taxes. Instead the taxation is accomplished through printing money.. a.k.a. inflation.

Inflation IS a tax, though not one man in a million knows it.

[mredstriumph]

@mredstriumph

“The best way to destroy the capitalist system is to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, government can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens.” — John Maynard Keynes

“I work for a government I dispise for ends I think criminal.” — John Maynard Keynes

Note: Keynes is the father of Progressive economics, and Krugman & the current "Hope & Change" Administration are self-described as "Keynsian". Check Google

[mredstriumph]

@myusernameisluc

In other words, a debtor (which will always be the government in the case of socialism) will FORCE low interest rates, and this low interest rate will have unintended consequences such as our dot com and housing bubbles.

In addition it puts the POPULATION in debt because when interest rates are low (cheap rates) it makes sense to borrow for a house, car, vacation, etc, but it makes no sense to SAVE because you get so little in returns.

[mredstriumph]

@mredstriumph

Thus it was NOT a "generation of greed" which put us in debt, as the politicians are want to tell us, but A POLICY OF GOVERNMENT.

[myusernameisluc]

@mredstriumph

Blaming greed for the debt and recession and such is like blaming roads for traffic deaths. It is actually used as an emotional excuse to increase government power.

[karljdrumsgc12]

that being said, he also believed in man's capacity for sympathy, which he believed often transcended self-interest. Sympathy and the imagination to put oneself in another's shoes determines human sociability. Socialist and capitalist asymmetrical assumptions about human nature leave economics a futile debate without philosophy.

[myusernameisluc]

@karljdrumsgc12

"to put oneself in another's shoes"

You said it yourself: "oneself"

[karljdrumsgc12]

@adryroseinbloom sidenote: adam smith's capitalism was based on self-interest, which I am sure you are quite aware of. He also believed that, due to the fact that the individual's capacity for consumption is considerably more limited than his desires, his subjects will "...The rich... consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency... they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements." (tms 184)

[adryroseinbloom]

The use of man by man is expressive of the system of values underlying the capitalistic system. Capital, the dead past, employs labor -- the living vitality and power of the present. In the capitalistic hierarchy of values, capital stands higher than labor, amassed things higher than the manifestations of life. Capital employs labor, and not labor capital. The person who owns capital commands the person who "only" owns his life, human skill, vitality, and creative productivity.

[adryroseinbloom]

@adryroseinbloom "Things" are higher than man.

- Erich Fromm

[Zzozze]

Today's "free market" is corporate monopoly.

Both capitalism and socialism have been designed to spoil the people from their rights and wealth. Lenin or IFM? -> your "choice", same result...

Progress? One example: all the medicaments that worked get taken out of the market.

[RicoRichmond]

He's wrong to make this about Capitalism / reality vs Soialism Idealism, support for Capitalism is very idealistic.

[oxSBPxo]

As soon as I started watching these videos, the guy speaking sounded like a huge D-bag, misinformed, Glenn Beck wannabe. Capitalism is NOT freedom. Capitalism is a way for the people with all the money to convince the poor who WORK THEIR ASSES OFF for them that Capitalism = safety, democracy, and -- as this video demonstrates -- freedom. Capitalism is just formalized serfdom.

[Sidewinder77]

@oxSBPxo, state capitalism (like in the US) where corporations are able to use the government to initiate force against competitors and other groups is what results in the poor being left out of the game. True free market capitalism where anyone is free to compete self-regulates itself and is the kind of system that truly benefits everyone the most in the most just way. Check out the book "Capitalism and Freedom" by Milton Friedman if you're interested in a more sciencey explanation.

[Fre2Doom]

really was looking forward to hear the arguments, never was so dissapointed in my life. Its all good in theory, but it is based on certain assumptions which just do not hold. the US was so prosperous due to the ideology of the Founding Fathers, which made a heavy emphasis on freedom. to equate capitalism and freedom is wrong. plain wrong.

[asianbuttsex]

lol 1 guy goes to china pays 100 people 10 cents an hour to make him shoes which he sells for 100$ a pair PROVING capitalism is for the larger good. what a joke...

[Elvis457]

most of the work and the other barely lifts a finger. You'll both get the same grade which strikes you as "unfair". Instead of focusing on how well done the project was, we whine about how little the other paricipated. One of the major reasons we'll never let go of capitalism is we simply don't look at the bigger picture or in other words we value individual work rather than the whole thing.

[Elvis457]

This recession were in right now is 100% because of capitalism, is it really evil to want to provide for everyone? When we look at poverty we think to ourselves that its their own fault and blame it entirely on the individual. Socialism in a nut shell has everybody being equal, meaning a CEO makes as much money as a janitor. This disgusts us because all we think about is money and what is fair. Instead of asking what we can to do we ask what will you do for us. Its like a school project whereyou

[adryroseinbloom]

@Elvis457 No one needs a CEO, only in capitalism. Work can be self-managed, making the managerial positions superfluous. And workers would probably in large part, clean up after themselves. But let's compare the two titles anyway, to see the real principle: the CEO would appreciate the manual labor of the janitor, and the janitor would appreciate the mental one of the CEO. Win-win situation if they both have guaranteed food, shelter, clothing, etc. How can one assign labor a specific value?

[slayar764]

This speech is a joke. They don't even know what socialism IS, let alone how to defend against it. North Korea has never been a socialist country. Nor has the Soviet Union.

[Boycottxbox]

This is typical crap. People like you should be "neutralized" like the u.s. does to people who won't play ball. Crapitalism destroys culture and real living. The u.s. is ahead financialy because of force, deception, terrorism etc. Things are going downhill here because of our own greed and matierialism. Only america can destroy america and we are doing it at an accelerated rate. I would gladly die, rather than be an empty transparent sellout american white puke. I am moving to Deutchlandt

[threeplusdog]

You would probably really enjoy the American Vision Worldview Super Conference - economist Gary North, apologists like Gary DeMar and Israel Wayne, leaders like Bruce Shortt and Kevin Swanson, as well as performers Anthony Edwards, Charles Marshall, nathan Clark George, etc. will all be there. It's a 4 day event in GA July 21 - 24, 2010. You can find out more under the Events tab at American Vision dot org.

[TheTranceCartel]

You must ask yourself though: who has capitalism increased the wellbeing for? certainly not 80% of the world, and even in countries where capitalism is the main system of economics, like India.

[devlindchi]

@TheTranceCartel wow, maybe you should look at the quality of life pre and before they were capitalist. Think about how bad it was when Ghandi was fighting for its independence

[TheTranceCartel]

@devlindchi

exactly; British India was free market and capitalist, and that was what kept many indians down.

[000DarkNite000]

That was good as a sort-of pragmatic defence of capitalism against statist socialism, but there wasn't much stuff on the ethics of capitalism versus the ethics of socialism. For example communists would oppose any state whatsoever, and pragmatism is unstuck at that point because it's never been properly tried.

[DeanBifford]

There's a new blog for those who're about to snap.

Hopefully it will have an effect before it's too late.

[turisas1234]

Grammatically, whatever I just said got fucked up. My hands are cold, gimme' a break =P

[CasClair]

Only 745 veiws...This is absolutely true and more people need to see it...I'll try to promote it as much as i can..but im only one person...everyone that sees this and agrees with it should try to like get it around...

[ourearthhome]

Slaves and serfs with the vote, the right to shoot ones mouth off, and guns, but slaves and serfs none the less. Political democracy without economic democracy doesn't cut it. Nothing wrong with capital but land is not capital. There is something wrong with the private collection of community created land value which is an unearned income in the hands of landowners who do not create the land or its value. Tiny tiny little flaw in the practice of capitalism. A nasty holdover from feudalism.

[troyjgrice]

"Democracy is idispensible to socialism." Lenin

Capitalist countries must be republics with enumerated powers or they dissolve into 51% voting to loot the other 49%.

[ourearthhome]

Neither democracy or republics are worth anything unless the people who live in them have a stake in them. Welfare is not a stake for those who cannot/do not provide for themselves. A true stake would be entitlement to a share of the value that all people as equal members of community create and that value is land value in all its forms. Instead we give most community created land value away to the monopoly owners of land who get the right to collect a value they do not create.

[troyjgrice]

I think you have muddled you premises...

Welfare recipients have no "stake" because they invest nothing in themselves or society. Their existence is parasitical.

Simply increasing their share of welfare (in the form of a piece of land that would be robbed from someone else) will not change their mindset because the will have obtained it by theft rather than by skill development, work, deferred consumption (savings), and risk taking.

[troyjgrice]

all "monoplies" are created by government (subsidy, taxation, ordinance, inflation). Those "evil" land barons you commies decry are a function of the government that you seek to further empower. Central planning is the ultimate tyranny. The solution is more freedom, not more totalitarianism.

[ourearthhome]

troyjgrice: This culture is so hard hearted that it recognizes no need for anyone to have a stake in the society. In the Bible the law was set out that there was to be no kings, no taxes, no debts beyond 7 years and every 50 years a land reform so that there never could arise a permanent class of landless, indebted poor people who had no reason to defend the nation. You tell me what stake our mostly impoverished soldiers would have if your less than charming attitude toward them prevailed?

[troyjgrice]

First, the "permanent class of landless, indebted poor" are a direct result of 1) debasing our durrency by the Central Bank which destroys the savings of the lower class and 2) the socialist government class that loots the productive members of society to enrich themselves. Open your eyes.

[troyjgrice]

Second, I don't know why people join the military.  They are not fighting for freedom or America. They are fighting for bankers, arms dealers, Saudi Sheiks, and murdering-neocon-crusaders.

The notion of robbing everyone's wealth and redistributing it would cause everyone to give up building wealth (because they would know it would just get confiscated, anyway).

See ZIMBABWE if you want to know what "land reforms" will bring.

[funky13onkey]

I see this too often...What appears to be a really bright individual, with a bit of truth and justifiable outrage, however, directing such in the wrong direction due to whatever...early exposure to a bad philosophy, which over time becomes entrenched as a apart of one's own self-being, and this means death to thought, because when contradictory evidence is produced, the individual experiences the pain of what has come to be known as cognitive dissonance.

[funky13onkey]

Then, owing to this pain, the individual finds it quite easy to cast aside this painful, contradictory information. Don't continue to fall prey. Screw the people that we all look up to...they are great, ideas and all, but question all of it, every damn day of your lives. I love Noam Chomsky, for instance, but if I ever ran into him and he asked me to "take his word" for anything, I would tell him to kiss my ass, because i am not a f ing lemming!

[troyjgrice]

Not sure if you're refering to me or "Oureathhome". I'm assuming me as you invoke Chomsky. Anyway, the idea that we should abolish institutional control over land resonates fine with me. BUT, replacing that system with new system with ONE COLLECTIVE owner (the State) just makes it worse.

As Hayek would argue, I'd rather be 'exploited' by several hundred competing corporations than one monolithic government that has a monopoly on force.

[troyjgrice]

If you want to see what a Chomsky-esque confiscation and redistribution of land will bring, SEE ZIMBABWE.

[ourearthhome]

Good try at a plausible explanation. The socialist government class does loot the earned incomes from labor and real capital (I say real capital because land is not capital) as you say while the wealthy loot the community created value of land and thus have historically become super wealthy on collecting values they do not create. It doesn't leave much for the rest of us. A balanced view would be to demand the end of all taxation save on land values. Money is important but land is fundamental.

[turisas1234]

@troyjgrice, while I completely agree with everything you're saying, some people are dealt a shitty hand in life (which is no excuse for being a parasite), but without the welfare system, my wife and I would've never finished school, thus contributing to society, and more importantly, giving a great life for our children.

and more notably, we pay massive taxes that have far encompassed what we ever received in welfare (cash aid and food stamps).

[troyjgrice]

No doubt people are dealt a poor hand. However, using force to loot from one person and give to another is not an ideal means of "helping people". It creates resentment, destroys virtue and charity, and fosters dependancy and entitlement.

Glad you made it out, though.

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Stupid. How the hell do you think capitalism started? By "looting" or taking resources that belong to all! It's wreaked economic havoc on societies around the globe because the capitalists believe in taking shit and making others toil mercilessly for basic necessities. You're right, it does create resentment, inhibits virtue and charity and fosters dependency and entitlement.

[troyjgrice]

@adryroseinbloom

Hmmm. Laissez Faire isn't about "making" anyone do anything. it is a voluntary system. Both parties agree to exhange because it benefits both.

We can argree that "state capitalism" is really just facism where bureaucrats EMPOWER a slect group of capitalists to "take" and "make people toil".

But without private property you have a system without personal incentive to create and produce.

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Laissez-faire would thrive on the production of inecessary and anti-ecological commodities, which waste human energy and harm the environment. If we focus on what everyone needs, we have more time to enjoy ourselves and actually live life. We forget that consumerism is pointless and that man should not be a means to that lifeless end.

[troyjgrice]

@adryroseinbloom

Define "what everyone needs". "Needs" are personal, subjective, infinitely diverse, and constantly changing for each individual. Men are not bees. They have individual dreams and desires. I believe that an atomistic, entrepreneurial based economy meets those criteria far better than a collectivist one.

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Everyone has basic physiological needs that I reckon DO apply to everyone. We all need to eat, sleep, have shelter, health care and a critical, question-posing education. As for individual desires, well that is what you do with your free time and energy.

[troyjgrice]

@adryroseinbloom

Yes but eat what? How much? When? WHere? Sleep where? How long? What time of day? What kind of 'shelter'? Dark and cozy? Airy and bright? On a hill? In the woods? Log or brick? What kind of health care? You may be healthy and need little. I may be sickly and need a lot. You may take care of your body, I may not.

See how difficult it is to define homogenous needs? It's impossible without creating a tyranny of homogeneity.

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Eat what that community produces, and in communism, "to each according to their need." When? Where? Sleep? Whenever you want! Shelter? Stay where you are! No more rent. For those who don't have homes, there are many empty ones and spaces. As for breezy/dark/etc? Do you KNOW people struggling with rent? That is the least of their concerns. Let's secure places to live first. Health care? Preventive, free health care. The society might develop better eating habits without crap products.

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice And homogeneity? I'm surprised you think that's the problem. People aren't much different from each other in this society. Sure, they have different clothes, different colored laptops, and different curtains but the collective personality is mostly the same. A lot of differences are exaggerated (i.e. man and woman) to create more markets, and harm social relations in a double-whammy as the pointless animosity between the genders thrives.

[troyjgrice]

@adryroseinbloom

Spoken like a true collectivist. The communist attitude about haumanity is always the same: humans don't 'need' anything beyond one, collectively defined set of goods,

For Pol Pot, the truest communist of all, "needs" were defined as 1 bowl of rice and a filet of rat meet each day. that kept them going for many years.

I hate collectivists. It is an evil ideology. It treats humans as worker bees.

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice I have not said that only the "basics" are to be supplied and never anything beyond. I do mean, however, that when we are done giving everyone "1 bowl of rice and a filet of raw meat", although I reckon you can spice up your rice and cook the meat, then we can talk about providing chocolate syrup.

What I AM saying is that lattes and the service industry should be the least of our worries until we can guarantee everyone food, clothing, shelter, health care and an education.

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Capitalism doesn't treat people like worker bees?

How is a productive society where human beings are treated like ends (as opposed to means), with less work hours (no existence of "the working poor") to maximize individual freedom and direct political power over their lives treating anyone like a worker bee?

So if equality isn't your cup of tea, what is?

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Also, I'm curious. What is individuality to you?

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Why do you latch on to capitalism? What, emotionally, made you so complicit, materially insatiable and greedy? What do you think the solution to poverty is? Did you have an authoritarian upbringing? It's okay, most of us do. But it's not right, and it's time to heal.

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Papa capitalism has belted us one last time...

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Again, those with individual interests can do as they please with their free time.

Before we ask all these questions, we need to consider that many people have been relaxing in a cushion of luxury while others don't even have the basics, work "hard" as they may, finding themselves unable to work or not able to find a job where they aren't infantilized, commanded and alienated from their labor.

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Would humans like to be in control of their lives? Would they enjoy direct democracy? (The last Nobel Prize winner in economics researched what the effect of community involvement is in decisions where they wouldn't be considered experts on the matter and found that the knowledge and concern of the local community is of considerable significance to the optimal outcome).

Capitalism is justification for rule and excess wealth of individuals when their rule is unnecessary and pompous.

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Without private property, a community might decide what is truly necessary for them and actually work at developing the full intellectual potential of that population. The incentive to create and produce is easy: the guarantee of survival. Doesn't laissez-faire mean that people are still competing for jobs, that some will still have a less-than-basic standard of living, and that people will still be commanded by bosses? Why not just do away with the uselessness of companies?

[troyjgrice]

@adryroseinbloom

The nice thing about Laissez Faire is you can choose your master. In communism, you are stuck with one tyrant with the power to put you in a gulag.

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice The nice thing about communism is that you are your own "master", reluctant as I am to use that word. I'm not talking here about state communism, my friend. I'm talking about libertarian socialism.

[troyjgrice]

@adryroseinbloom

Well, we seem to both agree that the "State" is a source of tyranny whether it be state-capitalism or state-communism.

[troyjgrice]

@adryroseinbloom

You decry the brutality of laissez faire, then you say collectivism incentivizes people by threatening their survival. What side are you taking?

[adryroseinbloom]

@troyjgrice Not threatening. If there is someone who wants to work and grow their own food, then by all means they will be allowed to do it. They shouldn't however expect the community's approval or full benefits.

By survival I mean that why WOULDN'T someone cooperate in a libertarian communist society when they are GUARANTEED food, clothing, shelter, health care, an education and more free time than most are used to under capitalism when no matter what, you already have to work to survive?

[adryroseinbloom]

@adryroseinbloom *They shouldn't however expect the community's approval [if they reap the basic benefits] as no one would be denied food, or expect to receive the full benefits (enjoyment of the luxuries of that community).

[turisas1234]

The very last part of this video hit me really hard. Such a great thing I can start telling my commielib friends.

"BOOM! That is reality hitting their idealism"

Is there a way I can download this entire video?

[vorbeigehende]

I have found a good quote from Human Action

[vorbeigehende]

The problems involved are purely intellectual and must be dealt with as such. It is disastrous to shift them to the moral sphere and to dispose of supporters of the opposite idologies by calling them villains. It is vain to insist that we are aiming at is good and what our adversaries want is bad. The question to be solved is precisely what is to be considered as good and what as bad. The rigid dogmatism peculiar to religious groups and to Marxism results only in irreconcilable conflict.

[libertyplayground]

advocates for socialism are emotional, not logical, you can't argue with them....

[vorbeigehende]

my experience shows that this lectures are rather meaningless. people who believe in socialism simply BELIEVE

you can't change their minds with logical argumentation. Maybe someone has a different experience?

[picapauengracado]

If they are convicted socialists I'm afraid that's true. But the bulk of the population just gravitate to whatever makes them feel better for whatever reason, and for those people a lecture like this might catapult them into digging further for the case for free markets.

Btw, I'm not sure about the USA, but here the word "capitalism" has such bad connotation, it is beyond salvation. Why don't we restrict to "free market", or my favorite (though it can misinterpreted), "individualism".

[vorbeigehende]

"free market" is a bad idea.

socialism see markets as cruel and inhumane (this is of course nonsense, markets are simply a frame of interaction, only people can be cruel and inhumane)

I'd rather use "free enterprise". it emphasize the idea of freedom

avoiding those "nasty bourgeois markets"

[picapauengracado]

Good point; that's what attracts me about "individualism" as a label. If understood correctly, it passed the idea of a mold-less, that could very well converge to the planner's fantasy world. But often, planners forget about the trade-offs associated with a massive bureaucratic social organization.

[Scoforever]

Easy way. Just give a few examples and capitalism always wins.

[helltrackrider]

Wal-Mart and Anal-Eaze Cherry Flavored...noone can live without Wal-Mart or Anal Eaze Cherry Flavored...

these are 2 GREAT forms of Capitalism.

To entities (just said tities) that provide a service / product that the general public needs / demands in exchange for FAKE FED NOTES!!!

[whispers83]

more oval teens pls!!!!